3 ms·

What incentive would they possibly have to do that? They are a publicly traded company. The executives have a fiduciary duty to the shareholders and will be pe

by throwaway2016a 9y ago

What incentive would they possibly have to do that? They are a publicly traded company. The executives have a fiduciary duty to the shareholders and will be personally accountable if they willfully neglect that (vs just the company being liable). There is almost no valid argument that an executive could not anticipate the blowback from doing that and no executive in their right mind is going to risk personal liability like that. But say one did. The people who could leak that information include: - Every single third-part skill developer - Amazon employees - Government employees if they are giving it to the government - Any one with the technical skills to reverse engineer the hardware The conspiracy theory would reach hundreds of people if not thousands. If people are getting this worked up about this, the lawsuit would be inevitable and the executive that green lit it would be thrown under the bus and their career would be over and they would go bankrupt fighting the personal lawsuits.

CaptSpify 9y ago
> What incentive would they possibly have to do that? Besides the obvious financial one? It would be crazy if they started sharing this data, just like it would be crazy if the telecoms started sending your web traffic to governments. Or how crazy it would be if Google started snooping into your email. Or how crazy it would be if phone companies let someone else listen in on your calls and texts. It's a good thing those never happened either.
- throwaway2016a 9y ago
  Your sarcasm makes me not want to reply but... Obvious financial incentive? Not obvious at all. It is clear to anyone that if word got out they were doing that at a bare minimum they would lose all the money they spent towards R&D and the entire product line would have to be shut down. The most likely outcome is it would negate any possible financial benefits. And that is excluding any law suites or money they would lose by hurting their primary business model. And to my point you were replying to. Even if there are possible financial benefits the risk of it horribly backfiring is so high most executives have some sense of self preservation and won't risk green lighting it. Which brings me to the next point, Amazon has a business model for the Alexa unlike your Gmail example where the only business model is ads, Alexa exists to get people to buy stuff from it. Sharing the data does not help them achieve that goal. Revenue per user per year from selling data is nothing compared to what they make from Amazon Prime. Pennies on the dollar. Not worth the risk. Financial incentive? No, I don't buy it. Pun intended (no apologies). If I haven't changed your mind (I'm sure I haven't, people who employ sarcasm are almost never up for debate) I hope I've at least shown it is not obvious. Government is a different story. But the amount of money it would take to process all the audio from all the Alexas and make use of it is astounding even by government standard. It's why by most accounts it has been limited to targeted people (and their network) and/or less expensive to deal with metadata. But I can't fault Alexa for that. If the government wants to listen in on me there is unfortunately nothing I can do to stop it. There is also another device in our houses with a microphone that can activate at any time and send things to the cloud... our actual phones. I see no more reason to give up my Echos due to government surveillance than I do my phone which has even more data on me and I'm not giving up my phone.
  - CaptSpify 9y ago
    Since the financial aspect isn't obvious to you, here's how it works: dev: "We could sell a better product if you gave us full transcripts, and you could make more money with it" Amazon: "OK, here you go" > It is clear to anyone that if word got out they were doing that at a bare minimum they would lose all the money they spent towards R&D and the entire product line would have to be shut down. Why? What would cause that? Other companies in similar situations keep on trucking just fine. And not worth the risk? What risk? We generally don't fine companies any significant amount when their data leaks, either intentionally or not. Customers don't really leave either, so there's no actual risk. Also, I am absolutely up for changing my mind, but this isn't really a "factual" debate, it's opinion on whether Amazon would be willing to let go of customer data. I have no doubt that they would, and expect that they do let go of customer data. I'd actually love to be proved wrong. I really want an Echo, but won't because of said privacy issues. > But the amount of money it would take to process all the audio from all the Alexas and make use of it is astounding even by government standard. It doesn't have to be "all customers data", they can very easily pick and choose which data gets processed. > I see no more reason to give up my Echos due to government surveillance than I do my phone which has even more data on me and I'm not giving up my phone. And that's fine. I don't think you should give up your phone if you don't want to. But saying "I don't want to give up my phone, so Alexa is totally safe!" is silly at best.
    - throwaway2016a 9y ago
      I'll take that in reverse order: > And that's fine. I don't think you should give up your phone if you don't want to. But saying "I don't want to give up my phone, so Alexa is totally safe!" is silly at best. I wasn't arguing it is safe from government. I honestly have no argument to reasonable assume it could be. I was saying that if the government wants to listen to me they can. But I honestly don't think Alexa makes it easier. It's already pretty darn easy. However, to my other point I was making, arguing it is safe from capitalism (or perhaps safe because of capitalism): That's not actually how the conversation would go. You're only looking at one side. To get a change like that to happen at a corporation it is not enough to prove financial benefit you also need to prove that it outweighs the risk. I most certainly, absolutely see that if you take the risk as 0 probability then there is money there. A change that large would go through layers: - Project manager - General Manager - Director - VP - Accountants and Actuaries - Legal Council - Back to VP - CxO Having done one of two of these myself and dealt with the companies that buy that kind of data at more than one point in my career I can tell you that the almost certainly the report from the actuaries will show: "The risk to Amazon Prime membership, law suits, and damage to market confidence is calculatedly too high relative to the reward of sale of customer data" And that is if someone doesn't kill it for ethical reasons. Or legal council doesn't kill it. Since while not a death blow, being fired for being the public face of an ethics violation is typically not a good career move. It takes a lot to get even a good idea approved at a company that size. Takes even more to get a terrible idea approved.
rwallace 9y ago
> The executives have a fiduciary duty to the shareholders and will be personally accountable if they willfully neglect that (vs just the company being liable). There is almost no valid argument that an executive could not anticipate the blowback from doing that and no executive in their right mind is going to risk personal liability like that. Has there ever been a case of executives being held personally liable for their companies doing grossly stupid and evil things that were obviously going to have blowback? Things like Union Carbide and the Bhopal disaster, the Sony rootkit CDs, Volkswagen cheating on emissions tests, United Airlines carrying out criminal assault on a passenger? Not a rhetorical question, maybe there is such a case that I don't know about.
- throwaway2016a 9y ago
  I don't know of any examples. I think usually they are low profile civil cases not criminal. I know there are cases where an executive has made fraudulent decisions and gotten charged personally for fraud vs the company. I have first hand knowledge of several at smaller companies where the board of directors sued an ex executive or sometimes another member of the board. There are also several high profile cases going through courts around Blockchain companies where the government is arguing that the executives themselves are willing participants in money laundering. Importantly, breaching your duties does not mean you are bad at your job. If you lose the company lots of money because you suck at your job you probably aren't in breach. You have to intentionally make a decision that is not in the interest of the people you have a duty to.
- ahartman00 9y ago
  Plenty. Here is an example for Volkswagon(just because I happen to remember it): "Federal prosecutors announced criminal charges on Wednesday against six Volkswagen executives for their roles in the company’s emissions-cheating scandal" "The six executives include a former head of development of the Volkswagen brand and the head of engine development. One of those charged on Wednesday, Oliver Schmidt, was arrested in Florida last week; the other five are believed to be in Germany" "The automaker is set to pay $4.3 billion in criminal and civil penalties in connection with the federal investigation, bringing the total cost of the deception to Volkswagen in the United States, including settlements of suits by car owners, to $20 billion — one of the costliest corporate scandals in history" https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/11/business/volkswagen-diesel-vw-settlement-charges-criminal.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/11/business/volkswagen-diese... Here is an article about Enron executives(quite a bit here): http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/business/businessspecial3/10-enron-players-where-they-landed-after-the-fall.html http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/business/businessspecial3/... Here is one about Tyco: " finding Kozlowski and Swartz guilty on 22 of 23 counts of grand larceny and conspiracy, falsifying business records and violating general business law. They face 15 to 30 years in prison" http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/17/news/newsmakers/tyco_trialoutcome/ http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/17/news/newsmakers/tyco_trialou... I'm sure there are more, just don't know of any off the top of my head. "the Sony rootkit CDs" -- was this illegal? Note that we can't punish people for things we don't like. "United Airlines carrying out criminal assault on a passenger" -- IIRC, the police carried the passenger off. I also thought the airlines have the authority to order people off planes. Like it or not, IIUC this was legal too.

CaptSpify 9y ago

> What incentive would they possibly have to do that? Besides the obvious financial one? It would be crazy if they started sharing this data, just like it would be crazy if the telecoms started sending your web traffic to governments. Or how crazy it would be if Google started snooping into your email. Or how crazy it would be if phone companies let someone else listen in on your calls and texts. It's a good thing those never happened either.

throwaway2016a 9y ago
Your sarcasm makes me not want to reply but... Obvious financial incentive? Not obvious at all. It is clear to anyone that if word got out they were doing that at a bare minimum they would lose all the money they spent towards R&D and the entire product line would have to be shut down. The most likely outcome is it would negate any possible financial benefits. And that is excluding any law suites or money they would lose by hurting their primary business model. And to my point you were replying to. Even if there are possible financial benefits the risk of it horribly backfiring is so high most executives have some sense of self preservation and won't risk green lighting it. Which brings me to the next point, Amazon has a business model for the Alexa unlike your Gmail example where the only business model is ads, Alexa exists to get people to buy stuff from it. Sharing the data does not help them achieve that goal. Revenue per user per year from selling data is nothing compared to what they make from Amazon Prime. Pennies on the dollar. Not worth the risk. Financial incentive? No, I don't buy it. Pun intended (no apologies). If I haven't changed your mind (I'm sure I haven't, people who employ sarcasm are almost never up for debate) I hope I've at least shown it is not obvious. Government is a different story. But the amount of money it would take to process all the audio from all the Alexas and make use of it is astounding even by government standard. It's why by most accounts it has been limited to targeted people (and their network) and/or less expensive to deal with metadata. But I can't fault Alexa for that. If the government wants to listen in on me there is unfortunately nothing I can do to stop it. There is also another device in our houses with a microphone that can activate at any time and send things to the cloud... our actual phones. I see no more reason to give up my Echos due to government surveillance than I do my phone which has even more data on me and I'm not giving up my phone.
- CaptSpify 9y ago
  Since the financial aspect isn't obvious to you, here's how it works: dev: "We could sell a better product if you gave us full transcripts, and you could make more money with it" Amazon: "OK, here you go" > It is clear to anyone that if word got out they were doing that at a bare minimum they would lose all the money they spent towards R&D and the entire product line would have to be shut down. Why? What would cause that? Other companies in similar situations keep on trucking just fine. And not worth the risk? What risk? We generally don't fine companies any significant amount when their data leaks, either intentionally or not. Customers don't really leave either, so there's no actual risk. Also, I am absolutely up for changing my mind, but this isn't really a "factual" debate, it's opinion on whether Amazon would be willing to let go of customer data. I have no doubt that they would, and expect that they do let go of customer data. I'd actually love to be proved wrong. I really want an Echo, but won't because of said privacy issues. > But the amount of money it would take to process all the audio from all the Alexas and make use of it is astounding even by government standard. It doesn't have to be "all customers data", they can very easily pick and choose which data gets processed. > I see no more reason to give up my Echos due to government surveillance than I do my phone which has even more data on me and I'm not giving up my phone. And that's fine. I don't think you should give up your phone if you don't want to. But saying "I don't want to give up my phone, so Alexa is totally safe!" is silly at best.
  - throwaway2016a 9y ago
    I'll take that in reverse order: > And that's fine. I don't think you should give up your phone if you don't want to. But saying "I don't want to give up my phone, so Alexa is totally safe!" is silly at best. I wasn't arguing it is safe from government. I honestly have no argument to reasonable assume it could be. I was saying that if the government wants to listen to me they can. But I honestly don't think Alexa makes it easier. It's already pretty darn easy. However, to my other point I was making, arguing it is safe from capitalism (or perhaps safe because of capitalism): That's not actually how the conversation would go. You're only looking at one side. To get a change like that to happen at a corporation it is not enough to prove financial benefit you also need to prove that it outweighs the risk. I most certainly, absolutely see that if you take the risk as 0 probability then there is money there. A change that large would go through layers: - Project manager - General Manager - Director - VP - Accountants and Actuaries - Legal Council - Back to VP - CxO Having done one of two of these myself and dealt with the companies that buy that kind of data at more than one point in my career I can tell you that the almost certainly the report from the actuaries will show: "The risk to Amazon Prime membership, law suits, and damage to market confidence is calculatedly too high relative to the reward of sale of customer data" And that is if someone doesn't kill it for ethical reasons. Or legal council doesn't kill it. Since while not a death blow, being fired for being the public face of an ethics violation is typically not a good career move. It takes a lot to get even a good idea approved at a company that size. Takes even more to get a terrible idea approved.

rwallace 9y ago

> The executives have a fiduciary duty to the shareholders and will be personally accountable if they willfully neglect that (vs just the company being liable). There is almost no valid argument that an executive could not anticipate the blowback from doing that and no executive in their right mind is going to risk personal liability like that. Has there ever been a case of executives being held personally liable for their companies doing grossly stupid and evil things that were obviously going to have blowback? Things like Union Carbide and the Bhopal disaster, the Sony rootkit CDs, Volkswagen cheating on emissions tests, United Airlines carrying out criminal assault on a passenger? Not a rhetorical question, maybe there is such a case that I don't know about.

throwaway2016a 9y ago
I don't know of any examples. I think usually they are low profile civil cases not criminal. I know there are cases where an executive has made fraudulent decisions and gotten charged personally for fraud vs the company. I have first hand knowledge of several at smaller companies where the board of directors sued an ex executive or sometimes another member of the board. There are also several high profile cases going through courts around Blockchain companies where the government is arguing that the executives themselves are willing participants in money laundering. Importantly, breaching your duties does not mean you are bad at your job. If you lose the company lots of money because you suck at your job you probably aren't in breach. You have to intentionally make a decision that is not in the interest of the people you have a duty to.
ahartman00 9y ago
Plenty. Here is an example for Volkswagon(just because I happen to remember it): "Federal prosecutors announced criminal charges on Wednesday against six Volkswagen executives for their roles in the company’s emissions-cheating scandal" "The six executives include a former head of development of the Volkswagen brand and the head of engine development. One of those charged on Wednesday, Oliver Schmidt, was arrested in Florida last week; the other five are believed to be in Germany" "The automaker is set to pay $4.3 billion in criminal and civil penalties in connection with the federal investigation, bringing the total cost of the deception to Volkswagen in the United States, including settlements of suits by car owners, to $20 billion — one of the costliest corporate scandals in history" https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/11/business/volkswagen-diesel-vw-settlement-charges-criminal.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/11/business/volkswagen-diese... Here is an article about Enron executives(quite a bit here): http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/business/businessspecial3/10-enron-players-where-they-landed-after-the-fall.html http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/business/businessspecial3/... Here is one about Tyco: " finding Kozlowski and Swartz guilty on 22 of 23 counts of grand larceny and conspiracy, falsifying business records and violating general business law. They face 15 to 30 years in prison" http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/17/news/newsmakers/tyco_trialoutcome/ http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/17/news/newsmakers/tyco_trialou... I'm sure there are more, just don't know of any off the top of my head. "the Sony rootkit CDs" -- was this illegal? Note that we can't punish people for things we don't like. "United Airlines carrying out criminal assault on a passenger" -- IIRC, the police carried the passenger off. I also thought the airlines have the authority to order people off planes. Like it or not, IIUC this was legal too.