Isn't there a difference between a video taken for the purpose of a store safety, and a creepy asshole guy taking a video of you while you go about your stuff?
Yes there is a difference, SCM isn't hiding when he's taking the video.
Besides that, plenty of people are proving themselves willing to hurt him, while he is in full compliance with the law, he IS recording for the purpose of safety.
There really isn't any reason that it NEEDS to be connected otherwise the thing won't work at all. If a game needs it, then the game can yell at you to install it.
Snowden says he did "X". "X" is against the law. Snowden therefore broke the law. Snowden is a lawbreaker. QED.
^^^THAT, however, makes him one.^^^
I killed JFK
Doesn't matter that I wasn't born when it happened, since I just said I did it.
Somehow though, a device that requires both voice confirmation AND your face to be physically staring exactly at what you want it to record is seen as invasive.
If the people this is attempting to 'defend' had access to a credit card, they'd just throw the remainder of their cell phone balance on there too and call it a day, with the benefit of enjoying the 0% financing with TMO for as long as it lasted.
To get away from the point you made slightly: If TMO had made the contract so if you had service with them it was 0% financing, but if you left it would be 10% people would still be complaining that they should offer free financing no matter what.
Seriously though, If people can't afford the cost of $300 potentially coming up and biting them in the ass, they shouldn't have gotten a $600 phone. They should have gone on ebay or craigslist & bought a used phone. I've known plenty of people who picked up last years model at a steal shortly after the new model came out. This way you wouldn't have had to sign a loan with dodgy (in the view of the WA AG) requirements and could enjoy their cheap service for as long as it was worth it to you.