6 ms·

So this is basically yet another reason to not let Amazon echo/Alexa on your network.

dav43 6y ago
From a technical and privacy standpoint, is there a huge difference to the Apple U1 device network - with the limited amount of information that’s been made public? I’m coming from a position of limited knowledge on both platforms, so curious.
- duxup 6y ago
  Amazon's Ring device and how they work with police raises a lot of questions about what these devices will report, to whom, and etc: https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/10/8/20903536/amazon-ring-doorbell-civil-rights-police-partnerships https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/10/8/20903536/amazon-ring-do... Makes you wonder that even if you choose not to share with police, if your amazon devices will help someone else's device do so...
  - gruez 6y ago
    >Makes you wonder that even if you choose not to share with police, if your amazon devices will help someone else's device do so... It's safe to assume whoever's buying a ring doorbell probably has internet access as well so it's a moot point.
    - duxup 6y ago
      I'm guessing those devices will happily use the sidewalk network as a backup as well, you still might be sharing.
  - heavyset_go 6y ago
    > Makes you wonder that even if you choose not to share with police This is a false choice, because police don't need your permission to obtain video evidence on Amazon's servers if they have a warrant or court order. They don't even have to notify you if they look at it or use it as evidence, either. Most of the time law enforcement just asks providers nicely for the data they want access to, and providers comply. No warrant is even needed in that scenario.
    - duxup 6y ago
      My understanding is that police have been asking the owners for the video. It would seem that direct access to Amazon beyond finding out who has the video isn't entirely open. If they can get a warrant then yeah it's moot, but that's not always the case.
      - heavyset_go 6y ago
        This is law enforcement just asking nicely for the video. They do this before getting a warrant because it is less work. If you don't comply, they'll just go to a judge and order Amazon to release it.
        ashtonkem 6y ago
        They should be universally told to pound sand without a warrant. You don’t give the armed representatives of the state everything they ask for just because they’re being polite; make them go through the proper procedures with oversight.
        mc32 6y ago
        Probably when you know that your neighbor was burglarized or attacked, etc., you don’t want to impede the investigation. That’s worse than not taking care of your weeds or garbage in your yard in terms of getting along with neighbors.
        ashtonkem 6y ago
        “Don’t impede the investigation” is second only to “think of the children” for the erosion of our rights. Those who will abuse their powers will always have a great excuse for it, which is why we must be vigilant. And of course the neighbor can freely hand over their own data to the cops if they want to; the cops should need a warrant to get that video from Amazon directly.
      - detaro 6y ago
comex 6y ago
Yes, if you’re worried about it using (from the article) 80kbps of your bandwidth. Otherwise no.
- smokelegend 6y ago
  Think you might be mistakenly mixed up device to cloud speed vs device to device speed. I think it states 500mb cap for device to device comms. That's a decent pipe for comms.
  - comex 6y ago
    To quote the whitepaper [1] itself: The maximum bandwidth of a Sidewalk Bridge to the Sidewalk server is 80Kbps, which is about 1/40th of the bandwidth used to stream a typical high definition video. Today, total monthly data used by Sidewalk enabled- devices, per customer, is capped at 500MB, which is equivalent to streaming about 10 minutes of high definition video. My reading is that there are two caps that both apply to the same, device-to-cloud data usage: - 80 kbps instantaneously per bridge device (e.g. Echo) - 500 MB per month "per customer" (not sure if this is different from per bridge) This seems reasonably consistent. At 80kbps, 500 MB would take about 14 hours to transfer, which is much less than a month, but I think the expectation is that bridges rarely max out the 80kbps. [1] https://m.media-amazon.com/images/G/01/sidewalk/privacy_security_whitepaper_final.pdf?ascsubtag=%5B%5Dvg%5Be%5D21212967%5Bt%5Dw%5Bd%5DD https://m.media-amazon.com/images/G/01/sidewalk/privacy_secu...
hoytschermerhrn 6y ago
What’s everyone’s hot take on allowing eero routers within your network?

From a technical and privacy standpoint, is there a huge difference to the Apple U1 device network - with the limited amount of information that’s been made public? I’m coming from a position of limited knowledge on both platforms, so curious.

duxup 6y ago
Amazon's Ring device and how they work with police raises a lot of questions about what these devices will report, to whom, and etc: https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/10/8/20903536/amazon-ring-doorbell-civil-rights-police-partnerships https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/10/8/20903536/amazon-ring-do... Makes you wonder that even if you choose not to share with police, if your amazon devices will help someone else's device do so...
- gruez 6y ago
  >Makes you wonder that even if you choose not to share with police, if your amazon devices will help someone else's device do so... It's safe to assume whoever's buying a ring doorbell probably has internet access as well so it's a moot point.
  - duxup 6y ago
    I'm guessing those devices will happily use the sidewalk network as a backup as well, you still might be sharing.
- heavyset_go 6y ago
  > Makes you wonder that even if you choose not to share with police This is a false choice, because police don't need your permission to obtain video evidence on Amazon's servers if they have a warrant or court order. They don't even have to notify you if they look at it or use it as evidence, either. Most of the time law enforcement just asks providers nicely for the data they want access to, and providers comply. No warrant is even needed in that scenario.
  - duxup 6y ago
    My understanding is that police have been asking the owners for the video. It would seem that direct access to Amazon beyond finding out who has the video isn't entirely open. If they can get a warrant then yeah it's moot, but that's not always the case.
    - heavyset_go 6y ago
      This is law enforcement just asking nicely for the video. They do this before getting a warrant because it is less work. If you don't comply, they'll just go to a judge and order Amazon to release it.
      - ashtonkem 6y ago
        They should be universally told to pound sand without a warrant. You don’t give the armed representatives of the state everything they ask for just because they’re being polite; make them go through the proper procedures with oversight.
        mc32 6y ago
        Probably when you know that your neighbor was burglarized or attacked, etc., you don’t want to impede the investigation. That’s worse than not taking care of your weeds or garbage in your yard in terms of getting along with neighbors.
        ashtonkem 6y ago
        “Don’t impede the investigation” is second only to “think of the children” for the erosion of our rights. Those who will abuse their powers will always have a great excuse for it, which is why we must be vigilant. And of course the neighbor can freely hand over their own data to the cops if they want to; the cops should need a warrant to get that video from Amazon directly.
    - detaro 6y ago

comex 6y ago

Yes, if you’re worried about it using (from the article) 80kbps of your bandwidth. Otherwise no.

smokelegend 6y ago
Think you might be mistakenly mixed up device to cloud speed vs device to device speed. I think it states 500mb cap for device to device comms. That's a decent pipe for comms.
- comex 6y ago
  To quote the whitepaper [1] itself: The maximum bandwidth of a Sidewalk Bridge to the Sidewalk server is 80Kbps, which is about 1/40th of the bandwidth used to stream a typical high definition video. Today, total monthly data used by Sidewalk enabled- devices, per customer, is capped at 500MB, which is equivalent to streaming about 10 minutes of high definition video. My reading is that there are two caps that both apply to the same, device-to-cloud data usage: - 80 kbps instantaneously per bridge device (e.g. Echo) - 500 MB per month "per customer" (not sure if this is different from per bridge) This seems reasonably consistent. At 80kbps, 500 MB would take about 14 hours to transfer, which is much less than a month, but I think the expectation is that bridges rarely max out the 80kbps. [1] https://m.media-amazon.com/images/G/01/sidewalk/privacy_security_whitepaper_final.pdf?ascsubtag=%5B%5Dvg%5Be%5D21212967%5Bt%5Dw%5Bd%5DD https://m.media-amazon.com/images/G/01/sidewalk/privacy_secu...

hoytschermerhrn 6y ago

What’s everyone’s hot take on allowing eero routers within your network?