luxury – Techdirt (original) (raw)

Many Digital Divide 'Solutions' Make Privacy And Trust A Luxury Option

from the First-do-no-harm dept

We’ve noted a few times how privacy is slowly but surely becoming a luxury good. Take low-cost cellular phones, for example. They may now be available for dirt cheap, but the devices are among the very first to treat consumer privacy and security as effectively unworthy of consideration at that price point. So at the same time we’re patting ourselves on the back for “bridging the digital divide,” we’re creating a new paradigm whereby privacy and security are something placed out of reach for those who can’t afford it.

A similar scenario is playing out on the borrowed school laptop front. Lower income students who need to borrow a school laptop to do their homework routinely find that bargain comes with some monumental trade offs; namely zero expectation of privacy. Many of the laptops being used by lower-income students come with Securly, student-monitoring software that lets teachers see a student?s laptop screen in real time and even close tabs if they discover a student is “off-task.”

But again, it creates a dichotomy between students with the money for a laptop (innately trusted) and lower income students who are inherently tracked and surveilled:

“Hootman says she and other parents wouldn?t have chosen school-issued devices if they knew the extent of the monitoring. (?I?m lucky that?s an option for us,? she says.) She also worried that when monitoring software automatically closes tabs or otherwise penalizes multitasking, it makes it harder for students to cultivate their own ability to focus and build discipline.”

Teachers and school administrators may be well intentioned, but they’re not thinking particularly large picture. But the creation of this bifurcated treatment of privacy wasn’t lost on the Center for Democracy and Technology, which issued a report last month that found, unsurprisingly, wealthier kids that can afford their own devices are subject to less surveillance and are inherently trusted more overall. Sometimes just by nature of the laptop surveillance systems, but also thanks to school district concerns about liability:

“LEAs (local education agencies) with wealthier student populations reported that their students are more likely to have access to personal devices, which are subject to less monitoring than school-issued devices…LEAs feel compelled to monitor student activity to satisfy perceived legal requirements and protect student safety.”

So in trying to “help” kids, by not thinking broadly enough you’re teaching them that they’re inherently inferior and less deserving of overall trust. Combine that with the overarching problem that less expensive computer and phone hardware is often inherently less private and secure, and it’s not particularly hard to see how efforts to “bridge the digital divide” could make some aspects of it worse if they’re not particularly well thought out.

Filed Under: digital divide, luxury, privacy, school laptops, schools, security, students, surveillance, tracking

Low Cost Phones Are Turning Privacy Into A Luxury Option

from the ill-communication dept

Wed, Oct 16th 2019 10:44am - Karl Bode

Even when you’re shelling out thousands of dollars for the latest smartphone and an “unlimited” data plan for it to run on, that cost expenditure still puts you at great privacy risk. Wireless carriers, for years, have collected and sold your location and other data to a long line of dubious middlemen, and despite a lot of sound and fury on this subject, few (outside of maybe the EFF) are really doing much about it. And with the FCC recently having self-immolated at lobbyist request and any new meaningful privacy protections derailed by bickering, that’s not changing anytime soon.

Less discussed is the privacy nightmare you’ll find in “discounted” phones designed to help “bridge the digital divide.” While numerous vendors and tech giants have cooked up lower-cost Android phones with marketing focused on helping the poor, a new study by advocacy group Privacy International found that the privacy trade offs of these devices are… potent. Not only do they usually come with outdated OS’ opening the door to hackers, the phones have locked down user control to such a degree they’re unable to remove apps that may also pose security risks:

“The MYA2 also has apps that can?t be updated or deleted, and those apps contain multiple security and privacy flaws. One of those pre-installed apps that can?t be removed, Facebook Lite, gets default permission to track everywhere you go, upload all your contacts, and read your phone?s calendar. The fact that Facebook Lite can?t be removed is especially worrying because the app suffered a major privacy snafu earlier this year when hundreds of millions of Facebook Lite users had their passwords exposed. Facebook did not respond to request for comment.”

It’s part of a broader issue in telecommunications where privacy has become a luxury available only to those who can afford it. Some telecom giants like AT&T have tried to push the barrier even further, only letting users opt out of online snoopvertising if they’re willing to pay $500 more annually for telecom services. Between the apps, the phone, hackers, and your wireless carrier tracking, hacking, and monetizing your every waking moment, it’s a privacy and security minefield out there for even affluent smartphone buyers.

Studies suggest low income users realize that in the modern telecom landscape there are stark privacy penalties for being poor, yet feel they have no real power in the equation:

“Yet millions of Americans who can?t afford to buy a computer or install broadband internet at home often have no choice but to use such devices, which become their sole means of accessing the internet. If they want to enjoy the same basic conveniences that people in higher socioeconomic tiers have?such as transportation directions, online bill pay, and email?they may have to give up their privacy in exchange.”

The market won’t stop the practice because it’s profitable to hoover up every shred of data. The government won’t stop this process because Congress is slathered with mountains of cross industry campaign contributions that eliminate any motivation to craft meaningful privacy guidelines with any real teeth. With 3.7 billion users expected to have their only online access come via smartphone by 2025, that might just be a problem, and making privacy a “luxury feature” will only make said problem worse.

Filed Under: luxury, mobile devices, phones, price, privacy

Louis Vuitton Sues Hyundai Over A Louis Vuitton Basketball

from the do-morons-in-a-hurry-play-basketball? dept

Yesterday, I saw that Marty Schwimmer had posted a link to a Hyundai commercial asking if anyone saw the “lawsuit” in the commercial:

It took me a second viewing before I spotted it. The commercial itself plays on the idea of “what if everyone could experience luxury items” showing various examples of “luxury” items being used in more everyday settings: yachts in driveways, cops eating caviar and… some guys shooting hoops with a “luxury” basketball using the typical Louis Vuitton markings that you see on LV purses/handbags/etc.

Louis Vuitton is notoriously (and ridiculously) aggressive when it comes to trademark infringement. A couple years back we wrote about LVMH (parent company of Louis Vuitton) suing a Darfur fundraiser for creating a t-shirt of a Darfur victim “pimped out” to look like Paris Hilton, including a designer handbag with symbols made to look like the LV symbols.

So, yes, that’s exactly what this lawsuit is about. DSchneider points us to the Consumerist’s article laying out the details and I’ve embedded the lawsuit filing below:

Frankly, this lawsuit is ridiculous. LVMH is claiming that people might be confused? In what world? Seriously. In what world is anyone going to view the Hyundai commercial and think that it implies any kind of LVMH endorsement of Hyundai. It’s a joke — and any moron in a hurry knows that the LV basketball isn’t a sign that LVMH is working with or endorsing Hyundai.

Filed Under: basketball, commercial, louis vuitton, luxury, trademark
Companies: hyundai, lvmh

Can A Luxury Theater Get People To The Theater?

from the might-be-tough dept

We’ve talked for years about how the movie theater industry’s real problem was that the movie-going experience was terrible. The prices went up and the actual experience kept getting worse and worse. That drove people to look for alternatives, such as home theater systems. A simple solution would be to make the experience better and convince movie goers that it was a fun social experience to go out to the movies, to be able to experience the movie in a way that was different from the home theater experience. Last week, we pointed out that some theaters were moving more towards things like IMAX screens, which is a start. However, rob wrote in to point out that a few firms have teamed up to build a series of “luxury theaters” around the country, targeting a higher class of movie-goer willing to spend more for a top notch experience. As Variety explains:

Each complex will sport theaters featuring 40 reclining armchair seats with footrests, digital projection and the capability to screen 2-D and 3-D movies, as well as a lounge and bar serving cocktails and appetizers, a concierge service and valet parking. But the circuit will especially push its culinary offerings — made-to-order meals like sushi and other theater-friendly foods from on-site chefs (a service button at each seat calls a waiter).

That seems like a step in the right direction… other than the fact that the price is probably going to turn an awful lot of people off. It’s 35permovieticket,andthatdoesn’tincludethatspecialon−sitecheffood.Whileitdefinitelymakessensetochargemoreforticketstosuchatheater,a35 per movie ticket, and that doesn’t include that special on-site chef food. While it definitely makes sense to charge more for tickets to such a theater, a 35permovieticket,andthatdoesn’tincludethatspecialon−sitecheffood.Whileitdefinitelymakessensetochargemoreforticketstosuchatheater,a35 entrance fee, not including any food seems pretty steep. What’s wrong with just making the regular theater experience better?

Filed Under: luxury, movie theater, movies, social experience

Luxury Mobile Operator Not So Luxurious Any More

from the the-rich-and-famous-aren't-that-dumb dept

In late 2005, we were amused by the story of a Japanese company trying to launch a special mobile phone service, called Voce, for the rich and famous in the US. The selling point had little to do with a fancy phone. You would get just a common RAZR. But, for a 1500entryfeeand1500 entry fee and 1500entryfeeand500/month (!?!) you would basically get unlimited calls, get a new phone each year and get a full-time concierge service. It’s not difficult to recognize why this is a terrible idea. The people who could afford this sort of thing are probably smart enough to recognize they can simply buy themselves a new phone each year and sign up for an unlimited (or close to it) service from one of the big carriers. As for the concierge service, there are plenty of those around — with most being a lot more established and trustworthy. Soon after launch, the company discovered that no one had signed up. So it dropped prices to a 1000entryfeeand1000 entry fee and 1000entryfeeand400/month. That didn’t work either. So a year later, it dropped prices again to 500entryand500 entry and 500entryand200/month. Stunningly, it turns out that the rich and famous are still smart enough to recognize that’s not a very good deal either. Well, other than about 2,000 people who actually did sign up. That’s really not enough customers to run a business like this, so the company has shut down completely. Amusingly, the way the COO found out the company was shutting down was that his phone stopped working. As Engadget points out, you would think that the Chief Operating Officer would know that the company’s operations were being shut down. Apparently not.

Filed Under: luxury, mobile operator, mvno, rich and famous
Companies: voce