spizzat2

To save you some time, it's Google's Ad Center, which the article doesn't even link to, as far as I can tell.

I'm not creeped out by any of the info I found in mine, but I am annoyed. "Yes, Google, I searched for [random thing] twice because I needed to know a little more information. That time has passed because I bought it or the event has passed or whatever. Reminding me about it just makes it weird."

Unfortunately, DMCA abuse rarely has consequences for those behind it.

Oh look! The actual problem is buried at the end of the article.

It's my understanding that filing a DMCA request requires that you certify that you have reviewed the content, and confirm that you believe the content to be infringing.

Here's an excerpt from a sample takedown notice, provided by Georgetown University:

I am providing this notice in good faith and with the reasonable belief that my rights as the exclusive rights holder are being infringed.

Under penalty of perjury, I certify that the information contained in this notification is both true and accurate

I know that "reasonable belief" gives a lot of wiggle room from a legal standpoint, but c'mon. If no one pushes back on that, of course it will be abused!

There really need to be restrictions put in place mining and sharing of customer data

Full stop.

In a twisted way, I'm glad the problem has become blatant enough that politicians are starting to realize how it affects them. Companies have proven time and again that they shouldn't be trusted with our data, but it's hard to do anything without having to agree to let them collect and resell your info.

He was fired because "he was not consistently candid in his communications with the board, hindering its ability to exercise its responsibilities."

Has that suddenly changed, or are they just super eager to look like idiots as publicly as possible?

Maybe the AI told them to do it. /s

Don't take the abrasiveness of their post personally. They were quoting from the movie Office Space.

The fundamental relationship between smart-home companies and their customers is founded on trust.

Man... I'd like to be able to live in their world. In reality, it seems the fundamental relationship is based on "this is convenient and cheap enough that I'm willing to give up some privacy in that aspect of my life.", but I'd never classify it as "trust". I've had internet connected cameras. I would only ever place them outside my house. My garage door also had a camera watching it, just in case my smart garage door opener decided to act up unexpectedly.

Of course, I still have a smart phone in my pocket. I guess I've essentially given up on that front.