SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the camera+GPS=knowing-most-everything dept.
This data-mining game is what they call totalitarianism is how Oliver Stone described Pokémon Go at Comic Con. Earlier in the month Al Franken also expressed some concern asking the creator of the game about privacy, data sharing, and account access.
More from Stone:
They're data-mining every person in this room for information as to what you're buying, what you like, and above all, your behaviour. Pokémon Go kicks into that. But this is everywhere. It's what some people call surveillance capitalism. It's the newest stage. It's not for profit in the beginning, but it becomes for profit in the end.
It manipulates your behaviour. It has happened already quite a bit on the Internet, but you'll see it everywhere—you'll see a new form of, frankly, a robot society, where they will know how you want to behave and they will make the mockup that matches how you behave and feed you. It's what they call totalitarianism.
Personally I gave up my smart phone more than two years ago because I did not want a spy machine in my pocket; I've never played Pokémon Go but it seemed like a great way for the game creators to get people to run around and point the players camera at what ever they want, obtain other location based data, or focus players into businesses that pay for the privilege. Perhaps I just need to adjust my tinfoil hat but what do the 'lentils think? Is Stone just trying to plug his new movie or is this a legitimate concern?
(Score: 2, Disagree) by meustrus on Saturday July 23 2016, @01:14PM
Privacy issues aside, let's be clear: this is a really cool concept for a game. We like augmented reality Pokémon. And it is doing social good getting more people to exercise, but that's beside the point. If you want to protect everyone's privacy, you can't categorically block entertainment like this. So the question is: how can you build an augmented reality game that networks players together and also provide assurances that it collects the bare minimum of data it needs and throws it away when it's done without sharing? And how do we as a society move towards caring about the answer to the previous question?
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by Knowledge Troll on Saturday July 23 2016, @01:35PM
You hit them in their junk [youtube.com]
or TL;DR [youtube.com]
or if there's a millennial around this won't take much attention span [youtube.com]