4 ms·

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 la

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.
      - subway 8y 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 8y ago
      Tape recorders are still on the market.
  - codetrotter 8y ago
    All of those toget devices you mention are activated manually by the user. Smart speakers activate automatically.
    - bduerst 8y 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.
      - subway 8y ago
        It's very different when the trigger is locally a not-so-great guess followed by shipping the audio to a remote service that can make a slightly more informed guess.
  - bisby 8y ago
    > The person who manufactured the device shouldn't since they didn't use the device to break the law. The issue at hand is that if the manufacturer is the one who turns on the device, then yes, it is 100% them breaking the law. If my phone is hacked and the microphone is remotely enabled to record a conversation and ends up violating the law, I'm not at fault, the hacker is. So how is it different if the "hacker" is just the manufacturer using a private channel that they built for themselves?
gumby 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y ago
Minor correction, you said: > private property When you actually meant: > personal property

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.
    - subway 8y 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 8y ago
    Tape recorders are still on the market.
- codetrotter 8y ago
  All of those toget devices you mention are activated manually by the user. Smart speakers activate automatically.
  - bduerst 8y 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.
    - subway 8y ago
      It's very different when the trigger is locally a not-so-great guess followed by shipping the audio to a remote service that can make a slightly more informed guess.
- bisby 8y ago
  > The person who manufactured the device shouldn't since they didn't use the device to break the law. The issue at hand is that if the manufacturer is the one who turns on the device, then yes, it is 100% them breaking the law. If my phone is hacked and the microphone is remotely enabled to record a conversation and ends up violating the law, I'm not at fault, the hacker is. So how is it different if the "hacker" is just the manufacturer using a private channel that they built for themselves?

gumby 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y ago

Minor correction, you said: > private property When you actually meant: > personal property