From YOUR pov.

Their product is their product and was planned to harvest information.

What are your thoughts regarding cigarettes? That same logic apply to them? The cigarettes are manufactured innocently?

Samsung and Mattel are receiving their just desserts for their missteps...Superfish and Lenovo, as well. In fact, every response keeps this thread "up there" and more visible. Thanks.

So, intelligence gathering on hostile regimes is deleterious? Interesting pov. And Mattel didn't put "Information about your child and his/her conversations will be gathered and transmitted to us." on the outside of the packaging in legible print, but rather ant crap sized print in an included brochure only clear AFTER purchase...really above board, right?

The intentions of a miscreant and to whom he sells information are not apparent so, that argument/statement is not valid, or only partially valid as an IFF. Emotion (among humans as opposed to Vulcans) is perfectly valid.

To quote Cain, "Am I my brother's keeper?"

 

 

As opposed to your point of view? Confirmation bias is a thing, you know. 

Ridiculous argument. Does your logic apply to everything else? Is WindowBlinds (a product marketed on this very site) produced maliciously?
 

More visible on this site. But of course, I'm happy to keep a thread catering to like-minded individuals "up there" on a site filled with like-minded individuals.

Odd... Hello Barbie hasn't been released in stores yet. How could you possibly know what is, or isn't on the box? Are you from the future!? 

Or maybe we're just making assumptions again... 

No, they're largely apparent by observing the patterns of "hackers" throughout the history of the internet. A database of a large corporation is generally quite difficult to gain access to from outside. It requires a lot of time and effort. This isn't like the movies where some smart guy sits in a coffee shop and casually cracks the FBI's network security.

The likelihood of someone spending the resources (aforementioned time and effort) on raiding a database in which at least 90% of the information collected (I'll admit I just made up that value, but you'd be hard pressed to convince anyone it's unfair), is useless are very slim.

Not to mention the idea that just because other companies have been compromised is a reason for a company not to use similar technology is fundamentally flawed to begin with.

It sorts of reminds me of a video I saw some time ago where someone tried to explain how racism exists in the Michael Brown shooting, evidenced by the fact that racism is proven to exist in police precincts in other parts of the US. It's just absurd. It's like trying to convince a jury that a man should be convicted of murder because other people have been convicted of murder.

Also, emotion is absolutely valid, you're correct on that. However, an appeal to emotion is not a valid argument. It's used in place of one. Hence that particular tactic's label of "logical fallacy".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion 

Irony...

Hopeless. Really is impossible to get through to you...do you really think your pov is the only right one? Is everyone else wrong?

Given the age of most Barbie recipients, someone will have to set up the wifi connection for the child(ren).  If that someone capable of doing so doesn't recognize (or care about) the implications, well... 

Mind you, I wouldn't purchase this for my grandchild, but everybody ain't me.

 

Am I the only one who assumed anything with recording capabilities that isn't designed for that specific purpose (phone, camera, etc.) or running software under my control is a security/privacy risk? It doesn't take news like this to realize that and refuse to buy these things from the moment they're announced, if you value your privacy.

We live in an age where people will gladly give up their privacy just to be able to chat with people more easily and look at cat pictures. They wouldn't make products with these features if people didn't buy them.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion... not their own facts.

Posting biased assumptions as if they are fact is just as dishonest as you claim these companies to be.

Hell, the very article you linked in your OP even admits it... "So while some of this hysteria over what's being collected probably veers into hyperbole territory..."

And that's exactly what I see going on in this thread. Mass hysteria over a product that A: hasn't even been released yet (and is still being labeled an inherently bad idea by some people in this community) and B: will likely never have any affect on your life anyway.

As I said in my first post... much ado about nothing. 

@ Kevin_Walter...

Given all your posts in this thread, it seems you just want to be argumentative: hence, though I have thoughts on how your replies disregarded the meaning of the comments in my previous post, I shall not respond directly to them.

However, I will say this!  If you think this kind of technology is 100% safe/harmless, put your money where your mouth is.  Go ahead and have it in your home, then see how comforatable you are discussing private and family matters within 'earshot'.of the devices.... especially when you discover that they can be operated remotely by the manufacturers AND hackers.

 

Cortana and Barbie will have some interesting conversations while you are asleep.

 

Hey now.......Cortana is awesome........she runs my life! 

 

 EDIT:

With regard to the topic.......I have a minor observation...

All tech eventually leads to a crossroads.  To make new tech more desirable/useful you need to make it more accessible.  Making tech 'accessible' however means your security vulnerability exposure grows as well.  Whether it is the tech in our automobiles allowing for more and more 'connectivity' or home security systems with remote access (incl. baby monitors etc.) or smartphone-to-office systems integration, too many of us are still oblivious/ignorant to the correlation created.  The bigger/better friends we become with such 'tech' the bigger/worse enemies such 'tech' present to our privacy and security.

Then again.......as one of my favourite TV personalities (Judge Judy...hehe ) always says:  " Ignorance is not a defense "

 

 

Mattel's privacy policy indicates that they share information with their agents and service providers (whatever that means)?

 

Not everyone has your level of IT knowledge, education and experience kryo...that's the whole point...Grandma sees the Barbie doll she had when her mom gave her one...

The fact is, granny really doesn't know what she's buying, and neither does gramps. They only know the kid/kid's parents told them to pick one up when they asked (in all innocence) "What should I get her? What does she want?".

Be very careful about whom you accuse of dishonesty. Personal attacks are not tolerated here.

The full quote, which you misrepresented by not completing it (in the above) is:

"So while some of this hysteria over what's being collected probably veers into hyperbole territory, the cardboard-grade security and privacy standards most companies are adopting certainly create cause for concern. The good news I suppose: the "smarter" our products get, the bigger the market is for "dumb" products that just sit there and do what they're supposed to do, whether that's a television thatjust displays the damn signal sent to it or utterly insentient dolls that just shut up, smile and drink their fake tea."

The operative word is 'while'.

nor really relate to:

"The problem is, we've seen repeatedly how the companies rushing face-first toward the billions in potential revenues from the "Internet of Things" market are so fixated on profit, that security and privacy have been afterthoughts -- if a thought at all. It doesn't matter if we're talking about Smart TVs with trivial to non-existent security or easily hacked smart car tech, companies are showing again and again that privacy and security really aren't paramount. That's before we even discuss how this collected voice data creates a wonderful new target for nosy governments courtesy of the Third Party Doctrine. "

Part of that profit will undoubtedly be the sale of data harvested without a clear statement of intent.

 

 

So basically, you don't wish to actually argue against my points. I wonder why...

Also, your inference that I'm under the impression that any sort of technology is "100% safe" is humorous to me. Mostly because I never said, nor implied it, but also because it goes back to what I've said before about fear mongering. Just because something isn't 100% safe doesn't make it an inherently bad idea or product. Cars are not 100% safe... and yet most people in the US ride in them on a regular basis. Computers aren't 100% safe either, and yet you're still arguing your point from behind one.

Most things in life are not "100% safe", and I'm pretty sure most people would agree with me that not developing something just because it isn't "100% safe" is irrational.

Ignoring (of course) the fact that the lack of a specific warning as to the possibility of eavesdropping, sale of data and recorded/transmitted conversations in the proximity of the doll is unethical, immoral and possibly illegal.

Also ignoring the responsibility of adults (all adults) to protect children and not to place them in jeopardy by business practices driven by other motives.

You appear to be the only one with all the correct answers. First I have and do play some games but they were all paid for. Sure there is some free games available that are fine to play. I referred to FB as I have cleaned my Sisters and several friends computers from FB games and downloaded stuff from it. I don't remember saying everything was bad. You seem to just want to put your know all spin on everything. Enjoy yourself.

As far as imply. I stated facts from experience. You have implied I meant everything. My implications were accurate and again never said it applied to all games or things. I forgot more important things in life then you will ever know about. Please save the World and hurry up doing it.

Oh yes, you may comment on what I just said as I already know what I said is totally wrong with your thinking. Thing is I won't bother with this post anymore so enjoy yourself. One thing I wish is that I had all the answers and knew everything like you do. No because I know it's impossible for anyone to know it all, except for maybe you.

Please don't mistake my words for ad hominem remarks. I try to steer clear of logical fallacies in my arguments. Attacking a person's ideas, opinions, or words is not a personal attack.

And I'll go ahead and just disregard the veiled threat... 

You're correct. The operative word is, in fact "while". Meaning "while I must concede point A is likely true, I would also like to interject that point B is a legitimate point of concern".

This argument (that I admittedly started) is not contending the idea that corporate security is an issue. If you want to argue about that, I'll gladly step aside, as that argument will lead nowhere given the inevitable "shit happens" realization. I'm arguing the point (and have been arguing the point since my first response in this thread), that the fear surrounding this particular product is irrational.

The part that I quoted agrees with that point, to a degree, and the part that comes after in no way invalidates it. Posting the quote in its entirety is unnecessary, and not posting the quote in its entirety is not misrepresentation. 

 

"Undoubtedly"...

EDIT: You guys seem to be getting way too emotional about this. DrJBHL thinking I'm attacking him personally... DaveBax and that indignant response...

I think I'm done here.