7 ms·

Well what a coincidence https://twitter.com/matthewstoller/status/1115991653662195713 https://twitter.com/matthewstoller/status/111599165366219571...

ipsum2 8y ago
I don't work for Amazon or Google, but I agree with them in this case. I read through the full text of the bill (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=108&GA=101&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=1719&GAID=15&LegID=&SpecSess=&Session= http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&Sessio...) and it seems like it sounds like the companies can be sued if one user agrees to a written policy, but then is used by another user (e.g. a spouse or sibling or friend), which makes smart speakers basically impossible to exist. (User identification isn't good enough, and even if it were, mistakes can happen) > No private entity may turn on or enable, cause to be turned on or enabled, or otherwise use a digital device's microphone to listen for or collect information, including spoken words or other audible or inaudible sounds, unless a user first agrees to a written policy informing the user[..]
- subway 8y ago
  > which makes smart speakers basically impossible to exist. Then perhaps in their current form, they shouldn't exist. It's already illegal to record people without their consent in many states. We shouldn't give up this right to privacy for a bit of convenience.
  - bduerst 8y ago
    By that logic, any device with a microphone and potential to record should not exist. Smart speakers are not telephone calls, and even if they were, federal law only requires consent of one party to record (11 states require all-party consent). In public spaces, you generally lose any right to consent to recording. If you're in someone else's home and they record you with their smart speaker device, then your beef is with that person whose private property you're being recorded on. Same as if they were recording you with their phone's camera in their private residence, vs recording you in a public space.
    - tripzilch 8y ago
      Ultimately what that boils down to is that if I don't want to be recorded, I should stay in my own home and not even visit anywhere, because only at home I can expect privacy. That's not privacy.
    - subway 8y ago
      The telephone is only relevant in some jurisdictions. For instance in Illlinois (an all-party state), you cannot record a private conversation. There's no mention of a phone or telecoms, and you should expect to get sued if you're in a conference room recording folks without their consent.
      - bduerst 8y ago
        Precisely - the person who owns the conference room and placed the device there should expect to get sued. The person who manufactured the device shouldn't since they didn't use the device to break the law. The owner of the private property did. It's the same with phone and security cameras - the manufacturers are not the ones at fault when the devices are incorrectly used by owners in states with specific legal laws regarding recording.
        subway 8y ago
        Imagine how long the devices would stay on the market if owners started being held liable for what the device does. I'm not suggesting the device be made illegal, but I do think a ton of common applications should be... and without those applications, the device loses viability.
        bduerst 8y ago
        I imagine they will face the same market consequences that smart phones, security cameras, and other devices that have the potential to be used to record people in private places currently face. Customers with a low tolerance for being recorded simply just won't buy.
  - scarejunba 8y ago
    Wait, you can just not give this up by not buying one and not hanging out with your friends who have these. Why do you want to impose this on the rest of us? Why can't I just let people give me this useful service in my own home?
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - DaniloDias 8y ago
    How does one develop such confidence prescribing what other people should or shouldn’t do? Are you some kind of cop or a priest?
  - spunker540 8y ago
    I think all it means is everyone with a smart speaker should have a sign on their front door informing all who enter that “conversations may be monitored”. Realistically though don’t a lot of stores have cameras and mics lawfully recording for security purposes? Are they all legally obligated to post warnings?
    - SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
      > Realistically though don’t a lot of stores have cameras and mics lawfully recording for security purposes? Are they all legally obligated to post warnings? Yes, at least here in the UK.
      - Varcht 8y ago
        In the US there is the concept of "Expectation of Privacy" [0] so it depends. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy
        etruong42 8y ago
        The link elaborates that this concept is enshrined in the US Constitution Bill of Rights (4th amendment), so it covers government surveillance. It is not directly applicable to private entities using recording devices.
        Varcht 8y ago
        I am not an attorney but this guy is https://attorney-myers.com/2013/11/surveillance_cameras_reasonable_expectation_privacy/ https://attorney-myers.com/2013/11/surveillance_cameras_reas...
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
- thatoneuser 8y ago
  So? Just because a billionaire tech company is inconvenienced by privacy laws doesn't mean they should be able to ignore them.
- MetalGuru 8y ago
  > inaudible sounds What?
  - ChrisGranger 8y ago
    Humans have a fairly limited frequency range in which they can hear, typically said to be 20 Hz to 20 kHz, but usually worse than that for most people. There's all kinds of sound in the world that is inaudible to humans.
  - ipsum2 8y ago
    TV ads emit inaudible (to humans) sounds to track which ads are being viewed. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/11/beware-of-ads-that-use-inaudible-sound-to-link-your-phone-tv-tablet-and-pc/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/11/beware-of-ads-th...
    - learc83 8y ago
      Can average TV speakers emit sounds outside the frequency of human hearing? I didn't think they could.
      - godelski 8y ago
        Yes, most speakers are 20Hz-20kHz or better. Here's a pair of $10 headphones that do just that[0]. Most humans have range inside that band. Those both are really the limits of human hearing and as you get older it dramatically decreases. I remember there were those ringtones (IIRC called cricket?) that used high frequencies so teachers wouldn't hear it go off. Some malls also used high frequency sounds so teens wouldn't loiter outside their stores. Most of these were even below 18kHz. tldr: yes [0]https://smile.amazon.com/Earphones-Earbuds-Headphones-Premium-Compatible/dp/B07PT3R6TN/ref=sr_1_4?keywords=headphones&qid=1554964160&s=gateway&sr=8-4 https://smile.amazon.com/Earphones-Earbuds-Headphones-Premiu...
- rmac 8y ago
  The Google speech API supports Speaker Diarization and Android supports voice unlock so they are getting to a point where they are able to ID voices and should be able to tell which voice has consented to being recorded.
  - cortesoft 8y ago
    But doesn't it have to record the voice to be able to identify it? Once the sound waves are converted to a format that the machine can process, it has been recorded.
    - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
      To my knowledge, we've generally recognized a difference between recording and immediate processing. Does a voice changer "record" you, if it adjusts the audio on the fly and doesn't store anything? VoIP phones arguably "record" the audio from your microphone and transfer it over the line to output to another party, but we don't call that recording either. I think the biggest issue here is how smart speakers work: They record your audio and then send it to be permanently stored on Google, Amazon, or Apple's servers, rather than being processed locally and discarded, which we have the technology to do just fine today. The only reason we're retaining voice recordings is to provide valuable data to the companies in question.
    - nl 8y ago
      Recording implies storage. It's possible to do voice ID on device and discard any non-matched data.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - justtopost 8y ago
        You can't discard data that is not stored.
        8y ago
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- gameswithgo 8y ago
  >which makes smart speakers basically impossible to exist Aha! Exactly. However, you could make a smart speaker that doesn't transmit the audio to a server.

ipsum2 8y ago

I don't work for Amazon or Google, but I agree with them in this case. I read through the full text of the bill (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=108&GA=101&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=1719&GAID=15&LegID=&SpecSess=&Session= http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&Sessio...) and it seems like it sounds like the companies can be sued if one user agrees to a written policy, but then is used by another user (e.g. a spouse or sibling or friend), which makes smart speakers basically impossible to exist. (User identification isn't good enough, and even if it were, mistakes can happen) > No private entity may turn on or enable, cause to be turned on or enabled, or otherwise use a digital device's microphone to listen for or collect information, including spoken words or other audible or inaudible sounds, unless a user first agrees to a written policy informing the user[..]

subway 8y ago
> which makes smart speakers basically impossible to exist. Then perhaps in their current form, they shouldn't exist. It's already illegal to record people without their consent in many states. We shouldn't give up this right to privacy for a bit of convenience.
- bduerst 8y ago
  By that logic, any device with a microphone and potential to record should not exist. Smart speakers are not telephone calls, and even if they were, federal law only requires consent of one party to record (11 states require all-party consent). In public spaces, you generally lose any right to consent to recording. If you're in someone else's home and they record you with their smart speaker device, then your beef is with that person whose private property you're being recorded on. Same as if they were recording you with their phone's camera in their private residence, vs recording you in a public space.
  - tripzilch 8y ago
    Ultimately what that boils down to is that if I don't want to be recorded, I should stay in my own home and not even visit anywhere, because only at home I can expect privacy. That's not privacy.
  - subway 8y ago
    The telephone is only relevant in some jurisdictions. For instance in Illlinois (an all-party state), you cannot record a private conversation. There's no mention of a phone or telecoms, and you should expect to get sued if you're in a conference room recording folks without their consent.
    - bduerst 8y ago
      Precisely - the person who owns the conference room and placed the device there should expect to get sued. The person who manufactured the device shouldn't since they didn't use the device to break the law. The owner of the private property did. It's the same with phone and security cameras - the manufacturers are not the ones at fault when the devices are incorrectly used by owners in states with specific legal laws regarding recording.
      - subway 8y ago
        Imagine how long the devices would stay on the market if owners started being held liable for what the device does. I'm not suggesting the device be made illegal, but I do think a ton of common applications should be... and without those applications, the device loses viability.
        bduerst 8y ago
        I imagine they will face the same market consequences that smart phones, security cameras, and other devices that have the potential to be used to record people in private places currently face. Customers with a low tolerance for being recorded simply just won't buy.
- scarejunba 8y ago
  Wait, you can just not give this up by not buying one and not hanging out with your friends who have these. Why do you want to impose this on the rest of us? Why can't I just let people give me this useful service in my own home?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- DaniloDias 8y ago
  How does one develop such confidence prescribing what other people should or shouldn’t do? Are you some kind of cop or a priest?
- spunker540 8y ago
  I think all it means is everyone with a smart speaker should have a sign on their front door informing all who enter that “conversations may be monitored”. Realistically though don’t a lot of stores have cameras and mics lawfully recording for security purposes? Are they all legally obligated to post warnings?
  - SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
    > Realistically though don’t a lot of stores have cameras and mics lawfully recording for security purposes? Are they all legally obligated to post warnings? Yes, at least here in the UK.
    - Varcht 8y ago
      In the US there is the concept of "Expectation of Privacy" [0] so it depends. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy
      - etruong42 8y ago
        The link elaborates that this concept is enshrined in the US Constitution Bill of Rights (4th amendment), so it covers government surveillance. It is not directly applicable to private entities using recording devices.
        Varcht 8y ago
        I am not an attorney but this guy is https://attorney-myers.com/2013/11/surveillance_cameras_reasonable_expectation_privacy/ https://attorney-myers.com/2013/11/surveillance_cameras_reas...
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
thatoneuser 8y ago
So? Just because a billionaire tech company is inconvenienced by privacy laws doesn't mean they should be able to ignore them.
MetalGuru 8y ago
> inaudible sounds What?
- ChrisGranger 8y ago
  Humans have a fairly limited frequency range in which they can hear, typically said to be 20 Hz to 20 kHz, but usually worse than that for most people. There's all kinds of sound in the world that is inaudible to humans.
- ipsum2 8y ago
  TV ads emit inaudible (to humans) sounds to track which ads are being viewed. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/11/beware-of-ads-that-use-inaudible-sound-to-link-your-phone-tv-tablet-and-pc/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/11/beware-of-ads-th...
  - learc83 8y ago
    Can average TV speakers emit sounds outside the frequency of human hearing? I didn't think they could.
    - godelski 8y ago
      Yes, most speakers are 20Hz-20kHz or better. Here's a pair of $10 headphones that do just that[0]. Most humans have range inside that band. Those both are really the limits of human hearing and as you get older it dramatically decreases. I remember there were those ringtones (IIRC called cricket?) that used high frequencies so teachers wouldn't hear it go off. Some malls also used high frequency sounds so teens wouldn't loiter outside their stores. Most of these were even below 18kHz. tldr: yes [0]https://smile.amazon.com/Earphones-Earbuds-Headphones-Premium-Compatible/dp/B07PT3R6TN/ref=sr_1_4?keywords=headphones&qid=1554964160&s=gateway&sr=8-4 https://smile.amazon.com/Earphones-Earbuds-Headphones-Premiu...
rmac 8y ago
The Google speech API supports Speaker Diarization and Android supports voice unlock so they are getting to a point where they are able to ID voices and should be able to tell which voice has consented to being recorded.
- cortesoft 8y ago
  But doesn't it have to record the voice to be able to identify it? Once the sound waves are converted to a format that the machine can process, it has been recorded.
  - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
    To my knowledge, we've generally recognized a difference between recording and immediate processing. Does a voice changer "record" you, if it adjusts the audio on the fly and doesn't store anything? VoIP phones arguably "record" the audio from your microphone and transfer it over the line to output to another party, but we don't call that recording either. I think the biggest issue here is how smart speakers work: They record your audio and then send it to be permanently stored on Google, Amazon, or Apple's servers, rather than being processed locally and discarded, which we have the technology to do just fine today. The only reason we're retaining voice recordings is to provide valuable data to the companies in question.
  - nl 8y ago
    Recording implies storage. It's possible to do voice ID on device and discard any non-matched data.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - justtopost 8y ago
      You can't discard data that is not stored.
      - 8y ago
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
gameswithgo 8y ago
>which makes smart speakers basically impossible to exist Aha! Exactly. However, you could make a smart speaker that doesn't transmit the audio to a server.