9 ms·

It is absolutely not unexpected. Any vestiges of privacy are being eroded. Not that recently, inside of the car was relatively safe from eavesdropping. Cell pho

It is absolutely not unexpected. Any vestiges of privacy are being eroded. Not that recently, inside of the car was relatively safe from eavesdropping. Cell phones and Alexa devices changed all that. What I do find odd, however, is the weird distribution of those devices. In my immediate social circle, its either old people who want to show they have something cool and hip and young tech enthusiasts. My sample may be completele skewed as I am not the most social person ever though. The trend may be much more pronounced. Still, it boggles my mind. Why would you voluntarily do it? My parents only invited trusted friends to ensure nothing 'questionable' made it to the authorities ( former soviet republic ). People today brazenly broadcast it. I honestly do not get it.

eternalban 6y ago
After years of listening to ex-soviets speaking nostalgically about how things were better under the Soviets, the people in the West have unconsciously fallen for the full spectrum mommy state and our overlords are merely addressing this unspoken popular demand to live in a surveillance state. This state of affair naturally reflects the West's advancement relative to other parts of the globe. So "resistance is futile but if you join early you can have a short id!". So don't lose your place in the line bothering yourself over triffles such as overwhelming asymmetries of your social existence. The future is now comrade, buck it up [bsts: /s]
daveFNbuck 6y ago
The speakers are convenient and most people aren't worried about these kinds of invasions of privacy.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
  I know your statement is accurate, but my immediate question is that of why. The information is there. If it is there, it is going to be used. Why wouldn't an average person be worried? Because it did not affect them yet? It is not part of the culture?
  - vkou 6y ago
    Because the average person trusts the police. If you disagree, look at the public reaction to BLM protests (Or public perception of the police in places like the USSR). ~50% of the population, give or take a few percentage points is outright cheerleading police brutality - because they expect it to be inflicted on people who aren't them.
    - WalterBright 6y ago
      > they expect it to be inflicted on people who aren't them. I strongly oppose excessive force by police. But I'm aware that police are people, and I am fully cognizant that they have a gun and I do whatever is necessary to assure them that I am not a threat to their safety. For example, during a traffic stop I keep my hands firmly visible and on the steering wheel. When the cop asks for my license, I say it is in my right front pocket. I do not move my hands to get it until he says ok. I do not reach for the glove box until he says ok. I do not berate officers, I don't argue with them, I don't move unless they tell me to. Yes, I have been held at gunpoint by the police. I never lunge for my cell phone in my pocket. I do not run at the cop or away from him. I do not try to touch the cop. I do not reach for the cop's weapon. Back in the 60's, when toy guns looked like real guns, my dad (WW2 and KW combat vet) gave me one. I am white and lived in a small all white town. My dad said if I ever pointed it at anyone, I was liable to be shot, and he didn't want me to be shot. Being a rather stupid boy, I pointed it at people, and he took it away. Always remember you're dealing with an armed person who does not know you're a sweet old gent with a cellphone in his pocket. Never force him to make a split second decision at night in poor visibility as to whether you're whipping out a cell phone or a gun.
      - WalterBright 6y ago
        If you're a parent, please have a conversation about this with your kids. It's not something they should learn the hard way. I learned most of this when I was young and a middle aged white colleague at work had been quite the rebel as a youth, and had many encounters with the police. He gave me quite an education.
      - 6y ago
goatcode 6y ago
"Hey wire tap, whats a good recipe for pancakes?"
WalterBright 6y ago
If I become bedridden, I will welcome a smart speaker. Until then, nope. Even if it wasn't about privacy issues, being too lazy to get up and turn a knob is terrible for one's health. I've also considered one for my shop, so if I get pinned under the car or something I can yell for 911. But I'd only turn it on if I was about to do something dangerous. I might also get one if I decide I'm at risk for "I've fallen and I can't get up". (That happened to a relative, it took her 2 days to inch across the floor to get to the phone.)
- mywittyname 6y ago
  Can't you use your phone for this? I always make an effort to put my phone on the floor next to my car when I'm working under it. Of course, either way, it's only really helpful if you're able to speak.
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    Dialing 911 on your phone will get the EMTs sent to your house if you say nothing. Having the phone in your pocket works if you can move. Having the smart speaker works if you can speak. If you can do neither, hope somebody finds you soon.
    - mywittyname 6y ago
      Oh, I meant saying, "<Okay Google>|<Hey Siri>, it's an emergency" Which should work just as well on a phone as it would with a smart speaker. But that last point is important, I always tell people before I'm about to do something dangerous: "if you hear a noise, please come and check on me."
- A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
  I accept disability of some sort as a valid reason to use it. I know I would. You already have to make hard trade-offs. But an average person? I just don't get it. And that does not even touch the corporate world. How does a company protect against disclosure of things that are otherwise a corporate secret ( especially in today's increasingly WFH world )?
Barrin92 6y ago
>Why would you voluntarily do it? I can tell you why I personally don't care. First off here in Germany I'm pretty sure it's not legally possible for authorities to request my voice commands randomly and due to GDPR I can delete all my recordings at any point, and turn off personalisation meaning they wouldn't use my individual data. Secondly I just don't say anything in my home that's super secret, I live in an apartment and I'm pretty sure the neighbours can hear me talking on my balcony, and I'm in voice chats most of the day these days due to covid which probably accidentally means more people listen in because I forget to press mute than some guy at Amazon.
- raxxorrax 6y ago
  > I'm pretty sure it's not legally possible Legality wasn't really an issue for authorities in Germany before, even if it contradicted our basic law. Of course it was for national security. It is my goto excuse too if I break any laws. There is a lot of room between paranoia and being extremely naive in context of state powers. > Secondly I just don't say anything in my home that's super secret Then why would the state need capabilities to get this not super secret data? I honestly expected more from Germany in this regard, especially with the experience of the past.
colpabar 6y ago
> old people who want to show they have something cool and hip These are always pretty amusing. I went on vacation with a girl I was dating one summer, and her parents brought their Alexa with them. Her dad thought it was so cool, and he loved to show me by saying "alexa, play <music>" three times until he got frustrated enough to just do it with his phone. Then, he'd say "hey alexa, you're a b*tch," and laugh when it responded by telling him that was rude. Why would anyone pay money for that???
- WalterBright 6y ago
  I tell people who show me their smartwatches and features "oh yeah? My watch tells me the time!"
  - olyjohn 6y ago
    Mine has a calculator.
    - 0xdeadb00f 6y ago
      oh yeah? Mine tells the time.
maerF0x0 6y ago
> I honestly do not get it. You underestimate the power of social status and conspicuous consumption[1]. I would say it's been the fundamental driver of our society for quite some time now (maybe since early 1920's?, briefly paused for WW2) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspicuous_consumption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspicuous_consumption
- A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
  I think that may be a factor, but I also remember that Mark Zuckerberg goes to some lengths to protect his privacy ( https://nypost.com/2020/07/04/mark-zuckerberg-accused-of-colonizing-hawaiian-island/ https://nypost.com/2020/07/04/mark-zuckerberg-accused-of-col... ). It would appear that true power can buy privacy, while gadgets are for the hopeful arrivals. edit: added link
javajosh 6y ago
Not only do users violate their own privacy, they make it harder for everyone else to keep their own. At least in the US, its getting harder to have a screen/computer-free home audio setup! Receivers all have embedded streaming devices; many speakers do too. Playback devices are all becoming niche, and eventually even the used market will eventually dry up, too.
s17n 6y ago
> Still, it boggles my mind. Why would you voluntarily do it? My parents only invited trusted friends to ensure nothing 'questionable' made it to the authorities ( former soviet republic ). People today brazenly broadcast it. > I honestly do not get it. Perhaps the important differences between us and the USSR are having a democratic legislative process and a fair judicial system, and the relevant extent of our surveillance apparatus is a secondary concern. (Obviously, there are problems with our legislative and judicial systems - the point is that they are better than the former soviet republics'.)
smoe 6y ago
I only know one person that actually uses the "smart" feature on one of those speakers. I wonder if in a lot of cases, for the people it is not actually about the smart stuff (that might be a plus or just out of curiosity), but convenience and aesthetics. Most people I know, don't have a traditional sound setup at home anymore and instead just use a bluetooth speaker. But the ones made for outdoor use look pretty ugly indoors, whereas the smart speakers are more designed to disappear in the home decor. Personally I think, bookshelf speakers with bluetooth functionally would be a better option for most, but from what I have seen people are often not even aware of their existence and the ones with good audio as well a modern look (in case you don't like the classical black or brown boxes) tend to be in higher price classes than the smart speakers.
suddenexample 6y ago
It's about convenience. Cooking while having full control over what's playing in the background. Following along with recipes. Asking random questions you might usually take out your phone to Google. Coming home after a long day, sinking into your couch, and able to say "play some relaxing music" to soothe your mind. Not saying that the privacy aspects aren't valid concerns or that convenience should outweigh them, but quite a few people here seem to not be able to see any upsides.
- neuralRiot 6y ago
  To each it’s own, i find all that tech for just listening music stressing, also add the maintenance aspect of it (accounts, passwords, updates, create playlists, share) for me there’s nothing like selecting a vinyl pulling it out, put in the player and just listen to it in my old Hi-Fi.
  - bobwall 6y ago
    Not to mention the better sound quality.

eternalban 6y ago

After years of listening to ex-soviets speaking nostalgically about how things were better under the Soviets, the people in the West have unconsciously fallen for the full spectrum mommy state and our overlords are merely addressing this unspoken popular demand to live in a surveillance state. This state of affair naturally reflects the West's advancement relative to other parts of the globe. So "resistance is futile but if you join early you can have a short id!". So don't lose your place in the line bothering yourself over triffles such as overwhelming asymmetries of your social existence. The future is now comrade, buck it up [bsts: /s]

daveFNbuck 6y ago

The speakers are convenient and most people aren't worried about these kinds of invasions of privacy.

A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
I know your statement is accurate, but my immediate question is that of why. The information is there. If it is there, it is going to be used. Why wouldn't an average person be worried? Because it did not affect them yet? It is not part of the culture?
- vkou 6y ago
  Because the average person trusts the police. If you disagree, look at the public reaction to BLM protests (Or public perception of the police in places like the USSR). ~50% of the population, give or take a few percentage points is outright cheerleading police brutality - because they expect it to be inflicted on people who aren't them.
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    > they expect it to be inflicted on people who aren't them. I strongly oppose excessive force by police. But I'm aware that police are people, and I am fully cognizant that they have a gun and I do whatever is necessary to assure them that I am not a threat to their safety. For example, during a traffic stop I keep my hands firmly visible and on the steering wheel. When the cop asks for my license, I say it is in my right front pocket. I do not move my hands to get it until he says ok. I do not reach for the glove box until he says ok. I do not berate officers, I don't argue with them, I don't move unless they tell me to. Yes, I have been held at gunpoint by the police. I never lunge for my cell phone in my pocket. I do not run at the cop or away from him. I do not try to touch the cop. I do not reach for the cop's weapon. Back in the 60's, when toy guns looked like real guns, my dad (WW2 and KW combat vet) gave me one. I am white and lived in a small all white town. My dad said if I ever pointed it at anyone, I was liable to be shot, and he didn't want me to be shot. Being a rather stupid boy, I pointed it at people, and he took it away. Always remember you're dealing with an armed person who does not know you're a sweet old gent with a cellphone in his pocket. Never force him to make a split second decision at night in poor visibility as to whether you're whipping out a cell phone or a gun.
    - WalterBright 6y ago
      If you're a parent, please have a conversation about this with your kids. It's not something they should learn the hard way. I learned most of this when I was young and a middle aged white colleague at work had been quite the rebel as a youth, and had many encounters with the police. He gave me quite an education.
    - 6y ago

goatcode 6y ago

"Hey wire tap, whats a good recipe for pancakes?"

WalterBright 6y ago

If I become bedridden, I will welcome a smart speaker. Until then, nope. Even if it wasn't about privacy issues, being too lazy to get up and turn a knob is terrible for one's health. I've also considered one for my shop, so if I get pinned under the car or something I can yell for 911. But I'd only turn it on if I was about to do something dangerous. I might also get one if I decide I'm at risk for "I've fallen and I can't get up". (That happened to a relative, it took her 2 days to inch across the floor to get to the phone.)

mywittyname 6y ago
Can't you use your phone for this? I always make an effort to put my phone on the floor next to my car when I'm working under it. Of course, either way, it's only really helpful if you're able to speak.
- WalterBright 6y ago
  Dialing 911 on your phone will get the EMTs sent to your house if you say nothing. Having the phone in your pocket works if you can move. Having the smart speaker works if you can speak. If you can do neither, hope somebody finds you soon.
  - mywittyname 6y ago
    Oh, I meant saying, "<Okay Google>|<Hey Siri>, it's an emergency" Which should work just as well on a phone as it would with a smart speaker. But that last point is important, I always tell people before I'm about to do something dangerous: "if you hear a noise, please come and check on me."
A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
I accept disability of some sort as a valid reason to use it. I know I would. You already have to make hard trade-offs. But an average person? I just don't get it. And that does not even touch the corporate world. How does a company protect against disclosure of things that are otherwise a corporate secret ( especially in today's increasingly WFH world )?

Barrin92 6y ago

>Why would you voluntarily do it? I can tell you why I personally don't care. First off here in Germany I'm pretty sure it's not legally possible for authorities to request my voice commands randomly and due to GDPR I can delete all my recordings at any point, and turn off personalisation meaning they wouldn't use my individual data. Secondly I just don't say anything in my home that's super secret, I live in an apartment and I'm pretty sure the neighbours can hear me talking on my balcony, and I'm in voice chats most of the day these days due to covid which probably accidentally means more people listen in because I forget to press mute than some guy at Amazon.

raxxorrax 6y ago
> I'm pretty sure it's not legally possible Legality wasn't really an issue for authorities in Germany before, even if it contradicted our basic law. Of course it was for national security. It is my goto excuse too if I break any laws. There is a lot of room between paranoia and being extremely naive in context of state powers. > Secondly I just don't say anything in my home that's super secret Then why would the state need capabilities to get this not super secret data? I honestly expected more from Germany in this regard, especially with the experience of the past.

colpabar 6y ago

> old people who want to show they have something cool and hip These are always pretty amusing. I went on vacation with a girl I was dating one summer, and her parents brought their Alexa with them. Her dad thought it was so cool, and he loved to show me by saying "alexa, play <music>" three times until he got frustrated enough to just do it with his phone. Then, he'd say "hey alexa, you're a b*tch," and laugh when it responded by telling him that was rude. Why would anyone pay money for that???

WalterBright 6y ago
I tell people who show me their smartwatches and features "oh yeah? My watch tells me the time!"
- olyjohn 6y ago
  Mine has a calculator.
  - 0xdeadb00f 6y ago
    oh yeah? Mine tells the time.

maerF0x0 6y ago

> I honestly do not get it. You underestimate the power of social status and conspicuous consumption[1]. I would say it's been the fundamental driver of our society for quite some time now (maybe since early 1920's?, briefly paused for WW2) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspicuous_consumption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspicuous_consumption

A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
I think that may be a factor, but I also remember that Mark Zuckerberg goes to some lengths to protect his privacy ( https://nypost.com/2020/07/04/mark-zuckerberg-accused-of-colonizing-hawaiian-island/ https://nypost.com/2020/07/04/mark-zuckerberg-accused-of-col... ). It would appear that true power can buy privacy, while gadgets are for the hopeful arrivals. edit: added link

javajosh 6y ago

Not only do users violate their own privacy, they make it harder for everyone else to keep their own. At least in the US, its getting harder to have a screen/computer-free home audio setup! Receivers all have embedded streaming devices; many speakers do too. Playback devices are all becoming niche, and eventually even the used market will eventually dry up, too.

s17n 6y ago

> Still, it boggles my mind. Why would you voluntarily do it? My parents only invited trusted friends to ensure nothing 'questionable' made it to the authorities ( former soviet republic ). People today brazenly broadcast it. > I honestly do not get it. Perhaps the important differences between us and the USSR are having a democratic legislative process and a fair judicial system, and the relevant extent of our surveillance apparatus is a secondary concern. (Obviously, there are problems with our legislative and judicial systems - the point is that they are better than the former soviet republics'.)

smoe 6y ago

I only know one person that actually uses the "smart" feature on one of those speakers. I wonder if in a lot of cases, for the people it is not actually about the smart stuff (that might be a plus or just out of curiosity), but convenience and aesthetics. Most people I know, don't have a traditional sound setup at home anymore and instead just use a bluetooth speaker. But the ones made for outdoor use look pretty ugly indoors, whereas the smart speakers are more designed to disappear in the home decor. Personally I think, bookshelf speakers with bluetooth functionally would be a better option for most, but from what I have seen people are often not even aware of their existence and the ones with good audio as well a modern look (in case you don't like the classical black or brown boxes) tend to be in higher price classes than the smart speakers.

suddenexample 6y ago

It's about convenience. Cooking while having full control over what's playing in the background. Following along with recipes. Asking random questions you might usually take out your phone to Google. Coming home after a long day, sinking into your couch, and able to say "play some relaxing music" to soothe your mind. Not saying that the privacy aspects aren't valid concerns or that convenience should outweigh them, but quite a few people here seem to not be able to see any upsides.

neuralRiot 6y ago
To each it’s own, i find all that tech for just listening music stressing, also add the maintenance aspect of it (accounts, passwords, updates, create playlists, share) for me there’s nothing like selecting a vinyl pulling it out, put in the player and just listen to it in my old Hi-Fi.
- bobwall 6y ago
  Not to mention the better sound quality.