As opposed to your point of view? Confirmation bias is a thing, you know.
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?
Ridiculous argument. Does your logic apply to everything else? Is WindowBlinds (a product marketed on this very site) produced maliciously?
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.
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.
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?
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...
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.
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".
To quote Cain, "Am I my brother's keeper?"