I recently purchased a Logitech Ergonomic Keyboard – better capacity to reduce wrist strain and possibly carpel tunnel is what I am going for.
That said the keyboard comes with software, software that has a privacy policy
Logitech Product Privacy Policy | Your Privacy is Our Priority
The privacy policy states that it collects product use data, which includes button presses
Being someone that is in Tech, and in Programming, that uses computers for typing passwords and logging into websites the combination is a bit concerning.
Data breaches happen (Adobe for instance), how much and how long is Logitech storing this information? Ergonomics should ideally facilitate better experience with the product, and I find the Privacy Policy, while common to many companies less than an ideal experience amplifier in purchasing of a keyboard.
Government agencies likely have that data by default, yet also potentially have another route to get the data easier might be less than ideal value added. Companies that are trying to profit might have early access to documents and key presses that have yet to be released to the public – insider information possible.
I am not a lawyer, that said the combination is a bit concerning. Protecting my own ability to profit in the World relies upon my ability to work in confidence, through tools such as a keyboard.
Some people at Logitech have put allot of time into creating a More Ergonomical product to deliver a better experience, companies should follow suit to provide a better experience from a Legal and Consumer Protection route as well. Someone buys an Ergonomic keyboard potentially set to disclosing proprietary information, breaches non-disclosure agreements without trying to?
Who gets put on the street, who gets put on the jail happens, negate I think it happens via an ideally fair and just system.
All people using keyboards set to insider trading possible? Didn’t read the EULA on a keyboard or a smartphone not possible? Always a big screen, easy to read, plenty of time and zero health problems? Even if it does not lead to legal action taken, it could lead to distrust, accusations.
The right key presses on a trial? How did the other side know that? Backroom deals via big tech companies for greater access to information in iffy gray legal territory with limited visibility and oversight? Extra data might increase chances for liability, whether or not that data was misused, less data is power likely not always fully pondered. Iffy territory reduces productivity, I can trust or I can’t trust factors into support delivered and not delivered. The World should facilitate better Peace – this sentence might have been higher up on the document.
My life’s work and Many other’s life’s work is on computers and with computers – going back to a typewriter might allow less capacity to influence does not equate to it is a sufficient route in this day and age. Real protection matters. Increasing desire to air gap machines for protection and legal protection is less than ideal visibility for systems that matter. Access might lead to temptation to limit Freedom of Speech, utilize Control in ways that sometimes help in ways that sometimes help reinforce paychecks for some.
Government and Authority required to prove that they deliver on the Golden Rule better might be a worthwhile concern before they are granted access to data. Disclosure profits some more than others, equates to which companies thrive and which ones sink? I should be able to trust authority, governments with data, greed always out of the picture?
I don’t want someone’s evil plan being used to hurt people, authority and governments with less data not always good. Someone’s life dreams could easily be set to evil plan as a way to guarantee some companies thrive and some companies sink. Authority should always be or should never be trusted seems unwise.
Less Data and More Data are sometimes worthwhile pursuits, and they are driven in less-than-ideal ways less-than-ideal conditions. A keyboard less trustworthy might obfuscate what is actually gathering data. Only effects 1% of population of users not a possible problem, a problem that is likely to be versed? A problem that doesn’t matter if you are in the 1%? The thought “I go to work and go to sleep each day safe equals the system must be doing something right” could be equated to the system is sufficiently protecting the rest of the population, whether that be 1%, 10%, or 20%+.
Less trustworthy amplifies Bias, Bias that might be directed towards the wrong person or group of people. Systems and capacity to work in more trustworthy way, in ways that actually equate to gains matters. Imagine walking into work on Monday and seeing your keyboard broken in half – shocking, hurtful, potential to raise hypotheticals, accusations in the mind with less-than-ideal proof. Having people remotely mess with your typing is kind of a bit of that, kind of a seed of doubt that has potential to spark anger and accusations – a constant reminder that your work, the place you live, everything has potential to be taken in an instant feels like less-than-ideal trust inspired. Key loggers and VNC might be used as a practical joke at times, that said people making the joke don’t likely know that it has potential to call previous work into question.
What is meant to get a few laughs likely not meant to destroy appreciation and trust in years of work. Work meticulously on a 100-page document that could save lives, to find out on page 99 that your typing might be being messed with – how many times should you re-read the paper, when reading page 1 page 99 could be being edited, on page 20 page 1 could be edited. Less than ideal verification is in by design has potential to be less than a pretty system. Lag factors into who’s work is appreciated, and who’s work might be set to old news. Competitive systems and less-than-ideal capacity to gauge levels of wrong.
I like humor, I don’t like being mean, humor can be mean, people that have less than ideal motivating factors like a competitive work environment might not have ideal intentions when using humor is hard to gauge, is likely hard to fully appreciate.
Too serious not always pretty. People use humor to relate to one another, to build bonds and encourage at times. The combination could be used to make practical jokes seem reasonable to play a joke on PartyA. One decides not to play a joke on PartyA could lead to PartyA saying “why didn’t you joke with me, why did you choose not desire to relate with me”. Or one could realize the devil in the details Hypothetical words of PartyA does not equate to words of PartyA. People like to laugh, people don’t like to be singled out and embarrassed, people don’t always gauge properly what people will take serious, what might lead to distrust, doubt, and discouragement. Capacity to take things lightly, think better of others many times has potential to be higher value added than the alternative does not equate to it might ideally establish and deliver truth.
Someone editing my words when I type trying to just joke with me, be inclusive? Or trying to derail support to starve my family? Allot of range in that likely not fully appreciated by those who make practical jokes. Could just be a broken key on the keyboard, happens at the perfect times always just coincidence? Thinking better is wise, maybe just trying to joke with me, be inclusive beats accusing the wrong party, the manifestation of the anger caused by full appreciation of injustice. Less than ideal truth might beat wrong parties accused, jumping to conclusions that might be partially true.
Part of the problem with insecure computing and problems where who is responsible is not found, shown, or acknowledged is people get put on the might be correlated list in the brain. Finding who is responsible factors into greater productivity. Who is responsible never found does not equate to people are ideally pulled off the iffed trust list. PartyA might be part of the problem but insufficient proof does not always lead to PartyA trusted ideally in the future when they were not involved. Lack of proof creates Questionable, Questionable is not an ideal value to be set to.
I have worked allot with computers, I have worked with VNC, people with capacity might be equated to responsible parties. I like to help people not hurt people though people’s experiences with computers over the years factors into their capacity to trust me, to factor me out as a problem by default. Requirement to establish trust is less-than-ideal especially when inability to prove is in by design.
Getting messed with remotely has potential to create Anger for good reason yet I don’t want that anger directed towards me or others when I am not the responsible party. Potential for wrong parties to be blamed and inability to prove sufficiently has potential to create murky waters, distrust. The person or people thought responsible are not always the cause is likely not always pondered and reflected upon. Thinking better of others might lead to less time costs though might not always equate to problems solved real conversation. People might mess with remotely and then when an employee outbursts competition might set to unhinged. Response is not ideally turned up does not equate to reduced security and transparency is all value added. Add in people of a different race or different sex and the combo could easily lead to ruined careers and costly discrimination lawsuits.
Tech relies on Law and Business, relies upon many, many different fields that are all unique fitted to a similar mold. There is potential for many win wins in tech, yet how the combinations amplify less than ideally for all is likely not always turned up. I am a tech guy, thus I might see more problems in legalism than tech, in desire to make businesses profitable than tech, yet tech relies upon and reinforces both of those systems and other systems in less-than-ideal ways. Everyone with giant calculators (computers) amplifies more ideally for some than others, yet gets set to Math ideals. People like bridges, yet they might be more apt to call out the laws and funding that go into the bridge than the bridge as a problem. I like bridges to drive across, I like gains for the future, yet I don’t want to reinforce laws and reduced funding that amplify more ideally for some rather than others.
Bridges are locality based, they profit some more than others. Engineering work on a bridge likely will increase knowledge, capacity, and data for years to come thus profiting entire World, yet to say the combo amplifies ideally for all seems unwise. Data that is useful, that is derived from government projects is likely only shared with some, full comprehension of value likely only amplified for some. Some people recently died via electrical lines falling on a car, combined with what looks like falling power lines in Dallas not being repaired swiftly, and our national debt gives reason for concern, inspires thoughts of danger not fully amplified or valued sufficiently by Society.
Potentially a great tech paradox, Tech needs to amplify more ideally for All in Society and doesn’t. Vending machines amplify ideally for all in the room? Proximity matters, not in the room matters. What if the room is those with money, and outside the room is those without? If Churches could share all the heat and air conditioning in their rooms with all of Society, they likely would. Shelter for the less fortunate is desirable and amplifies less than ideally less than always easily.
I know Texas summer is coming, and 110 degree heat amplifies less than ideally. Potentially harder to distribute gains in the middle of the summer. More Air Conditioning installed today factors into greater capacity to make it through Global Warming. I am not a boss of any companies, bosses might find ways to better equip employees in Dallas, TX with better Air Conditioning or access to Air Conditioning. Local free cool down stations? Not sure how hot Dart trains get, wonder if they have ice chests and free water bottles?
My Tech Blog 