6 ms·

> 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 wit

by subway 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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.
        subway 7y ago
        Security cameras often explicitly lack audio because of these laws. The other devices you mentioned all have primary functionality that doesn't depend of recording nearby audio arbitrarily. The possible exception is Siri and Google's assistant, which fall into the category of services/devices being questioned in this instance.
      - nightfly 7y ago
        Tape recorders are still on the market.
    - codetrotter 7y ago
      All of those toget devices you mention are activated manually by the user. Smart speakers activate automatically.
      - bduerst 7y ago
        They activate on very specific commands. It's no different then adding a trigger phrase to start recording with those devices. Whether it's a VUI, physical button UI, or even motion-sensor triggered is splitting hairs, since the device is still owned and operated by the person who put it there.
- gumby 7y ago
  > By that logic, any device with a microphone and potential to record should not exist. Not at all, it's how you use it. Cars can run over people but cars can exist; driving over someone is a crime committed by the operator. A machine with a microphone need not be, of itself, illegal. There is an issue of a secret microphone, as with Google's camera that secretly included microphones. That seems fraudulent because the user is not able to knowledgable decide if she can trust the device.
  - blotter_paper 7y ago
    I understand the distinction you're drawing with regards to the company secretly recording without anyone's consent, but in the imagined scenario discussed in this thread where a spouse or whoever gets recorded after a different user agrees to the terms and conditions wouldn't your reasoning place the blame on the original user who misused the tool, not on the company who supplied the tool? There are scenarios where a user might want to have an always-on microphone in a certain section of their house without violating anybody else's privacy.
    - thatoneuser 7y ago
      No its the responsibility of the device creator. This is more like an analogy where a self driving car killed someone as the company made the device activate under certain commands with no failsafe to prevent users who didn't agree to terms. Company was greedy to get the recordings.
    - jakevn 7y ago
      Certainly, as long as the device does not trivialize the violation of those rights. If a car designed for road use by a human driver did not have a windshield to see out of, I'd say it is designed in a way to violate the rights of others. Are Alexa and others designed to reasonably ensure only consenting users are being recorded?
      - cortesoft 7y ago
        I mean, that is technically impossible? You have to record a voice to be able to analyze it to determine if the voice is of a person that consented. This basically would outlaw ANY device that is voice activated, because it has to constantly be 'recording' to be able to be activated.
- ridgeguy 7y ago
  I don’t agree. In your example, being in someone else’s home doesn’t put you in a public space for purposes of recording consent. A dumb recording device can’t do something illegal without its owner’s/user’s affirmative action. If the homeowner uses the recording thing illegally they’re liable for that use. In contrast, Alexa and similar devices operate on rules built-in by their builders. They do what their builders intend, not what applicable law or their owners require. Liability should rest with the builders.
  - bduerst 7y ago
    Right - being in someone else's home is their private residence. If they break the law using devices there then they are liable, not the device manufacturer. Maybe I didn't specify that enough.
- meko 7y ago
  Minor correction, you said: > private property When you actually meant: > personal property
scarejunba 7y 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 7y ago
  [deleted]
DaniloDias 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y ago
  [deleted]

by subway 7y ago

bduerst 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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.
      - subway 7y ago
        Security cameras often explicitly lack audio because of these laws. The other devices you mentioned all have primary functionality that doesn't depend of recording nearby audio arbitrarily. The possible exception is Siri and Google's assistant, which fall into the category of services/devices being questioned in this instance.
    - nightfly 7y ago
      Tape recorders are still on the market.
  - codetrotter 7y ago
    All of those toget devices you mention are activated manually by the user. Smart speakers activate automatically.
    - bduerst 7y ago
      They activate on very specific commands. It's no different then adding a trigger phrase to start recording with those devices. Whether it's a VUI, physical button UI, or even motion-sensor triggered is splitting hairs, since the device is still owned and operated by the person who put it there.
gumby 7y ago
> By that logic, any device with a microphone and potential to record should not exist. Not at all, it's how you use it. Cars can run over people but cars can exist; driving over someone is a crime committed by the operator. A machine with a microphone need not be, of itself, illegal. There is an issue of a secret microphone, as with Google's camera that secretly included microphones. That seems fraudulent because the user is not able to knowledgable decide if she can trust the device.
- blotter_paper 7y ago
  I understand the distinction you're drawing with regards to the company secretly recording without anyone's consent, but in the imagined scenario discussed in this thread where a spouse or whoever gets recorded after a different user agrees to the terms and conditions wouldn't your reasoning place the blame on the original user who misused the tool, not on the company who supplied the tool? There are scenarios where a user might want to have an always-on microphone in a certain section of their house without violating anybody else's privacy.
  - thatoneuser 7y ago
    No its the responsibility of the device creator. This is more like an analogy where a self driving car killed someone as the company made the device activate under certain commands with no failsafe to prevent users who didn't agree to terms. Company was greedy to get the recordings.
  - jakevn 7y ago
    Certainly, as long as the device does not trivialize the violation of those rights. If a car designed for road use by a human driver did not have a windshield to see out of, I'd say it is designed in a way to violate the rights of others. Are Alexa and others designed to reasonably ensure only consenting users are being recorded?
    - cortesoft 7y ago
      I mean, that is technically impossible? You have to record a voice to be able to analyze it to determine if the voice is of a person that consented. This basically would outlaw ANY device that is voice activated, because it has to constantly be 'recording' to be able to be activated.
ridgeguy 7y ago
I don’t agree. In your example, being in someone else’s home doesn’t put you in a public space for purposes of recording consent. A dumb recording device can’t do something illegal without its owner’s/user’s affirmative action. If the homeowner uses the recording thing illegally they’re liable for that use. In contrast, Alexa and similar devices operate on rules built-in by their builders. They do what their builders intend, not what applicable law or their owners require. Liability should rest with the builders.
- bduerst 7y ago
  Right - being in someone else's home is their private residence. If they break the law using devices there then they are liable, not the device manufacturer. Maybe I didn't specify that enough.
meko 7y ago
Minor correction, you said: > private property When you actually meant: > personal property

scarejunba 7y 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 7y ago
[deleted]

DaniloDias 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y ago
[deleted]