4 ms·
The critical question clearly seems to be what evidence do the plaintiffs have? Presumably, the plaintiffs could at the least have records of various advertisi
by LMYahooTFY 7y ago
The critical question clearly seems to be what evidence do the plaintiffs have?
Presumably, the plaintiffs could at the least have records of various advertising that is uncannily targeting related subject matter to what the children may have been consuming and outputting, though I wonder how they could prove that the children didn't inadvertently activate Alexa and provide this data. Perhaps that is enough to subpoena Amazon?
It seems like the marketing industry will be at the front line of the battle over what age is enough to give your own consent in many aspects of life, and I personally am standing on the other side of that line.
I hear that some scandanavian regions have laws prohibiting adverters from targeting children, and I wonder how tech companies will deal with such restrictions.
- roywiggins 7y agoNo, they're talking about the recordings made when people say the wake word. People, especially children, probably don't know that this recordings are stored indefinitely: “At no point does Amazon warn unregistered users that it is creating persistent voice recordings of their Alexa interactions, let alone obtain their consent to do so.”