Come on Barbie, Let's go Stasi.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/29/hello_barbie_controversy_reignited_with_insecurity_claims/
The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) and the European Consumer Organization (BEUC) are calling for US and EU data protection authorities to take action against insecure networked toys. Declaring that "My Friend Cayla," a Bluetooth-enabled doll released in 2014, and "i-Que," a connected robot released last year, " …
If you as a parent give your child the choice between this and something HUGE AND FLUFFY, I can tell you in advance what your child will chose (I know what mine chose every time).
Hint: Miyazaki in Totoro had a point. The bigger, the fluffier, the better. +/- acorns.
What's wrong is that that has been the tech we've had for the past thirty years and it is now obsolete because electronics and social pressure.
If you do not wish to pass for a bad parent, society dictates that you have to offer your children the latest and greatest in toy tech because if you don't, you're a has-been unworthy of having children.
It doesn't matter if the toy is less fun, it doesn't matter if the child plays with it for five minutes before moving on to the next toy, it doesn't matter that the toy does not allow their imagination to roam free.
What matters is that it is the latest tech. That is now the only thing that matters.
Even if you want to spout more than a dozen phrases, it doesn't need an internet connection!
Anyway, simple toys are best. According to my parents my best-ever Xmas pressie (when I was about six?) was a wooden mallet and a 1lb bag of assorted nails! (luckily we lived in the country so it was fenceposts that got nailed, not the imitation-pine-Chippendale)
(The above could possibly be phrased better - not sure about using 'nailed' and 'Chippendale' in the same sentence)
Kids don't buy toys, adults buy toys.
Correct, however, it is part of parenting to discuss with your children why exactly Dad is against buying a hideous stick insect blond bimbo with DDD size weapons of mass distraction of sufficient weight to cause a ruptured disk. All of the toys my kids have had since the age of 3 have been chosen by them. The end result is a weird assortment of fluffy stuff enough to fill a room, an occasional doll, half a crate of cars and a gigantic crate of lego bits as well as assorted weapons (the more realistic the better). Not a single one of them electronic or electrified except the gun laser sights.
Electronic stuff I have bought without asking them first like remote controlled boats, planes, wooden train, etc was used a couple of times and then abandoned (made me learn my lesson - at least one of them is choosing now).
My three and a half year old grandson prefers electronic toys - not that he has the skills to get it all back together yet, but give him an old fax machine or phone from the local 'tip shop' and a set of screwdrivers and he's happy for hours.
He can also, upon request, correctly name many of the components as well.
"Upon learning of the consumer advocacy groups' concerns through media, we validated that we have adhered to our policy with respect to the voice data collected through the toys referred to in the complaint"
Policy stores data outside the EU.
Policy says it can be changed at any moment.
Policy says data can be used for advertising.
Policy says data can be disclosed to unnamed 3rd parties.
Policy doesn't have any security guarantees.
So basically he just said, "fuck you".
At either the complete lack of security or the collusion with Wally Dizly.
Dizly always thinks of the children and how they can exploit their parents through them. My daughter was born in the nineties with a metabolic disease so we were regular visitors to Great Ormond Street Hospital for some years. At that time the Hospital was the benefactor of royalties from Peter Pan, a bequest from J.M.Barrie, as Dizly own the rights to Peter Pan they would rarely allow showings in the UK simply because they didn't get the money that was going to the hospital. I was told this by several staff there, so I don't doubt it.
Most of their stuff is formulaic crap anyway.
"Mack says Nuance has not received in inquiry from the FTC or other privacy authority. He stresses that the company's policy is that it doesn't use or sell voice data for marketing purposes and that it doesn't share voice data collected from one customer with another."
So if you don't use it or sell it for marketing purposes then why do you have it in the first place?
What do you actually do with all the data you have collected?
It is not entirely clear to me how Nuance is involved, aren't they just doing speech processing and generation?
I suppose the audio stream goes out over the Internet (unencrypted?) to Nuance's servers, is processed according to customer demands, then another audio stream goes back into the creepy puppet?
Hmm, an earlier story gives me an idea. Collect a bunch of these toys and set them in a sound proof room with nothing but 16-18 hours each day of Adam Sandler movies playing for it to listen to. One could fill the intervening "nighttime" hours with a varied selection of animal sounds, a springbok being taken down by hyenas or wolves gorging on a downed whitetail for instance. Let the spys fill their HDDs with that.