First, if an entity want my input and are going to use it, they should be decent enough to pay me for giving it. Why do users need to work for free for Amazon?
Second, is it opt-in? If not, then there's an ethical issue here, even if a manual opt-out option is given (does it?). If there's no opt-out, there's a double ethical issue.
Thirdly, is this data deleted once it's being used for the goals you mentioned, or is it kept, making it a risk both for leaking and for Amazing deciding to put it for a different usage in the future.
Are you genuinely surprised at this point? Pretty much all big tech companies were caught outright lying about user data collection. Why would you assume by default they don't try to get as much as possible? They are all based on ML, of course they do.
A year or two ago Amazon was swearing that humans don't listen to Alexa conversations until we learned they actually do. IIRC Amazon tried to backpedal: "of course they do, it is their job, we meant humans don't listen _for fun_".
At this point just assume the internet connectivity as such a warning.
Terms of service are written to be understandable by lawyers, not average end-users. At this point, understanding every terms of service, privacy policy, etc. presented by every piece of software, website, etc. encountered by an average user would require them to spend hours per week on it. This is assuming that they even have the language skills necessary to decipher the document (think of non-native English speakers, people without higher education, and so on.)
Creative Commons was on the right track with their human-readable licenses, see e.g. this example [1]. Apple is on the right track with their App Store "nutrition labels" [2]. This is what we need for people to make informed decisions. For physical objects like a Kindle, I believe such "nutrition labels" should ideally be put on the box (physical store) and website (online stores), so the consumer is aware before they go home and turn on the device (this makes it easier to compare the Kindle to a Boox or Nook at the store).
If the industry moved to a standardized disclosure form (e.g. something like the HUD-1 [1] in real estate sales), people would stop complaining about this.
Yes! Even when I try to read the terms of service, I find them hard to understand. I feel bad because it’s sort of shame on me for agreeing to stuff blindly. User hostile is a good way of putting it.
Payment is a fair point on Kindles, I get why web sites offers free services in return to commercials (and your data) but I paid for my Kindle and (most of) the content I read.
First, if an entity want my input and are going to use it, they should be decent enough to pay me for giving it. Why do users need to work for free for Amazon?
Second, is it opt-in? If not, then there's an ethical issue here, even if a manual opt-out option is given (does it?). If there's no opt-out, there's a double ethical issue.
Thirdly, is this data deleted once it's being used for the goals you mentioned, or is it kept, making it a risk both for leaking and for Amazing deciding to put it for a different usage in the future.