every day is spent hoping we start changing direction before its too late
2 Likes
Yes, just like screen readers are only for reading stuff to you when you’re watching tv and letting the CIA spy on you with powerful microphones.
This is a clearly labeled accessibility feature. I’m assuming most people complaining in this thread don’t require hearing amplification. Good for them. Lots of other people do benefit from it.
Thanks for quoting one part of what I said.
Now, allow me to quote myself.
I fully understand that some of these things are beneficial to society, but I also fully understand humans will always use some good things for bad once they are able to.
Chat Control is a good idea, or at least, an idea with supposedly good intentions, that would certainly be used in bad ways, as an example.
As such, it generally doesn’t matter what something is labelled as.
This device should not be created because it can be used to spy on people? That’s kind of ridiculous, isn’t it?
You can spy on someone with a pair of binoculars. Does that mean binoculars should not have been created, or people shouldn’t be allowed to have them? You can spy on someone by going through their garbage. Should people not be allowed to have garbage?
This Galaxy Buds feature isn’t even something new. Bugs and wires came into common use in the 1950’s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_listening_device If someone wants a covert listening device, this isn’t even the most practical option because it ties up your phone.
Not for nothing, but this thread has a lot of FUD considering what the product feature in question actually is. It seems relatively innocuous in my opinion.
2 Likes
What’s more, it’s not even a Galaxy Buds feature. This is a standard feature in pretty much all modern phones, and has been for some time. It has nothing to do with the buds. Go check your accessibility settings and you’ll find it.
We all have “CIA-esque Spyware” (also known as routing the mic to the headphones) on our phones already!
1 Like
@BluishHumility
For certain things, yes, they shouldn’t be made or used.
You can call it FUD all you want. The fact is that humans will use anything that has a significantly good purpose in an equally bad way once the opportunity exists.
To be clear: My intention is to make people aware. Just like the reviewer.
As far as actual spyware/gear are concerned, most people simply won’t buy/create such tools. But this puts it directly into their possession, should they choose to use it that way.
I’m not trying to say people who need aid shouldn’t get it.
A reminder:
@mew It has nothing to do with which company/brand made it. I don’t even know why you mentioned that like it’s important.
Neither of you can deny that this will be used or has been used in the exact way it was demonstrated in the video.
Thanks for sharing your views. It’s a forum. Don’t have to agree with each other.
This has become a bit of a vibrant discussion 
There are real privacy implications to the things discussed in this topic. Opinions on whether they should or shouldn’t be created is open to discussion, surely. It’s not like those opinions will change anything. It has been good to hear insights about the benefits to those with hearing impairments. Balance is important 
We shouldn’t shy away from questioning the privacy implications and necessity of “certain things”. Digital medical health records for example. Super convenient, or huge liability?
1 Like
Interesting thread.
It seems that nearly all technology, at some point and to some extent, has been weaponized.
So, what’s the solution? In my view, the only way to address these issues is by transitioning to a society that prioritizes decentralization and open-source principles. While it may seem like a lofty ideal, it’s the kind of systemic change that could fundamentally address these challenges.
2 Likes
Good point.
The issue isn’t the technology. It is society.
1 Like
That brings to mind what the Swiss government has decided.
4 Likes
A step in the right direction. Marvellous, to say the least.
It’s both. They are convenient until someone decides to attack the system. Sad reality is that such things are obvious targets for anyone malicious enough to do such a thing and I have a hunch that these attacks aren’t even done in the way you see in movies, but in the phishing way where the attacker manipulates someone into giving that information on their own.
A lot of threads about privacy here are frankly on the extreme side for me. I just want ad agencies to know very little personal information about me. By personal information, I mean actual personal information, things that one wouldn’t share online or even IRL all willy nilly. It isn’t my responsibility to protect my medical data, either.
If all we’re talking about is who looks after the systems that store this data, then sure, that’s out of our control.
Depending on where one lives though, there may still be a choice whether to opt-in to digital medical records, or a degree of control over how one engages with these services, and what information is provided to them. That would be where it remains our responsibility to protect what is ours to the extent that it is possible, if that is important to us.
I’d really like to have the feeling that all these technologies, particularly AI, will bring us ultimate convenience, inspiration, and eventually, utopia. But that’s not the world we live in.
Almost everything we make is a double-edged sword. Or, better yet, a two-sided coin.
→ Something along the ridge of the two extremes is more likely to occur, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t fully land on either side.
And based on who we are as a whole… 
PS: Or better yet, who we seem to be as a whole based on news, history, things I’ve heard about others, and some of the people I’ve met in real life. It’s not like I can know without doubt that the majority of us suck. It certainly seems that way, though.
I don’t doubt there are bad apples in the basket of humans, but I think most people have some basic moral fiber they base their actions upon and don’t actively seek out malice. What is on the news is often times abnormal, that’s why it is reported on. History documents times something abnormal that has happened, because the mundane isn’t really worth documenting. Things you hear from others is often times abnormal in the eyes of the speaker, otherwise they wouldn’t really talk about it. It is normal to distrust individuals you don’t know at all, but at the same time, it isn’t really worth expanding the mental effort of worrying about them, in my eyes at least.
What you’ve said is completely valid.
There are, however, some things that are normal, like the 1-10% of a country practically and technically being rulers rather than leaders. It is also normal for them to be corrupt, whether they are part of the government, some kind of authority, or simply rich.
It is for these reasons why, regardless of whether the majority of people are actually not immoral, it doesn’t matter if those in power are immoral.
I can only hope (I can, and I am doing more than just hope — just a cliché) that people make changes before they are forced to by some incident, tragedy, or government overreach.
PS: Educate the people who you can and never lose hope, because no matter how many changes we make for ourselves, if we aren’t convincing others to do the same, eventually our changes will be seen as illegal. Not just as an opinion of some, but as law.
The irony in the whole situation is, as I see it, that we all make up and maintain a system in place which then we are trying to play a game of hide and seek with.
I would argue that even by buying all our fancy electronic gadgets which may be used by this very system to breach our privacy, we are contributing to maintain it.
By all means, we could use dumb phones, dumb TVs, hardened whatnot, sealed off whatever but at the end of the day all these measures are just for alleviating to some degree the symptoms of the “disease”.
To cure from it, if it is possible at all, is a whole other discussion, beyond the scope of not only this forum, but also beyond what many people are willing to discuss, lulling in their sweet dream of living in the best of all possible worlds.
2 Likes
Hmm. The best of all possible worlds. That sounds a lot like utopia.
This topic was automatically closed 2 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.