• http://silvery.com Chris Smith

    I think you’re entirely right: the possibility of someone snooping into one’s personal belongings and setting stuff up inside one’s belongings to snoop on them isn’t really worthy of raising the privacy red-flag.

    This would be tantamount to trying to blame Microsoft because some friend or family member of mine could surrepticiously add spyware to my PC.

    For that matter, if I let a friend or family member into my house, and they happen to look through my filing cabinet, perhaps I should blame the filing cabinet manufacturer as well!

    No — their example case is fatuous — once you’ve given someone access to your private stuff, the responsibility is more with you than with any third party. Just because something is innovative does not mean that misuse of it is the sole responsibility of its creator.

  • Andrew Goodman

    I beg to differ. Listen carefully to what seasoned privacy advocates are saying. Sometimes breaches fall outside of the neat box of what the individual is trying to provide access to “on paper” as things are “supposed to work.”

    Someone just accidentally invited me (offered to share their location) by mistyping an email address.

    There are going to be countless cases where people are followed without their knowledge and consent, IMHO, for a variety of reasons.

    If we’re going to talk about the benefits of technology, isn’t it OK to talk about the risks, or is that just “fatuous”?

    That the horse is already out of the barn privacy-wise shouldn’t be reason enough to preclude raising legitimate concerns in an attempt to help technologically unsophisticated people make better choices.

  • Andrew Goodman

    Again, we’re talking about edge cases here, not the sophisticated user. Edge cases that derive from predators’ superior tenacity in stalking, for example. Raising awareness in order to protect children, in particular, seems like the responsible thing to do.