Take privacy seriously, but don’t silence Alexa

Kate, I think my point is that I don’t think we stand to benefit by wantonly sharing data with the panoptican.

Posting here obviously does share some data in that direction, but I consider that worthwhile as a cost of involvement here.

As I do feel the need to use an Android phone, I am trying to mitigate Google’s data slurping by using Brave as my primary browser there and DuckDuckDo as its default search engine. I also use ProtonMail when I don’t want Google to have easy access to my emails. Also, given that Google will be getting some of my data, I still see that as no excuse for sharing data with others when there’s nothing in it for me.

What global total, Phil? Total of all energy produced, used by the cloud, used by all computers or what?

Talking with computers has always been a bit iffy:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDrDUmuUBTo

🙂 Yes, it can be more interesting when computers don’t just do as they are told.

I did pass the request (to open. the pod bay doors) on to Siri, who (or which) responded: “Oh, not again.”

I think Kate’s original point was that the widespread popularity of this technology makes it affordable and hence, also, easy to provide for anyone who is actually suffering from limited mobility.

I wouldn’t dismiss voice assistants because I believe they might have potential benefits that have not yet been explored, and certainly think helping people with disabilities to live a better life with less effort is highly valuable. It saddens me, though, that the best uses that the developers can come up with – a bit like many smart phone apps – are so immature and superficial in comparison with the problems we face as a society. Perhaps they should be regarded as no more than a distraction from reality at this stage and we should hope for better things to come.

I cannot agree that smartphone apps are immature and stupid nowadays, John. No doubt some are, but some provide a focused way of accessing information when you are out and about.

Taking familiar examples, we have Google Maps (and others) to find our way around, various weather maps, a choice of web browsers and email, apps that will open Word and Excel documents, apps to take and view photos, a calendar to view your commitments and add new entries, iPlayer and Sounds (until recently it was iPlayer Radio), a Which? reviews app to look up product ratings and a Which? Magazine app, so that you can check something in a recent issue. In the same way that a computer needs software in addition to the operating system to be useful, a smartphone needs its apps. There are many very useful apps that cost nothing to download and use and if you don’t like them they are easy to remove.

You are right, Wavechange, but while I stand by my observation that many are immature, I stopped short of saying that apps are stupid. For those who use smart phones extensively I am sure all the apps you mentioned have their place – different ones for different experiences or activities. But there was a Which? Conversation [whose title I cannot recall] that seemed to be saying that a high proportion of apps that people have downloaded are hardly ever used, and that some of them are utterly facile.

I know people who use their phone for everything; things that would probably never occur to me. I use a diary and it doesn’t enter my head that a calendar or other app would be useful. I use maps if I don’t know how to get somewhere. I haven’t taken a photograph for over ten years. I can do all the other things using the full size computers in the comfort of our home.

I appreciate that many apps are free but there is the expense of being internet-enabled and in my situation I don’t see the need for that when I am out and about.

I agree that being able to control lifestyle features in the home is a great convenience, but buying a personal voice assistance on its own won’t do any of those things. Significant adaptations of the apparatus under control is required [or replacement with new fittings] and that can be very expensive.

We bought some LED lamps* for room centre ceiling fittings that have three levels of illumination, all selectable by flicking the wall switch, so the ‘mood’ can be altered in a couple of seconds. OK, not quite from the comfort of the sofa, but just how much convenience do we really need?

I think Wavechange’s point about sustainability is essential and I would hope Which? would be highly supportive of questioning new tech developments that lead to the waste of existing materials and the manufacture of new products that are of limited value [except as an indulgence].

*The lamps were Philips SceneSwitch 13.5W BC LED 3-Step Bulb, Frosted, @ £12 each. At the highest setting the level of lighting [1521 lumens] is really impressive and is the kind of LED centre lamp I have been waiting a long time for.

It is also a bit of exercise getting up and walking to interact with these things. Stops you being lazy.

We have a table lamp with mood colours and levels. It works with a remote control but only within about a metre, so we have to get up off the sofa to operate it. 🙄

I must admit table lamps and uplighters are probably better for adjusting the lighting in a room and creating the best ambience for the activities pursued. Good general lighting reflecting off the ceiling and task lighting should also form part of the mix. I think it will be a long time before ordinary homes have smart technology to enable that sort of flexibility through a voice control.

To pursue the sustainability issue, I wonder how long smart technology will continue to work for. We have a long-running Convo about smart TV apps stopping working, sometimes a couple of years after purchase. I wonder how many people think about this when they have smart heating controls fitted. Anyone with an expensive Bluetooth or WiFi speaker might not be very happy if it was not compatible with their new mobile.

Indeed. Just imagine what we’d have to do just now to upgrade a home full of smart tech, it all its devices were running on Windows 7 and needed upgrading to Windows 10.

Or conversely, one might buy new smart tech and then find its controlling app won’t work on one’s long serving smart mobile.

Re: John’s point, Apple’s Home kit app does provide that degree of flexibility and would work perfectly for us since we never use the ceiling lights. All our rooms are lit by table lamps (positioned anywhere but on a table…) based on the principle that the only part of a room I need to illuminate is the floor. The stairs have an LED strip system beneath the bannister rail, so the stairs themselves are brightly lit, but the light doesn’t hit the eyes directly.

I like uplighters and table lamps. I suppose centre lights are good for vacuum cleaning, but that can be done in daylight. I cannot understand why halogen lighting with bare halogen capsules became popular. Some might like having bright images imprinted on their retinas, but not me.

Alexa – Please can we have a Convo on room lighting?

I, like John, use table lamps and uplighters in many rooms, including bedrooms. They provide a pleasant environment, softer than ceiling lights; however I still retain these as when certain tasks are being carried out they are more appropriate. I am not averse to getting off the sofa to turn on the lights; I am averse to spending cash on what I regard as unnecessary equipment that rely on my smart phone to work. However, my table lamps in the living room to work from remote-controlled socket outlets……..

We don’t get enough exercise.

We must be careful when lighting stairs, particularly for people whose vision may not be great. Two key considerations are: avoid glare, so no bright light(s) in the line of sight, and to ensure the treads are clearly delineated so there is no confusion as to where to put your foot.

As others have said, I wonder how long the clever devices that we become dependent upon will last. And what happens when they stop working|? Hopefully, each has a manual option.

@wavechange this is a really valid point. I remember when iPhones changed their adaptor ports so you could no longer use old charger with the new apple devices. It’s the same thing I suppose, and although convenient at the time, having to update and change devices every year or two could get expensive and a bit of a pain.

Hi Grace – I hope you are settling in to the job.

With iPhones, iPads and iPods there have been only two types of charger connector (30 pin and Lightning), as far as I know. My recent iPhone uses the same charger and lead as the previous one, which was nearly six years old. Unfortunately, standardisation on USB-C chargers for phones will put an end to this.

In general, standardisation is very desirable but I don’t think that using USB-C chargers for phones makes sense because there is the possibility that a much higher power charger intended for a laptop can then be used to charge a phone. This can result in fires, for example if the charger lead is damaged.

I think we are going to need standards to ensure that smart devices have a decent working life before they will no longer talk to each other.

Hi @wavechange, it’s going well. Thank you 🙂

Yes you’re right, it was a while ago that this happened where iPhone ports were changed but it is still fresh in my mind for some reason!