Isn't it high time for legislation that at least makes it clear on the box what kind of sensors and integrations it has and how bad the product is privacy wise?
Also, shouldn't corporate spying disguised as automated content recognition and classification be limited or outright be banned?
And all this connected garbage should by law be able to function with the cord cut and without registration, and if an update negatively changes the advertised product characteristics the customer must be allowed to return it for full paid price even if it is 10 years old. Force the manufactures to make statements on the "box" about the features, the support duration and level, and the privacy characteristics.
Why don't politicians care about this?
Because there have not yet been any high profile cases involving the collected data used to embarrass or convict a politician. It just takes one embarrassed congress critter to get a giant red sticker on all these devices, their boxes and ads: "This Device Transcribes and Reports Your Conversations" and that is before including those that upload camera screenshots of what you are watching and video of the viewers doing something untoward.
Because it is not the subject that will win them the next election.
And even if they care, some things are easier said than done. With politicians who care, you get things like GDPR, which goes in the right direction, but is a huge legal mess. And it is a mess because it can't be made simple.
Obviously, you have to take consumer interests into account, but you also have to take companies interest into account too, both big and small, otherwise they will just stop doing business, which is bad for the economy and will mean that consumers won't find what they want at a reasonable price. You have to think about the loopholes big companies will invariably find, and covering them will add complexity, but still make it so that small companies can comply without a full time team of lawyers assisting them.
For example, you say the consumer could return it for a full refund on a bad update, but to whom? Should the burden be put on the small retailer who sold it to you (and may be out of business)? There is already plenty of stuff the manufacturer must tell you, usually one a piece of paper no one reads, and the more you ask, the less people will read because there will be too much information. A "privacy score" may be a good idea, if well designed, it will share a place with the energy score, environment score, repairability score, safety signs, origin, etc... And how do you differentiate actual automated content recognition that consumers could want from spyware, formally, so that the first one is allowed but not the latter.
All that to say that it is not impossible, but even with politicians caring, it is complicated. European politicians care (because it can win them votes), the results are so complicated they are getting ridiculed by the rest of the world.
Alot of this spying ends up producing valuable data for different agencies to purchase which otherwise they cannot legally obtain without a warrant. Sure some of it has some commercial value, but a lot of it is probably more valuable for domestic spy operations.
A lot of info collected by 3 letter agencies is based on it.