4 ms·

You're trusting that the microphone is not listening, which is about on par with trusting any device that claims to only store stuff in a local buffer, except w

by Klinky 7y ago

You're trusting that the microphone is not listening, which is about on par with trusting any device that claims to only store stuff in a local buffer, except when commanded to talk to the cloud. I think to your point, there is possibly more legal protection around wiretaps than voice assistants. However, how many apps have access to the microphone? Are these apps covered by the same protections as making a phone call using POTS? Edit: I see you've linked that your phone is an old-school landline, which doesn't really help people understand the legalities around smartphones, which many feel are a requirement to daily life.

masklinn 7y ago
> You're trusting that the microphone is not listening The point of the original comment is mostly that devices like echos are expected to always be listening, and this has legal implication.
- Klinky 7y ago
  Can the police right now go to Amazon and demand to listen to anyone's Alexa in real-time? Can the NSA go to any landline provider, and demand a secret list of a person's entire call history(or they may already have this already)? The biggest profile case where Alexa audio recordings got turned over was during a murder trial after a judge's orders. I am not entirely clear that the ramifications of Kyllo v. United States are as dire as OP is stating for Alexa-like devices. How exactly do the police freely gain access to a "in general public use" Alexa-like device that is secured through something like an Amazon account and secured WPA password-protected WiFi network? Amazon would have to turn over credentials or the police would have to hack your account or WiFi somehow...
  - cosmodisk 7y ago
    Police- maybe some court decision is required. NSA- I very much doubt so.
    - rhizome 7y ago
      As we learned from the gospel of "Sneakers," you're thinking of the FBI. The NSA is not chartered for domestic surveillance. :P https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sneakers_(1992_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sneakers_(1992_film)
  - pdkl95 7y ago
    > How exactly do the police freely gain access They don't, Kyllo v United States isn't about gaining access to someone's devices. The police used their own thermal camera to search Kyllo's residence: >> In order to determine whether an amount of heat was emanating from petitioner's home consistent with the use of such lamps, at 3:20 a.m. on January 16, 1992, Agent Elliott and Dan Haas used an Agema Thermovision 210 thermal imager to scan the triplex. [...] The scan of Kyllo's home took only a few minutes and was performed from the passenger seat of Agent Elliott's vehicle across the street from the front of the house and also from the street in back of the house.
    - Klinky 7y ago
      Okay then what does this have to do with someone's private Alexa device? Are you suggesting the police will install their own Alexa device at someone's house?

by Klinky 7y ago

masklinn 7y ago

> You're trusting that the microphone is not listening The point of the original comment is mostly that devices like echos are expected to always be listening, and this has legal implication.

Klinky 7y ago
Can the police right now go to Amazon and demand to listen to anyone's Alexa in real-time? Can the NSA go to any landline provider, and demand a secret list of a person's entire call history(or they may already have this already)? The biggest profile case where Alexa audio recordings got turned over was during a murder trial after a judge's orders. I am not entirely clear that the ramifications of Kyllo v. United States are as dire as OP is stating for Alexa-like devices. How exactly do the police freely gain access to a "in general public use" Alexa-like device that is secured through something like an Amazon account and secured WPA password-protected WiFi network? Amazon would have to turn over credentials or the police would have to hack your account or WiFi somehow...
- cosmodisk 7y ago
  Police- maybe some court decision is required. NSA- I very much doubt so.
  - rhizome 7y ago
    As we learned from the gospel of "Sneakers," you're thinking of the FBI. The NSA is not chartered for domestic surveillance. :P https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sneakers_(1992_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sneakers_(1992_film)
- pdkl95 7y ago
  > How exactly do the police freely gain access They don't, Kyllo v United States isn't about gaining access to someone's devices. The police used their own thermal camera to search Kyllo's residence: >> In order to determine whether an amount of heat was emanating from petitioner's home consistent with the use of such lamps, at 3:20 a.m. on January 16, 1992, Agent Elliott and Dan Haas used an Agema Thermovision 210 thermal imager to scan the triplex. [...] The scan of Kyllo's home took only a few minutes and was performed from the passenger seat of Agent Elliott's vehicle across the street from the front of the house and also from the street in back of the house.
  - Klinky 7y ago
    Okay then what does this have to do with someone's private Alexa device? Are you suggesting the police will install their own Alexa device at someone's house?