4 ms·

That’s my big concern with this tech, training people to have always-on surveillance in their homes without a second thought. I realize that the typical and tri

That’s my big concern with this tech, training people to have always-on surveillance in their homes without a second thought. I realize that the typical and trite response by some involves throwing away my phone, but there are holes in that. First, it is trivially easy to control where your phone is, you can get burners, root your phone, and all of the other good things we know and love. An Echo, or similar dross is a closed box controlled OTA, and networked. Even if someone had immense faith in company X, it would be unwise to ignore intelligence and law enforcement both foreign and domestic wanting access. You can’t root Alexa, it won’t even work without the cloud. It really does feel like training wheels for something entirely unpleasant, and all because people are so helpless in the face of dubious convenience and fashion.

pdkl95 8y ago
> training people to have always-on surveillance in their homes without a second thought Even worse: when always-on surveillance devices become popular enough that a judge could rule that the technology (in the abstract, not a specific product) is "in general public use"[2] - crossing the bright-line rule created in Kyllo v United States[1] - the police no longe4r need a warrant to use the technology see the "details of a private home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion"[3]. I'm not talking about the police being involved with Amazon or using the Echo. When a technology is "in general public use", the police can use their own always-on microphone to transmit previously-private speech to a 3rd party on the internet. Normalizing surveillance devices not harms the person using the device, it also reduces *everyone's 4th Amendment protection. [1] https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/533/27.html https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/533/27.html [2] Used throughout the ruling[1], but especially section II of Justice Stevens' dissent. [3] The ruling[1], 2nd paragraph

pdkl95 8y ago

> training people to have always-on surveillance in their homes without a second thought Even worse: when always-on surveillance devices become popular enough that a judge could rule that the technology (in the abstract, not a specific product) is "in general public use"[2] - crossing the bright-line rule created in Kyllo v United States[1] - the police no longe4r need a warrant to use the technology see the "details of a private home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion"[3]. I'm not talking about the police being involved with Amazon or using the Echo. When a technology is "in general public use", the police can use their own always-on microphone to transmit previously-private speech to a 3rd party on the internet. Normalizing surveillance devices not harms the person using the device, it also reduces *everyone's 4th Amendment protection. [1] https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/533/27.html https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/533/27.html [2] Used throughout the ruling[1], but especially section II of Justice Stevens' dissent. [3] The ruling[1], 2nd paragraph