Just my opinion, as others have voiced theirs, I don't see this or other products like it having a big market share and therefore finding it's way to the 'Failed Products' shelf.  Lots of products have come and gone that some developer/designer/company thought it was a great idea. 

 

I believe you are thinking that everyone knows what the young people know today. I have Grandchildren that can run rings around me with their Smart Phones. I expect that as they grew up with them. They range in age from 12 to 21. Now if I went out and purchased one of these dolls for my younger one I would have no idea about this stuff. I do now because of post like this but don't assume we all know about this knowledge. It doesn't make us older people are less intelligent but just not as up to date with all this new technology. 

So are you trying to tell me that if you picked up a Barbie on the shelf at Wal-Mart that said on the box that it can recognize your voice and interface with the internet... the very same internet you'rte using right now... that you wouldn't be able to draw the conclusion of whether or not you want your younger grandchild to have a doll with that functionality?

Not to mention, this thread reveals very little. It explains the basic concept of the features of these products, posts the press releases from the companies relating to these features, and then simply makes the implication that the press releases are meant to obfuscate some kind of malicious intent behind the products themselves.

It all reeks of wanton tinfoil-hattery. As if the government really cares about what it might be able to overhear from a crummy microphone crammed into a Barbie that's probably going to end up in some little girl's closet for 9 straight months at a time anyway when they could simply monitor your phone calls and get away with it under the Patriot Act. 

The Stuxnet worm and its relatives Duqu and Flame had modules to take pictures of the people using the computer and to listen/record and transmit voice conversations as well.

Seriously.

The idea is to direct it constructively and away from invasion of privacy, not to stop it.

You assume that most people take those additional steps and/or have your understanding of technology. Most people of a certain age might very well think that blue tooth technology will cause more Dentist visits, while those of different ages have no conception of privacy of data. Some people might just think "Oh! A talking doll that follows orders! Little Sally wanted that, let's get it for her!".

Again, you're comparing consumer-level software in a smart tv to a virus that was designed with the sole purpose of destroying hardware. The fact that it had additional functionality that might be comparable to something else is irrelevant. It's akin to comparing IconPackager to Stuxnet because they're both designed to run on Windows PCs. It's absurd.

Well first of all, you're working under the assumption that privacy is being invaded. Secondly, attempting to redirect the assumed outcome to what you consider a more favorable one is a form of stoppage in its own right.



Not everyone understands how a PC works, either. Are we to have some kind of licensing system that teaches them how not to share their information before they're allowed to purchase one?

Hell, kids use the internet all the time.

Someone not understanding how technology works is not a cause for action of any type. You may as well... ban Big Gulps because people can't control themselves and are getting fat.

Oh wait......  

Frankly, if you're that feching lazy that you need voice regognition to replace your TV remote, then you deserve to be spied upon.

As for the Barbie doll, I'd be kicking that to the refuse tip if a child or grandchild of mine was ever given one.

Creepoy isn't the word... try downright illegal.  Well if it isn't it feching should be.  It exploits kids and has the potential for much worse.

Mattell ought to be ashamed of itself for even considering it, much less marketing it.

Mattel should be ashamed of themselves for developing a toy that has the potential to interact with children, offering more opportunity for learning and stimulation, all because you're under the assumption that they're going to use it to spy on people...

 

Read more carefully. It and its variants were worms designed AS WELL to collect information, not just destroy centrifuges...and harvesting peoples' information, etc. without their knowledge and consent is unethical. Hey, why not include a camera...who knows what you'll see?

D'oh.

Now who's comparing apples and oranges? You can expect a computer to collect information...but a Barbie Doll? Ridiculous.

No! People should expect a Barbie Doll to collect and transmit info...and advise your kids as to career choice, and anything else a corporation or government decides to indoctrinate them with. "A man's home is his castle" has turned into "A man's home is a data collection point."

People should expect their refrigerators to play advertising and spy on them...and their pacemakers and "smart cars" to receive hostile programming over the net.Remote access execution takes on a whole new meaning.

 

I never said the Barbie wouldn't be collecting information. That's the stated purpose.

I'm arguing against your assumption that A: This is an invasion of privacy. and B: That this is an inherently bad thing.

I already explained why Stuxnet is not analogous... at all. Maybe you should do some reading on composition/division.

And no, I'm not comparing apples to oranges. I'm using a reasonable analogy to bring to light the reason why your argument is irrelevant. Just because someone might not understand something is not a valid reason to fear it. Plenty of people didn't (and still don't) understand how the internet worked/works. If everyone had your mentality and decided that it was something to be feared instead of a tool to be used, then it likely wouldn't be nearly as useful as it is today. Personal incredulity is a logical fallacy and a non-argument.

The rest of what you said is nothing but strawmen and hyperbole. 

By the way, the key to this conversation is the fact that the "invasion of privacy" presupposes malicious intent. D'oh! 

Well, we'll agree to disagree, then. I maintain that it is an invasion of privacy that it isn't desirable. We won't convince each other.

 

I do hope you finish that skin...it looks really promising.

You're probably right.

Thanks. The skin itself is actually finished. I'm just working on the Icon package at the moment. I'd like to release them at the same time. 

They'll be very well received. You did a good job with the skin...I imagine the Icons will be the same.

MS should have grabbed the skinners when they had the chance...W10 really is buttugly.

Well if you think about it, the uglier it is, the better for all of us. Maybe we should be hoping for buttugly...

And they suicide from online bullying all the time too.

And they're groomed by paedophiles all the time too.

Oh yes, the world really needs another mechanism for child monitoring/exploitation....

Like  it needs a bullet in its collective head.

 

It is a BAD technology...not all technology is good.

Yes it's a 'tool'.  It is a tool designed by marketers to expand their profitability...just like Google [only they claim to do no evil].

Obviously Kevin Walter works in advertising and is thinking 'why the fuck didn't I think of that first?  Another opportunity to exploit, invade and expand.  Profit uber alles.'

Irrelevant.

Irrelevant.

Hyperbole.

You have no factual basis for this assumption, considering you have no evidence to support your assertion that that information is going to be used in the manner you believe it will be. You've formed an opinion based on an assumption. That's BAD logic.

Everything marketed is designed to expand profitability. What's your point?

Strawman... hyperbole... also demonstrably untrue. If I were in marketing, I'd likely be making far more than I am now.