Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Startup Wants To Peek Through Your Home's Wired Cameras

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the nope-nope-nope dept.

Privacy 186

alphadogg writes "The little cameras in your home are multiplying. There are the ones you bought, perhaps your SLR or digital camera, but also those that just kind of show up in your current phone, your old phone, your laptop, your game console, and soon your TV and set-top box. Varun Arora, founder of startup GotoCamera in Singapore, wants you to turn them all on and let his company's algorithms analyze what they show, then sell the results as marketing data, in a sort of visual version of what Google and other firms do with search results and free email services."

cancel ×

186 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Jennicam 2.0? (5, Informative)

dtmos (447842) | about 2 years ago | (#39224089)

Startup wants to peek through the wired cameras in your home, sell the data

Wait, wait. Could we go back and cover the part about why I would want them to do this, again?

Re:Jennicam 2.0? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39224105)

Its not what *you* want. It is what advertisers want. You are just the product being sold.

Re:Jennicam 2.0? (5, Insightful)

Bieeanda (961632) | about 2 years ago | (#39224223)

You missed a step. First they need to come up with some incentive, let's call it a Judas goat, to sign on and let their programs sift through our pictures. This is a little more complicated than web bugs and tracking cookies, since it requires more effort on our part than logging into Facebook or searching through Google.

Re:Jennicam 2.0? (4, Insightful)

berashith (222128) | about 2 years ago | (#39224241)

no kidding. do i get a free house or something?

Re:Jennicam 2.0? (4, Funny)

NEDHead (1651195) | about 2 years ago | (#39224743)

Yessir. One free glass house coming up!

Re:Jennicam 2.0? (5, Funny)

sunderland56 (621843) | about 2 years ago | (#39224475)

let's call it a Judas goat

If they gave every user a goat, then they'd certainly come up with some footage to resell.

Re:Jennicam 2.0? (0)

dimko (1166489) | about 2 years ago | (#39224821)

Darn where are my carma points when i need em?

Re:Jennicam 2.0? (2)

Andrewkov (140579) | about 2 years ago | (#39224929)

Judas goat? Perhaps if we built a large wooden badger..

Re:Jennicam 2.0? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39225095)

... and poked it with a spoon.

Re:Jennicam 2.0? (3, Insightful)

mhajicek (1582795) | about 2 years ago | (#39224133)

For 2% off on up to 15 gallons of gas.

Re:Jennicam 2.0? (2, Informative)

amiga3D (567632) | about 2 years ago | (#39224373)

The way gas prices are headed that could add up to real money.

Re:Jennicam 2.0? (-1, Troll)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 2 years ago | (#39224831)

The way gas prices are headed that could add up to real money.

Gas prices have been headed that way for oh, about 35 years now.

Anybody who is surprised that the era of cheap gas is over and decides to start complaining about it today is too stupid to drive a car.

Re:Jennicam 2.0? (0)

geminidomino (614729) | about 2 years ago | (#39224941)

Or in their thirties, so they started driving at the bottom of the wave and have only seen a Ddx > 1 in their (relevant) lives (how many kids give a flying fart about gas prices when they don't drive?)

Re:Jennicam 2.0? (0)

arkane1234 (457605) | about 2 years ago | (#39224963)

So has electricity, but we reigned that in. Enough with the anecdotal evidence, since what your referring to is fiscal adjustment due to inflation. We on the other hand are referring to something not measured by decades.

Re:Jennicam 2.0? (1, Offtopic)

FooAtWFU (699187) | about 2 years ago | (#39224979)

The era of cheap gas has a few miles on it left, if the current Iran situation calms itself a little. Sure, $4 a gallon is higher than historical norms... but not by all that much, if you adjust for inflation (which is what really makes the current prices bad). Check it out [eia.gov] . It may not be getting massively better, but there's still a long way to go before it's really panicking time for the average driver.

(Cutting back on extra trips? Sure. Looking for a more fuel-efficient car? Probably. Bicycles, high speed trains and mass transit takes over? Don't count on it, even if you like trains as much as I do.)

Startup Wants To Peek Through Your Home's Wired Ca (3, Funny)

mcgrew (92797) | about 2 years ago | (#39224117)

And ponies, too. Good luck with that...

Re:Startup Wants To Peek Through Your Home's Wired (1)

telekon (185072) | about 2 years ago | (#39224171)

Maybe if ponies were the incentive offered, this would be a viable startup idea.

Re:Startup Wants To Peek Through Your Home's Wired (4, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 2 years ago | (#39224315)

Ponies and wireless cams?

You pervert.

Re:Startup Wants To Peek Through Your Home's Wired (1)

Oswald McWeany (2428506) | about 2 years ago | (#39224563)

I don't know about ponies... surely it is horses that would sell more videos.

Re:Startup Wants To Peek Through Your Home's Wired (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39224741)

no, ponies are of a much more comfortable height. For a horse you'd need a ladder.

Re:Startup Wants To Peek Through Your Home's Wired (1)

arkane1234 (457605) | about 2 years ago | (#39225009)

Bonsai horses...

Re:Startup Wants To Peek Through Your Home's Wired (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39225283)

Ponies and wireless cams?

You pervert.

Why you think the net was born? [slashdot.org] Ponies, ponies, ponies...

(And Mr. Varun Arora of GotoCamera? I'll have you know I'm not wearing underwear today [youtube.com] !)

Good Idea (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39224141)

I'd trade pictures of myself in my underwear for a "free" console. For an added fee, I'll even put clothes on.

Re:Good Idea (2)

jjp9999 (2180664) | about 2 years ago | (#39224441)

Lol. I wonder how long it would take them to seriously regret looking through people's webcams.

Re:Good Idea (2)

bobcat7677 (561727) | about 2 years ago | (#39224541)

Maybe there is a cross-marketing opportunity in there somewhere with that "People of Wal-Mart" site...?

Re:Good Idea (3, Insightful)

GodInHell (258915) | about 2 years ago | (#39225269)

Probably about 10 seconds after the first time they recorded and then looked at child porn (i.e. a nude "good" under the age of 18 in most U.S. states). That's a strict liability crime in most states. Also, makes you a registered sex offender.

Re:Good Idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39225133)

Be careful, this could be material used for later blackmail by government security services.

Re:Good Idea (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 2 years ago | (#39225211)

I would just aim my camera at a printed picture of Goatse

That would stop real quick

The offering to the user... (5, Informative)

Neil_Brown (1568845) | about 2 years ago | (#39224177)

a startup that provides online storage and software for web and Wi-Fi cams

Sadly omitted from the summary (albeit in the article) — the user gets "free" storage in exchange for the analytics.

Far too little to convince me to share such data, though.

Re:The offering to the user... (2)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | about 2 years ago | (#39224407)

What are you talking about? It's a perfect exchange. I get free stuff at the price of being watched for about half an hour. After that, it's safe to assume who ever is watching has already gouged out one eye and is busy working on the other.

Re:The offering to the user... (5, Funny)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | about 2 years ago | (#39224479)

After a week of analytics they shifted their business model slightly. "We are now offering users cash money to keep their cameras turned off, in the name of basic decency, animal rights, and several reports recently published by the FDA. When we say our users are sick we being literal in the most precise and correct sense of the word."

Is You Is or Is You Ain't A Darkie? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39224569)

When we say our users are sick we being literal

Yes we is, yo.

Re:The offering to the user... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39224549)

I figure I'd trade my webcam for some free storage, then just set it up to point to a picture of goatse. I figure a few gigs of free online storage in exchange for seeing ads for rectal reconstruction surgery for the rest of my life sounds like a reasonable trade.

Re:The offering to the user... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39224457)

Yeah, because storage is so expensive these days. There's a reason I have an ad-blocker, and a sticker on my mailbox that says "NO JUNK MAIL". I don't want it, why on earth would I enable them to give me more?

In the realm of "doesn't get it", these guys.

Re:The offering to the user... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39224657)

a sticker on my mailbox that says "NO JUNK MAIL"

Does that really stop the mail man from giving you junk mail?

Re:The offering to the user... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39225091)

It does occasionally stop the mail man. It doesn't stop all the 12 year olds hired to distribute pamphlets. I did eventually see a reduction in the junk I got. Then I moved and had to start all over again.

Re:The offering to the user... (2)

mcmonkey (96054) | about 2 years ago | (#39224555)

Sadly omitted from the summary (albeit in the article) — the user gets "free" storage in exchange for the analytics.

AKA, the Google business plan.

The only difference here is their transfer is 'pull' while Google waits for you to 'push' your life on to their servers.

GREAT!! (0)

Flounder (42112) | about 2 years ago | (#39224189)

Let's just give the conspiracy nutjobs MORE reasons to freak out.

Re:GREAT!! (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39224285)

They're only conspiracy nutjobs till proven right. Then they are wise.

Re:GREAT!! (1)

artor3 (1344997) | about 2 years ago | (#39224289)

Nah, this is being done by a startup, not the United States government. It doesn't fit with their world view. Unless...

the start-up is a front for the NSA!!!
dun dun dunnnnnn....

Re:GREAT!! (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 2 years ago | (#39224397)

the start-up is helping the government end-run the Constitution, by providing it with information that would otherwise be unconstitutional for the government to collect!!

BTTRFY (Brought That To Reality For You)

Yeah right (5, Funny)

Sean (422) | about 2 years ago | (#39224219)

Let a company spy on me constantly so it can make a profit by selling information about me? That sounds like a great deal for me. Where do I sign up?

Re:Yeah right (5, Funny)

twotacocombo (1529393) | about 2 years ago | (#39224347)

www.facebook.com

Re:Yeah right (5, Insightful)

phrostie (121428) | about 2 years ago | (#39224503)

if ever there was a post that deserved a 6, this is it.

Re:Yeah right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39225265)

Seconded

Re:Yeah right (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39225249)

You won the internet today. Good job.

Re:Yeah right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39224661)

I'm convinced that all of these schemes for making money by selling marketing data about people are scams.
I don't believe that the companies buying this data can put it to any profitable use.
They're getting taken, just like the losers that pay spammers to advertise for them.

Editors: This is March 1st, not April 1st (2)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | about 2 years ago | (#39224221)

No company or "customer" could possibly be this stupid.

Re:Editors: This is March 1st, not April 1st (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39224305)

I think you give the common individual WAY too much credit. Just look how successful facebook is. :P

Re:Editors: This is March 1st, not April 1st (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39224365)

It's March 2nd. I think he's giving himself too much credit.

Re:Editors: This is March 1st, not April 1st (2)

Githaron (2462596) | about 2 years ago | (#39224403)

I can hand pick what information Facebook gets.

Re:Editors: This is March 1st, not April 1st (1)

causality (777677) | about 2 years ago | (#39224731)

I can hand pick what information Facebook gets.

Can you perfectly control what everyone else posts about you? Can you absolutely lock down what else can be inferred about you by anyone who can take a long view of everything you post plus everything everyone else posts, such as Facebook staff and their partners?

If you can, well ... that's a neat trick.

Re:Editors: This is March 1st, not April 1st (2)

amRadioHed (463061) | about 2 years ago | (#39224799)

Can you perfectly control what everyone else says or does with information about you anywhere? This is not a Facebook problem, the solution is to find better friends.

Re:Editors: This is March 1st, not April 1st (3, Interesting)

causality (777677) | about 2 years ago | (#39225191)

Can you perfectly control what everyone else says or does with information about you anywhere? This is not a Facebook problem, the solution is to find better friends.

It would normally be difficult to aggregate and analyze all of that information in a single central place. At least without a court order. Facebook is a system designed to do just that, with no court order needed since you agreed to give them permission to the data. To ignore that obvious fact means you are either being dishonest or you're performing mental gymnastics to rationalize away legitimate concerns about Facebook, no doubt to dismiss the foolishness of using it. Otherwise it would be hard to continue doing so, which you fully intend to do.

No, it's not difficult to see what's happening here and it's really transparent. You're just a different kind of fanboy and those pesky facts won't stop you. A Microsoft fanboy has to downplay the whole abuse of monopoly thing. An Apple fanboy has to downplay the disadvantages of walled gardens. You have to downplay the fact that the system is carefully designed to separate users from their privacy. That kind of selective blindness is a step towards psychosis, you know.

Further, I appreciate the way I disagree with you, therefore I must have horrible friends (and by extension be a horrible person myself), but I tire of these little childish stabs that have no place in rational discourse. Facebook's privacy settings, even with friends who use them perfectly, don't stop Facebook and its marketers from analyzing data everyone posts to Facebook. My friends have the decency and self-respect not to betray my trust, but that's no good if I am communicating with them and the medium of communication itself is untrustworthy.

In the case of using Facebook while desiring privacy, that's the situation. Thus, I don't use Facebook and neither do my friends. Isn't that so much easier than trying to perfectly control everybody else? When you don't use a system designed to violate privacy in the first place, suddenly there is no need for that.

This is a problem quite unique to Facebook and systems like Facebook (such as MySpace before it, etc). Trying to generalize it the way you are doing in order to obfuscate that fact is beneath you, or should be.

Re:Editors: This is March 1st, not April 1st (1)

idontgno (624372) | about 2 years ago | (#39224761)

That has a striking resemblance to "I can quit any time I want" and "That only happens to other people."

Re:Editors: This is March 1st, not April 1st (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39224765)

Do you think FB isn't using aggregated information from public and private sources, and adding it to your profile behind the scenes and selling the whole 'you' to advertisers?

Re:Editors: This is March 1st, not April 1st (2)

grimmjeeper (2301232) | about 2 years ago | (#39224377)

Rarely has a business gone bankrupt because they underestimated the stupidity of the average consumer. There will be a large number of people who don't know enough or care about their privacy who will line up to get "free" storage.

Re:Editors: This is March 1st, not April 1st (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about 2 years ago | (#39225193)

Indeed, and that seems to be advertiser's market right now -- only those with less than 3 digits in their IQs. But it probabably works, since there are 150 million Americans with two digit IQs.

Re:Editors: This is March 1st, not April 1st (2)

markana (152984) | about 2 years ago | (#39224401)

You're new around here, aren't you? All they have to do is add some tangible, meaningless incentive for the customer and they'll have people signing up in droves. Free storage, free email, maybe a social site with some music and games - they'll get tons of takers. Add in some real prizes, say, a monthly random drawing for a car or a vacation, and stand back.

The lesson of Facebook is - a very large number of people either don't value their privacy, or don't recognize when they're giving it away. They'll happily trade some potential future negative outcome for the shiny bauble here and now.

Watching us? (1)

jjp9999 (2180664) | about 2 years ago | (#39224265)

Oh, you evil bastards!

Sure... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39224277)

If I'm allowed to encrypt the images and videos before I upload them, then sure, you can run all the analytics you want on the encrypted files.
I'll happily take the free storage in exchange for that.

Re:Sure... (1)

Githaron (2462596) | about 2 years ago | (#39224435)

Why not just send them white noise and tell them it is encrypted video?

Two sentence reponse: (5, Insightful)

fallen1 (230220) | about 2 years ago | (#39224311)

Fuck you. No.

Pardon me for being crude but - what are these nutjobs thinking? All it takes is someone in the household going "Sure, we'll do that!" and then little 15 year old Suzie walks by the camera on the way from her bathroom to her bedroom and *boom!* the company behind this has just analyzed child porn. Congrats!

I cover up or disconnect all cameras in my home that might be turned on remotely for one simple reason -- it is my private home. Period. The end.

Re:Two sentence reponse: (2)

oodaloop (1229816) | about 2 years ago | (#39224775)

I think the end result will be more like chat roulette. Nothing but guys showing their junk.

Re:Two sentence reponse: (5, Insightful)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | about 2 years ago | (#39224803)

[...] and then little 15 year old Suzie walks by the camera on the way from her bathroom to her bedroom and *boom!* the company behind this has just analyzed child porn

Putting aside for a moment that perhaps such households should think for a moment before opting into such plans, I have to ask... ...what, exactly, would be wrong with that scenario?

For one thing, it's not child pornography. The law may perhaps interpret it as such, especially if it ends up being treated as such by the person caught on camera / their legal guardians, but naked people walking in front of a camera does not necessarily pornography make.

For another, my computer could be analyzing child pornography all day long every day of the week. Perhaps it's analyzing it to see if it's known pornography or new pornography. If it's new pornography, perhaps it's trying facial recognition to see if this is of a person whose case has already been handled, or that it may be a new case and should be flagged as such.

But given that the system doesn't know what the material is in the first place, perhaps it's analyzing the picture, sees what looks like a human form, detects that either there's no clothing or the person happens to walk around in a wetsuit that matches their skin color, and either way decides to discard the data.
The analyzing software may be much more interested in that bright rectangular surface called your TV to see what programs you watch.

People are way, way too jumpy about this stuff. Next thing you know an adult can't go to a lake for a swim because there's also kids who like diving into the water and have issues keeping their bikini bottoms on* and you just might see that. Oh noes.

It's different if that's the purpose of going swimming there in the first place, of course. Just as it would be different if one of the goals of this company would be to catch people naked (adults: blackmail, kids: CP market?), or if, as part of its operation, the material would be made available to third parties who in turn might have such motives.

( * apparently, that's a thing? Here, have a plug: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/525823883/swimwear-that-stays-put-made-locally-made-responsi [kickstarter.com] )

Don't get me wrong, I'm not opting into such a program anytime soon.. but the whole "what if it catches X doing Y!?" thing? Not the biggest problem with this by a long shot.

Re:Two sentence reponse: (1)

arkane1234 (457605) | about 2 years ago | (#39225099)

We care much more about legal issues along with slippery slopes than your thoughts.
Enjoy.

Re:Two sentence reponse: (1)

fallen1 (230220) | about 2 years ago | (#39225237)

For one thing, it's not child pornography. The law may perhaps interpret it as such, especially if it ends up being treated as such by the person caught on camera / their legal guardians, but naked people walking in front of a camera does not necessarily pornography make.

I fully agree with you. I went down the road that it seems our governing bodies* want to take to make a point. I personally don't believe that an image of a nude person is, per se, pornography. Nor do I believe it is immoral or illegal or prurient by most measures. SOMEONE will take it that way, but I am not one of those people.

I also agree that people are way too jumpy about things like this. Ready, fire, aim response. Once again, our governing bodies* are usually the ones to take that tact if not "concerned citizens" that, ultimately, should have been more concerned with what goes on at their house than everyone else house. Someone accidentally walking by a camera that this company is analyzing should be way down on the list of concerns about this program. Number one should be the realization that if you're willing to give up your liberty (privacy in your own home) for what amounts to nothing to this company, then why should you be concerned with letting in the authorities? Other than that pesky Constitution, of course.

*our governing bodies in this case means those in the United States of America, just for clarification.

Re:Two sentence reponse: (1)

arkane1234 (457605) | about 2 years ago | (#39225049)

What are you trying to hide?
Only criminals hide things.

perverts? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39224319)

founder of startup GotoCamera in Singapore, wants you to turn them all on

Especially those ones in your underage daughter's bedroom.

Copy Machine (2)

rullywowr (1831632) | about 2 years ago | (#39224345)

Sounds like we should give them the same image as one reproduces by sitting on the copy machine, sans trou.

Re:Copy Machine (1)

arkane1234 (457605) | about 2 years ago | (#39225127)

You mean without the bloody anus from the copy machine glass shattering from being sat on?

Analytics (2)

paleo2002 (1079697) | about 2 years ago | (#39224393)

Sounds like a great deal, actually. I get free off-site storage and all I have to do it put little post-it notes over the webcams on my computers. I'd change the color each day, just to give their consumer data algorithm something different to look at. Only draw-back is the resulting spam email with offers for pills that will turn my penis yellow or electric blue.

Telescreen?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39224425)

Um, no.

wow (4, Funny)

squidflakes (905524) | about 2 years ago | (#39224465)

So, if I got this then I could guarantee that all of my spam would be about weight loss, masturbation aids, and (naughty) maid services? I don't see the difference from my current crop of spam.

Late to the party. (4, Funny)

wbr1 (2538558) | about 2 years ago | (#39224473)

My botnet already does this. Except I don't sell marketing data to advertisers. Visit RealAmatuerTube.ru. /TongueInCheek

Everyone is looking at this all wrong... (1)

JSC (9187) | about 2 years ago | (#39224535)

Sign up for the service, get the freebies...and then paste a screenshot of goat.se in front of the camera.

Strange times (2)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about 2 years ago | (#39224559)

We very well may be heading toward an Orwellian future. Sadly we seem to be selling ourselves while making it happen more so than it being thrust upon us. I'm still dumbfounded by shows like the Jersey Shore, Kardasians, etc. These people are rich because they act like (or are) complete morons and do so in front of a camera. Then the masses happily do the same on Youtube for free. And now this. Lets' not forget the domestic drones and other cameras that have been slowly invading our privacy for years.

I remember as a small child being creeped out thinking that the people on the television could see me the same as I could see them. It seems this could very well become reality soon.

Weren't we supposed to have flying cars, no poverty, and shiny cities under glass domes on the moon to go along with the computers, "eyes in the sky", the police state, and video phones? Someone really screwed this up.

No way dude. (3, Insightful)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | about 2 years ago | (#39224575)

If you want to sell some porn, hire some actors you cheapskates.

Exhibitionists rejoice. (2)

Medievalist (16032) | about 2 years ago | (#39224581)

I don't think these guys are going to get what they are looking for.

Or maybe they are - if they are going to sell the data to Durex and Trojan...

My company is working on a blocking technology. (2)

Lashat (1041424) | about 2 years ago | (#39224605)

We are timing the product to launch at the same time these cameras become available. We are making it easier than ever to block intrusive cameras in your home.

Look for our product out soon.

Electrical Tape.

Next Year is 1984 (1)

Oswald McWeany (2428506) | about 2 years ago | (#39224609)

Is it 1983- are we getting ready for 1984?

Cameras in our home watching us? Plus bad.

Dear Varun, (0)

ronmon (95471) | about 2 years ago | (#39224621)

Kindly go fuck yourself.

Me

TFA says this is B2B (2)

TheSpoom (715771) | about 2 years ago | (#39224629)

For now, his company makes money by charging manufacturers for offering its services with their products, or from users that upgrade to extra storage. Currently most such cameras are USB-driven, but a new wave of cheap Wi-Fi models are on the way, and manufacturers like Samsung and Panasonic are putting them into TVs and other devices, mainly for motion control and video conferencing.

"USB is a sunset industry" for cameras, Arora said. He showed off a tiny wireless camera from partner Trek 2000 International, about the size of a roll of film. It sells online for about US$65, and other manufacturers will soon launch for less than $50. Unlike USB models, Wi-Fi cameras don't need to be plugged into a computer or network, and usually just require a power source, which makes them ideal for security and monitoring.

As the prices of such devices fall, manufacturers will be squeezed, and GotoCamera proposes to provide a portion of the online fees it receives back to them, a rare ongoing revenue stream he compares to disposable blades for shaving razors, that must be continually purchased.

"What we say to them is, 'Please accept that you're a commodity, and let us bring the Gillette model to you,'" Arora said.

Their primary audience seems to be camera manufacturers, not users. The indirect offer to consumers seems to be, "buy this camera at a discount and in exchange we get access to its video feed."

Which is not enough to make me buy one, but hey, maybe it's enough for others. Or it'll just be in the fine print and people won't know about it.

Re:TFA says this is B2B (1)

JobyOne (1578377) | about 2 years ago | (#39224805)

Or it'll just be in the fine print and people won't know about it.

Probably that one. The crap that is regularly hidden in fine print on boxes and buried in wordy EULAs is horrifying.

$40 per GB per year for the premium service (1)

biodata (1981610) | about 2 years ago | (#39224667)

Isn't it cheaper to just buy USB memory (or disks or..)?

Uhm... what's the reward? (1)

LostCluster (625375) | about 2 years ago | (#39224669)

Google, Bing (from Microsoft), and others track your search requests but also provide free access to their search results when you ask for them.
GMail (from Google). Live Mail (from Microsoft) and others may scan your e-mail, but they also block spam and give you a functional e-mail account.

GotoCamera is not from a rich company and only seems interested in selling your data to marketers. Could they at least offer some sort of "We'll call 911 for you..." or other feature that would at least be a benefit to the consumer. Just noticing the brands in my kitchen and filling the living room TV with ads from their competitors just doesn't work. Why do we need to connect our cameras to him in the first place?

upload bandwith is limmted in most homes (0)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 2 years ago | (#39224753)

upload bandwidth is limited in most homes mostly on DSL but lot's of cable systems as well. And it all counter as part of the CAP.

Re:upload bandwith is limmted in most homes (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39225195)

HAHAHA, the best you can come up with is concerns about bandwidth and traffic caps?

And it's "lots", you stupid Facebook loser.

Umm.... no (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39224769)

And that's final.

"Please accept that you're a commodity..." (4, Informative)

idontgno (624372) | about 2 years ago | (#39224881)

Did he really just say that?

Did he just call me a fungible mass material, like pork bellies and orange juice? Am I going to be traded as futures at the Chicago Board of Trade?

My God. He just called us sheep. No, not even sheep. Less than sheep. Meat. Raw materials. Resources, in the most over-the-top insulting reading of "Human Resources" possible.

Wow. I guess some people have no subtlety. And no shame. And scum like this wants to turn the world into the largest episode of The Prisoner ever.

Let me reiterate. I am not a number. I am a free man.

I must respectfully decline your intriguing offer. I will not be subscribing to your newsletter.

Re:"Please accept that you're a commodity..." (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39225163)

Let me reiterate. I am not a number. I am a free man.

Very funny 624372, please keep your pants on this time and return to your housing cube before the next "motivational message" from Friend Computer.

Re:"Please accept that you're a commodity..." (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39225175)

Did he really just say that?

Did he just call me a fungible mass material, like pork bellies and orange juice? Am I going to be traded as futures at the Chicago Board of Trade?

My God. He just called us sheep. No, not even sheep. Less than sheep. Meat. Raw materials. Resources, in the most over-the-top insulting reading of "Human Resources" possible.

Wow. I guess some people have no subtlety. And no shame. And scum like this wants to turn the world into the largest episode of The Prisoner ever.

Let me reiterate. I am not a number. I am a free man.

I must respectfully decline your intriguing offer. I will not be subscribing to your newsletter.

Marketing types often use the argument that nobody is truly private any more, so why not just give it all up?

Makes about as much sense as saying that you'll never be as young as you used to be, so you might as well shoot yourself and get it over with.

I find that my modest efforts to preserve what privacy I have left are quite effective, thank you. I'm not overly spammed, nor am I plagued with intrusive personalized ads. Browser settings and plugins, along with a modicum of internet street smarts, can keep things fairly well under control.

Of course, if you spread your personal info over various social networks, it's a bit silly to complain about loss of privacy at that point.

Two words for them.... (1)

realsilly (186931) | about 2 years ago | (#39224905)

Fuck No!

I've always blocked this type of intrusion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39224967)


I don't plug in a web cam in unless I'm going to use it, then disconnect it when I'm done,

I have a web cam built into the monitor, that I have only connected once, and then only briefly.

Adobe's Flash configuration gave fair warning, Before, every time you updated flash if you
didn't disable "sites can access your Web Cam" it was allowed by default.

Nope, got lot's web cam sitting around none are connected at this time

Kinect, I know you have or want one! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39224983)

Have you read Microsoft's Kinect TOS/privacy agreement?

It's scary. I'll never get one, and they want to put this crap in laptops? HAaHHAHAHAHahHAH

I wonder how many crack smokers are busted in front of their xbox by kinect/dea

To the parents (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39225019)

Whoever bred the morons that came up with this idea: YOU FAIL IT.

Seriously, amok runs should be a lot more common around these guys.

win for them (1)

Guru80 (1579277) | about 2 years ago | (#39225043)

Gonna be getting a whole lot of porn adverts in my home

It'll probably be buried in the EULA (1)

ThinkDifferently (853608) | about 2 years ago | (#39225093)

EULA...I agree
Privacy Policy...I agree
Countersurveillance Agreement...I ag...wait, wuh?

I'll take It. (1)

Crasoose (1621969) | about 2 years ago | (#39225199)

Sure, I'll take them up on the offer. If they want to give me a free high quality camera I could remove from the device and use for a webcam I see 100% win-win for me, all they are going to be receiving is "No Signal".
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?