Mar 012018
 
 March 1, 2018  Posted by  Business, Surveillance, U.S.

Navneet Alang writes:

In the reviews that rolled out recently for Google’s new Clips smart camera, there were the rote things that you’d expect in all tech reviews: what was good, what was bad, and, inevitably, whether or not you should buy it. There was, however, a key idea conspicuously absent: whether or not the product should exist at all.

[…]

All the same, there’s also the plainer, more simple truth that the concept underlying the Google Clips camera is itself questionable. Why is capturing more and more candid images good? It all proceeds on the assumption that the more things we record the better. But that is far from an agreed-upon idea. The presence of a camera itself produces an awareness of being watched. It’s a common, and very often harmless fact of the smartphone era. But the idea of adding smart cameras, smart speakers, and more to our homes simply increases the sense that all moments are there for recording, and we’ve yet to grapple with not just what it means, but whether or not it’s desirable at all.

Read more on The Week.

Thanks to Mike Daugherty for sending me this link. 

Update:  Joe Cadillic reminded me that he blogged about this issue back in October: Google Clips automatically identifies everyone including your pets (Updated)

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.