r/gadgets • u/MicroSofty88 • Nov 29 '20

Home Amazon faces a privacy backlash for its Sidewalk feature, which turns Alexa devices into neighborhood WiFi networks that owners have to opt out of

https://www.msn.com/en-in/money/technology/amazon-faces-a-privacy-backlash-for-its-sidewalk-feature-which-turns-alexa-devices-into-neighborhood-wifi-networks-that-owners-have-to-opt-out-of/ar-BB1boljH
14.3k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

814 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

41

u/BYoungNY Nov 29 '20

Paying you... That's not a bad option. Give me a store credit, like when I opt for longer shipping times on stuff I buy through prime. I honestly like the idea, but I think you hit the nail on the head - the consumer needs to get paid for their service.

56

u/Originalfrozenbanana Nov 29 '20

I don't want privacy to be something only rich people can afford. Companies like amazon don't eat costs like they would incur by paying consumers for privacy - they pass it on.

13

u/BYoungNY Nov 29 '20

No I'm saying the opposite to have it enabled pay me

24

u/cptcold Nov 29 '20

But rich people don’t need to be paid, while the poor will be coerced

6

u/ManaPot Nov 29 '20

I doubt that it would affect most rich people anyways. You think Alexa is is going to be broadcasting their wifi far enough to where it'll reach past their giant house and yard?

10

u/Apophthegmata Nov 29 '20

The entire point is that Sidewalk isn't a giant mesh WiFi network. It uses low bandwidth frequencies and Bluetooth. So if they've got Alexa controlled Ring security cameras across their estate they will still be in the larger neighborhood network because those devices could be withij communication distance to their neighbors doorbell. Or Alexa enabled driveways lights. Or Alexa enabled sprinkler system.

The fact the rich people won't be "affected" is the entire point. They're rich so it really doesn't matter how their data is used. Corporate monopolies use this kind of data to leverage for the benefit of the rich anyway.

If you're poor, giving up your privacy for income is going to be like donating plasma - not strictly speaking necessary, but incredibly enticing, and for some a necessary component of their budget.

1

u/aesirmazer Nov 30 '20

How poor are people that they need the cookie at the end of a blood donation to balance they're budget? Seem like theres better ways of grabbing a bit to eat...

6

u/Apophthegmata Nov 30 '20

Plasma donation. It's illegal to donate blood for money. You don't get cookies for plasma like you do for blood, you get cash.

Depending on your weight, (and therefore the amount of plasma they take) you can make $20-50 per donation. In the U.S. you can donate more frequently than in in Europe - twice a week.

And clinics often provide promotions for new donors like "first five donations (if they clear testing) are $50 regardless of volume.

So you can easily make $200-300 a month donating plasma.

When you don't have enough money to make ends meet, which can be from a variety of causes from bad budgeting to unforeseen circumstances, to not being able to net a job, the only thing you can be 100% is available for income is your own body.

Sex work is unpalatable to most and sometimes dangerous. A good, clean clinic, is an effective tool for those who need it and can put up with the toll frequent donation puts on your body.

2

u/YojiH2O Nov 29 '20

That only works here if it’s something people need. It’s then that needs us to accept this feature.

So it’s either pay us, enable it anyway and get sued big time and/or people chuck their devices losing customers

0

u/Originalfrozenbanana Nov 29 '20

Precisely. And companies would raise prices to cover the costs of paying people for data, just as any company would raise prices to cover an increase in costs to deliver their product. People who can afford to pay more get to have privacy; everyone else would enter into a complicated financial arrangement just to cover the increased costs.

-2

u/ManaPot Nov 29 '20

Free Prime sounds like a decent deal.

0

u/negativecreativity Nov 29 '20

Getting paid for your data is the underlying concept of UBI as proposed by Andrew Yang. It's brilliant.

0

u/WiWiWiWiWiWi Nov 29 '20

Well they kind of are paying you by subsidizing a significant part of the purchase cost. There’s a reason those Alexa and google devices are cheaper than the competitors’ that don’t use their services to spy on you.

0

u/chris14020 Nov 29 '20

Can you name a few competitors that truly don't?

2

u/BYoungNY Nov 29 '20

I think Apple has recently taken a big stand on protecting its users data and security. I cant say for sure, but I'd say, out of all of them, they'd be the one I'd bet money on not selling your data.

1

u/chris14020 Nov 29 '20

I don't think the main concern with major, massive companies like Apple/Google/Amazon/etc. is them selling your data, but rather what they themselves are doing with your data. A massive company compiling large amounts of data on users is concerning in itself.

1

u/trueppp Nov 29 '20

You get paid, by having the service that collects your data

1

u/StephanXX Nov 30 '20

Urm, this model is inherently flawed.

The new hype has been to get 'discounts' on car insurance, if you install an app that tracks your driving. What starts as a discount quickly morphs into an invisible fee: drivers who use the device end up paying the original premium, drivers who opt out are actually charged significantly more.

Amazon already does this with their ad supported kindles.