TheFogan

And yeah you know how good something is when you push it on people.

Honestly I'm kind of baffled that big tech seems to have such a long history of the opposite working in usage.

IE facebook - started off exclusive to specific colleges, gradually rolled out to all colleges, then to the general population. IMO the long timeframe of "it's out there but you can't have it", was marketing brilliance that made people demand it.

gmail - google announced it on april 1st, to make people think it wasn't even real, Did a slow gradual rollout in which a relatively small pool could get accounts, then had their existing members be able to invite others. People sold their invites on ebay and similar, the demand was through the roof for them.

Google plus. Now you'd think google having both of those examples would have done the math... Nope "Hey you already have a gmail account, we decided you should use google plus too!, Your account is there. Hey we've tweaked your youtube account to use your real name so that you can already be ready to combine it with your google plus account! Hey USE GOOGLE PLUS NOW IT'S GREAT!!!!

IMO google plus was as ahead of facebook at the time as facebook was ahead of myspace. Hell I'd still say it's prime features make it actually usable in ways facebook never became capable of (circles as a core feature was IMO was the thing to make it perfectly usable. IE every post set so you can have friends that say care about video games, or dogs, or have compatible politics etc..., and effortlessly post to that group without annoying or starting a fight with others). But it's nature of telling people what to do... was a huge drawback. MS's products are seemingly doing that even more, admitted part of it is just the automatic built in drawback of being "microsoft", I don't think anyone hears the name microsoft and thinks "this is going to be a product that I WANT to run".

But I think the bottom line is, when you are telling the users they want to use it... you've pretty much already lost.

Well yeah I'm more than aware that many of the programs that were shut down mid studies, could have an insane amount of work that can't just be paused and picked back up in the middle, only talking about the data sets that are being explicitly deleted or changed, of which I can't imagine there's not enough version control and redundancy in the government that shouldn't make it possible to return a data set to the exact form it was on an exact day.

Something that just confuses me... this stuff should be backed up right? shouldn't this stuff be put in in a means that, a competent administration down the line can pull from backups.

I'll consider giving support after there's a wave of police getting held accountable for abuses, and headlines of the police unions demanding for flock cameras to be taken down. However I'm not holding my breath.

For now it seems like they are just supposedly adding ways to possibly catch cops who are, using the cameras for illegal stuff like spying on swimming pools, yoga classes, or stalking ex's...

I guess I understand your overall point It's probably valid to say that phones shouldn't be (though I suppose not against the law due to the laws not keeping up with the evolution of celphones).

I'd say smart glasses are in their current form, currently just a shock, because it's their primary purpose. That's basically why google glass flopped so spectacularly and the term "glasshole" followed their release almost instantly. Celphones do absolutely have the capacity to be turned into a spy device, even by accident or outside the owners control much like smart glasses. But I suppose the transition from snap shut flip phones to smart phones was kind of the slow burn that kind of made it not heavily thought up.

I do agree with the initial key point, IE smart glasses inherently make people feel uncomfortable and it's basically waving in their face that they could be recorded at a moments notice if they aren't already. It's like technically I know that anyone I talk to, could have a concealed carry permit and may have a gun hidden on their person... but I'd feel far more unsafe being around someone with an AR15 strapped on him.

I'd say they shouldn't be, but either way, they sure as heck don't normally have them out of their pockets pointing the camera at their patients.

The point is, say Meta, Amazon, google... etc.. are known for collecting video and audio at times the owner has not intentionally triggered it to do so. Sued for what should be HIPPA violations, to my knowledge HIPPA is pretty darn strict, even if there hasn't been an actual breach. Like say, leaving a computer open and logged in to your medical record system unguarded near your waiting room, is still a huge breach of HIPPA laws, even if no patient has ever walked up and looked at the screen.

The fact that they own the device? From the article it’s implied that the doctor wasn’t recording.

That's the thing though, it's multiple levels of trust required. Point is the device is connected to his phone, You don't just have to trust the doctor not to hit the button to record (either intentionally or accidentally) but you also have to trust facebook not to have set the device to do some stealth recording outside of permission (again either intentionally or some sort of "accidental" system). Or also cyber attacks (IE doctors phone or glasses could have been infected by a virus that quietly enables the camera and sends the footage to some shady extra site). The presence of a cloud capable camera adds multiple layers of issues, beyond just the owner of the camera itself.

I get the concept you are after, but also pretty widely disagree. Early adopters are either researched people that knows what it is and really want it... or they are really rich people that drop lots of money at the drop of a hat at anything that sounds shiny. As someone who used to do IT work for medical practices, I have to say, doctors more often are the latter. I got lots of really cool stuff that I could never afford from helping doctors with their personal stuff and them going "I bought this but realize I don't know how to use it, and it's too much work, do you want it".

It's because doctors offices are generally audited by law. If someone does find a hidden camera, that doctors office rightfully will be sued and shut down.

well my thought is, more the botnet side of it, IE pushing less on individual machines, but more on massive distribution. IE it not needing one computer strong enough to run it, IE expecting 90% of the machines it infects to be average consumer PCs, but making more use out of 1000 systems that can handle 1% each, rather than 1 computer that handles 100%, however yeah I do suppose also allowing it to do the bulk of the work when the computer is likely unused etc... and I don't know much on the concept of communication etc... IE most major botnets were crushed by a command center being shut down. Imagining a different form that has, basically makes C&C's on the fly.

The same way Windows is “fixing bugs” with AI? Large volumes of dubiously tested code is never a good idea

I think the point is the bugs are being FOUND with AI. Not fixed with AI.

It's basically the same concept as open source in general. IE the average layman hears open source and they think "oh so every moron, malicious person etc... can add his own back doors into the code", of course not, the official version is gated and reviewed. What's happening is AI is basically serving as millions of idiots looking through the code for security flaws, and it's finding them. Which then means the humans fixing it need to go into overdrive to fix them before they become zero days.