Tin foil hat not required.
Excellent commentary and this should be revisited every time someone mentions "Internet of things".
Governments around the world are legislating to collect metadata, usually with the excuse that modern crime-fighting and national security efforts require access to records of citizens' communications. In many nations that's sparked what I call "horizontal" scope-creep, in which, as just one example, the Australian Health …
as just one example, the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) wants access to metadata in order to identify and discipline doctors who are having affairs with their patients.
Now what would give them the authority to have any data, meta or otherwise? Come to think of it, at the rate things are going, I will soon be expecting employers demanding this kind of access as well as SJW's, media, any organization that takes an interest in you. What actually entitles anyone other than an LEA (who better be following legal means and not illegally getting the data) to acquire this data????
As the article points out, take the IoST (Internet of Stupid Things) as a whole and you have a good idea what goes on behind closed doors. Are we then headed backwards in time... a good example is look at the various rules for schoolteachers back in the late 1800's in the States. Sneeze the wrong way and you're fired for moral turpitude.
Quite frankly, even without the IoST, this data grab is bordering on insanity. The IoST makes it just serious insanity. So maybe a tinfoil hat is required.
This post has been deleted by its author
Fortunately, governments are not (yet) requiring that we all purchase smart thermostats, Internet-connected refrigerators, cyber light bulbs, or whatever.
I find it especially easy to opt out of IOT, since I fail to see the point in the first place. Most of it is still filed under 'stuff we made because we can' rather than 'stuff someone actually needs.'
I'm reminded of a ridiculous article* on ZDNet a couple of months ago. The columnist was whining about how he couldn't turn on the lights in his house because Amazon's Alexa back-end system had gone down. Explain to me again how that's better than a simple, reliable light switch...
Mine's the one without Bluetooth or WiFi.
* http://www.zdnet.com/article/the-night-alexa-lost-her-mind/
Nope. Anyone trying to escape the All-Seeing Eye by going innawoods will be rounded up and returned to the fold. All in the name of "preserving the environment" of course. Can't have all these Grizzly Adams wannabes cutting down trees to make log cabins and preying on the local wildlife now, can we?
As Richard notes, many 'connected' devices won't function at all (or only in VERY limited capacity) if they aren't constantly in contact with the vendor's servers. Even if there's really no need for real need for them to be designed that way.
The real worry is not these Internet-connected devices must be connected to function but that more any more appliances will only be available as such 'smart' devices.
That's already happening with many televisions, where they all have 'smart' features and Internet connectivity. At the moment, I'm not aware of any TV that REQUIRES Internet connectivity for basic functionality but it does not seem far-fetched. Now, I doubt that such a TV would prevent you watching a channel if it was disconnected but I can easily imagine the TV guide functionalities being moved to an Internet service - or even the ability to tune the channels at setup. You'd have to create an account with the manufacturer, of course, which registers the TV to you and so on.
I might want a phone that doesn't track me via location services and leak my information all over the place but it won't be long before these types of phones are the only ones available.
In short, as time goes on, our options for choosing devices that respect our privacy are diminishing.
OK. So the doctor's wife regularly takes her friend, who happens to be a patient. picking her up in the car to the squash club every Tuesday evening, then takes her home and goes in for a coffee.
On Wednesday she takes another friend/patient to choir - goes in for a coffee on the way home.
On Thursday it's the Ladies group - same scenario different friend.
On Friday she gives a male friend/patient to the camera club and drops in to have a coffee with the guy's wife.
WHAT!!! According to his phone, this doctor a randy bisexual.
THe truth, she does not have a phone so takes the 'family' phone, just like I say to my wife, 'take the phone with you so you can call if you need.'
I noticed from my time in healthcare how often the head nurse/manager/big kahuna in Dr. Jones' office was in fact Mrs. Dr. Jones. At first I assumed they had a shared-interest partnership. But no, the rest of the staff clued me in that she was actually Mrs. Dr. Jones the Second. The first wife spent her days spending his money while the nurse stole him away. Having secured the meal ticket, she kept working in the office to keep an eye on the philandering bastard and make sure nobody else stole him from HER.
How many times I did I see this? DOZENS. It's been a while so my data is old, but it seemed like every fourth office had this arrangement. The other staff made no secret of it.
Besides, I'm sure this is a well-meaning scheme to protect innocent doctors from having their lives ruined by gold-digging homewreckers, right? Lol!