7 ms·

Important to note that if this allegation is true, it means Alexa is recording everyone and storing it indefinitely, not just children. The lawsuit just says ch

Important to note that if this allegation is true, it means Alexa is recording everyone and storing it indefinitely, not just children. The lawsuit just says children because children have more privacy protections than adults so it's easier to win a case when children's rights are being violated.

devoply 7y ago
Did you read the article? That is not what the lawsuit is saying at all. And it would be pretty trivial to figure out if Alexa was recording all the time by putting a sniffer on your network and seeing how much data is being transmitted to the cloud when Alex is on vs. when Alexa is listening to you. Alexa on board does not have the tech to convert speech to text, it sends all the audio to the cloud for that.
- freehunter 7y ago
  I think you misread my comment.
Johnny555 7y ago
I'm not sure you can call a documented feature of the product an "allegation". Its well known that Amazon saves voice recordings that the devices capture after the wake word. https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=201602230 https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=... https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=201602040 https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=... https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/talkingtech/2018/05/28/how-listen-what-amazon-alexa-has-recorded-your-home/649814002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/talkingtech/2018/05/28/h... Though I also don't see how Amazon is responsible when parents put a recording device like the Echo, a Nest Cam, a recording baby monitor, a Ring Doorbell, etc in the home and it ends up recording a child.
- hunter2_ 7y ago
  Plastic bag packaging often says "keep away from children" and maybe privacy invasions should too. You might say there's a big difference in that one is life safety and the other isn't, but there's plenty of non-life-safety messaging applied to products such as "not for street use" on car mods affecting emissions in California. I mean I guess that's life safety at a macro level but then privacy invasions could be too. I think the car part manufacturer could be liable if they don't present a reasonable effort to keep the use of their products well contained.
  - daveFNbuck 7y ago
    The difference here is that the illegal part requires active ongoing support from Amazon. If these devices all communicated with a central hub located in the home that was owned and controlled by the user, I think this would be viewed very differently. Similarly, I don't think a car mod company could plausibly argue their mods weren't for street use if they had cloud support and GPS access but didn't make any effort to go into a street-legal mode when driving on public roads.
    - sokoloff 7y ago
      “Legal in California only for off-highway use” is a dodge of the law (at least in the intent of the law, though perhaps not in the fact) for at least 95% of products so labeled.
      - daveFNbuck 7y ago
        My point is that the dodge wouldn't work if the company had to actively assist in making the product work on a highway and had enough data to determine that the product was being used on a highway. The dodge relies on customers being in control of whether the law is broken. You can buy any of these products and use them only in a car that you tow between locations where it's legal to use. The dodge works because the company can't tell whether that's what you're doing.
        dodobirdlord 7y ago
- davnicwil 7y ago
  I completely agree with you that having an Alexa in your home means you must accept that your (i.e. you, the registered user) voice commands are being stored indefinitely. But to be fair, there is a distinction here. That is, if you're not the registered Alexa user and you're not the one who agreed to the usage terms, shouldn't Amazon try to recognise that your voice is different and not store your voice commands? It's clear they have the recognition tech to do this. I'd say it's a pretty reasonable expectation. Even if you posit that consent is implicit in using Alexa (i.e. if you use a friend's, for example, in making that choice you're consenting to Amazon storing your voice command) - something that's debatable but certainly within reason - I'd say you definitely can't extend this to children, who simply can't be expected to even know what this means let alone understand the implications.
  - koolba 7y ago
    (IANAL but...) I’m pretty sure it’s legal to record anything within your own home if you’re the one that set it up. That’d cover placing devices that delegate that recording to Amazon.
    - darkpuma 7y ago
      > California's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. California makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on any confidential communication, including a private conversation or telephone call, without the consent of all parties to the conversation. See Cal. Penal Code § 632. The statute applies to "confidential communications" -- i.e., conversations in which one of the parties has an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation.
      - koolba 7y ago
        Communication (say over the phone) is different than recording within the four walls of your home.
        zorpner 7y ago
- freehunter 7y ago
  The allegation is that Amazon has the ability to differentiate from children vs adults, but still records children and saves the recordings indefinitely without the parents permission if a child says the word "Alexa". I call it an allegation because it's not entirely provable from outside of Amazon.

devoply 7y ago

Did you read the article? That is not what the lawsuit is saying at all. And it would be pretty trivial to figure out if Alexa was recording all the time by putting a sniffer on your network and seeing how much data is being transmitted to the cloud when Alex is on vs. when Alexa is listening to you. Alexa on board does not have the tech to convert speech to text, it sends all the audio to the cloud for that.

freehunter 7y ago
I think you misread my comment.

Johnny555 7y ago

I'm not sure you can call a documented feature of the product an "allegation". Its well known that Amazon saves voice recordings that the devices capture after the wake word. https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=201602230 https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=... https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=201602040 https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=... https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/talkingtech/2018/05/28/how-listen-what-amazon-alexa-has-recorded-your-home/649814002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/talkingtech/2018/05/28/h... Though I also don't see how Amazon is responsible when parents put a recording device like the Echo, a Nest Cam, a recording baby monitor, a Ring Doorbell, etc in the home and it ends up recording a child.

hunter2_ 7y ago
Plastic bag packaging often says "keep away from children" and maybe privacy invasions should too. You might say there's a big difference in that one is life safety and the other isn't, but there's plenty of non-life-safety messaging applied to products such as "not for street use" on car mods affecting emissions in California. I mean I guess that's life safety at a macro level but then privacy invasions could be too. I think the car part manufacturer could be liable if they don't present a reasonable effort to keep the use of their products well contained.
- daveFNbuck 7y ago
  The difference here is that the illegal part requires active ongoing support from Amazon. If these devices all communicated with a central hub located in the home that was owned and controlled by the user, I think this would be viewed very differently. Similarly, I don't think a car mod company could plausibly argue their mods weren't for street use if they had cloud support and GPS access but didn't make any effort to go into a street-legal mode when driving on public roads.
  - sokoloff 7y ago
    “Legal in California only for off-highway use” is a dodge of the law (at least in the intent of the law, though perhaps not in the fact) for at least 95% of products so labeled.
    - daveFNbuck 7y ago
      My point is that the dodge wouldn't work if the company had to actively assist in making the product work on a highway and had enough data to determine that the product was being used on a highway. The dodge relies on customers being in control of whether the law is broken. You can buy any of these products and use them only in a car that you tow between locations where it's legal to use. The dodge works because the company can't tell whether that's what you're doing.
      - dodobirdlord 7y ago
davnicwil 7y ago
I completely agree with you that having an Alexa in your home means you must accept that your (i.e. you, the registered user) voice commands are being stored indefinitely. But to be fair, there is a distinction here. That is, if you're not the registered Alexa user and you're not the one who agreed to the usage terms, shouldn't Amazon try to recognise that your voice is different and not store your voice commands? It's clear they have the recognition tech to do this. I'd say it's a pretty reasonable expectation. Even if you posit that consent is implicit in using Alexa (i.e. if you use a friend's, for example, in making that choice you're consenting to Amazon storing your voice command) - something that's debatable but certainly within reason - I'd say you definitely can't extend this to children, who simply can't be expected to even know what this means let alone understand the implications.
- koolba 7y ago
  (IANAL but...) I’m pretty sure it’s legal to record anything within your own home if you’re the one that set it up. That’d cover placing devices that delegate that recording to Amazon.
  - darkpuma 7y ago
    > California's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. California makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on any confidential communication, including a private conversation or telephone call, without the consent of all parties to the conversation. See Cal. Penal Code § 632. The statute applies to "confidential communications" -- i.e., conversations in which one of the parties has an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation.
    - koolba 7y ago
      Communication (say over the phone) is different than recording within the four walls of your home.
      - zorpner 7y ago
freehunter 7y ago
The allegation is that Amazon has the ability to differentiate from children vs adults, but still records children and saves the recordings indefinitely without the parents permission if a child says the word "Alexa". I call it an allegation because it's not entirely provable from outside of Amazon.