5 ms·

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.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
      It is interesting. Looking back, my first 'training' was when my dad took me to the backyard, gave me an airsoft rifle and said a fair amount of things including you do not point unless you are ready to shoot ( and to be ready to accept the results ). I never got that much into it, but the lesson stuck with me.
    - mindslight 6y ago
      Obviously, one should comply with direct orders given by a cop. But this culture of hyper-submission to avoid being summarily shot has to end. The details of your proactive responses indicate fear, and the citizenry should not fear the police in a free society. If a cop cannot handle the stress of aggressing on ordinary citizens while remaining calm and purely defensive, they need to find a new job.
      - WalterBright 6y ago
        I get told my advice is excessive all the time, even by cops. But I haven't been shot or arrested. I prefer to err on the side of caution so I can go home and sleep in my own bed that evening. I'm also extremely careful with my table saw. You describe this as fear, I describe it more as risk minimization. It costs me nothing, I am not degrading myself, I simply avoid things that trigger fear in the cop. My father served in combat in WW2 and the KW. He received a couple medals for bravery. But he always did everything he could to minimize any unnecessary risk. If it was a tough mission, he'd often be asked to lead because the other pilots knew he'd bring 'em back with fewer holes in their airplanes while still pasting the target.
        mindslight 6y ago
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
    I think you may be onto something. I spoke with wife ( she turns out to be a reliable predictor of US white populace ) recently about matters surrounding BLM and there is definitely an implicit level of trust in US that was not present in the old country. But even then, it only takes one bad actor to turn it on its head? Isn't that one bad apple sufficiently scary?
- daveFNbuck 6y ago
  It's not clear to most people how the information they give to a smart speaker could be used against them. What will the government do to me if it knows that I asked for directions or ordered a pizza? I remember a few years back when Google let you view a map of your daily movements over the past few years or something. I saw this map and turned off location tracking. Most people I talked to thought this was neat and forgot about it shortly after, because no one is using this information to hurt people in visible ways.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
    Do you think people would start caring of that information affected their credit scores and health insurance? "You visited Dominos 3 times this week."
    - Aunche 6y ago
      You need to give up your data in order to enjoy modern conveniences. Do you trust your credit card not to secretly sell information to your health insurer? What about your grocery store's rewards program?
      - tremon 6y ago
        Do you trust your credit card not to secretly sell information to your health insurer? Yes. But I live in Europe, where that trust is anchored in laws that still have some teeth left.
      - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
        You do have a point. In case of credit card, when you volunteer your information ( and your permission to check information about you ) for the convenience of plastic, you technically do give up your data. But as a counter argument I would like to point out that that trade is restricted by various laws and compliance can be onerous. Now, I still did not see credible news of credit card companies selling personally identifiable data of, say, dunkin donuts users. But then, we all know of the story about store sending baby stuff to a family before parents knew their kid told them she is pregnant. I don't use rewards programs ( though now those seem to have migrated to collecting phone numbers ). But no, to answer your question, I don't trust them not to abuse this information so there are things I simply pay cash for. I think last time that issue came up for me was when one bank seemingly decided ( and backtracked ) that legal gun purchases are verbotten ( https://dailycaller.com/2013/01/16/bank-of-america-credit-debit-cards-not-blocked-from-purchasing-guns-ammunition/ https://dailycaller.com/2013/01/16/bank-of-america-credit-de... ). Though that particular cases again seemed to deal more with individual specialist decision and was not a policy decision.
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >Why wouldn't an average person be worried? Because it did not affect them yet? It is not part of the culture? Because the average person doesn't understand the pervasive nature of the surveillance capitalism model. In fact, as Shoshanna Zuboff[0] discusses in her book, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism[1], those engaged in such activities take great pains to make sure that you don't notice it. We're only talking about this here, now because it's highly visible and the state has taken an interest in using such surveillance data for its purposes. You might think it's a good thing that people are starting to notice, and on some levels it is. However, this sort of activity has been going on for so long and is so embedded in the culture that people just don't pay attention any more. But this sort of thing has a long history of happening, mostly unimpeded in the US at least. Credit reporting agencies/scoring and the data brokers that go with them have been around for decades. Advertising Research[2][3] goes back a century, with automated data analysis reaching back to the late 1960s. Statistical techniques developed then were refined in the early to mid 1970s at Grey Advertising among other agencies and moved into the advertising mainstream by the 1980s with projects like Backer Spielvogel Bates' GlobalScan[4]. However the costs of collecting primary data across the globe was prohibitive for all but the largest advertising agencies/consumer products companies. This limited both the scope and effectiveness of such research. Since the advent of "Social Media" the sorts of data collected by projects like GlobalScan at the cost of millions/annum are now freely provided by vastly more people. That drives the thirst for more data, more detail, more ability to identify target markets. And that's great. For marketers. Less so for those who are constantly bombarded by increasingly individualized ads for products, services and political messages. This wholesale collection of data about people has been so successful that it has become an important part of many organizations -- even if data collection/analysis/brokerage isn't their core business. What we see now with Amazon Echo/Ring, Google Nest, etc. is just the logical (if incredibly evil) evolution of this market trend. That law enforcement wants to tap into this enormous stream of data isn't remarkable. They've been data mining pen registers[9] and phone location data (using the Third-Party Doctrine[10] as justification) via telecom records. And Stingray[5] tracking has been a thing for quite some time. They also dig through social media too. And the hubris/liberty endangering partnership of Amazon (with Ring devices) and law enforcement[6] is quite frightening. And this isn't the first time that police have attempted to access conversations from "smart" speakers to use in criminal prosecutions[7][8]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshana_Zuboff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshana_Zuboff [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Surveillance_Capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Surveillance_Capita... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_research [3] https://thearf.org/about-arf/ https://thearf.org/about-arf/ [4] https://www.coursehero.com/file/p7tsoeb/Backer-Spielvogel-Bates-Global-Scan-BSB-Global-Scan-Encompasses-18-countries/ https://www.coursehero.com/file/p7tsoeb/Backer-Spielvogel-Ba... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stingray_phone_tracker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stingray_phone_tracker [6] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/08/28/doorbell-camera-firm-ring-has-partnered-with-police-forces-extending-surveillance-reach/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/08/28/doorbel... [7] https://www.thedailybeast.com/police-seek-amazon-echo-data-in-murder https://www.thedailybeast.com/police-seek-amazon-echo-data-i... [8] https://www.engadget.com/2019-11-02-florida-police-obtain-alexa-recordings-in-murder-case.html https://www.engadget.com/2019-11-02-florida-police-obtain-al... [9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pen_register https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pen_register [10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine Edit: Added detail about Pen Registers and the Third-Party Doctrine.

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.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
    It is interesting. Looking back, my first 'training' was when my dad took me to the backyard, gave me an airsoft rifle and said a fair amount of things including you do not point unless you are ready to shoot ( and to be ready to accept the results ). I never got that much into it, but the lesson stuck with me.
  - mindslight 6y ago
    Obviously, one should comply with direct orders given by a cop. But this culture of hyper-submission to avoid being summarily shot has to end. The details of your proactive responses indicate fear, and the citizenry should not fear the police in a free society. If a cop cannot handle the stress of aggressing on ordinary citizens while remaining calm and purely defensive, they need to find a new job.
    - WalterBright 6y ago
      I get told my advice is excessive all the time, even by cops. But I haven't been shot or arrested. I prefer to err on the side of caution so I can go home and sleep in my own bed that evening. I'm also extremely careful with my table saw. You describe this as fear, I describe it more as risk minimization. It costs me nothing, I am not degrading myself, I simply avoid things that trigger fear in the cop. My father served in combat in WW2 and the KW. He received a couple medals for bravery. But he always did everything he could to minimize any unnecessary risk. If it was a tough mission, he'd often be asked to lead because the other pilots knew he'd bring 'em back with fewer holes in their airplanes while still pasting the target.
      - mindslight 6y ago
- A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
  I think you may be onto something. I spoke with wife ( she turns out to be a reliable predictor of US white populace ) recently about matters surrounding BLM and there is definitely an implicit level of trust in US that was not present in the old country. But even then, it only takes one bad actor to turn it on its head? Isn't that one bad apple sufficiently scary?
daveFNbuck 6y ago
It's not clear to most people how the information they give to a smart speaker could be used against them. What will the government do to me if it knows that I asked for directions or ordered a pizza? I remember a few years back when Google let you view a map of your daily movements over the past few years or something. I saw this map and turned off location tracking. Most people I talked to thought this was neat and forgot about it shortly after, because no one is using this information to hurt people in visible ways.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
  Do you think people would start caring of that information affected their credit scores and health insurance? "You visited Dominos 3 times this week."
  - Aunche 6y ago
    You need to give up your data in order to enjoy modern conveniences. Do you trust your credit card not to secretly sell information to your health insurer? What about your grocery store's rewards program?
    - tremon 6y ago
      Do you trust your credit card not to secretly sell information to your health insurer? Yes. But I live in Europe, where that trust is anchored in laws that still have some teeth left.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
      You do have a point. In case of credit card, when you volunteer your information ( and your permission to check information about you ) for the convenience of plastic, you technically do give up your data. But as a counter argument I would like to point out that that trade is restricted by various laws and compliance can be onerous. Now, I still did not see credible news of credit card companies selling personally identifiable data of, say, dunkin donuts users. But then, we all know of the story about store sending baby stuff to a family before parents knew their kid told them she is pregnant. I don't use rewards programs ( though now those seem to have migrated to collecting phone numbers ). But no, to answer your question, I don't trust them not to abuse this information so there are things I simply pay cash for. I think last time that issue came up for me was when one bank seemingly decided ( and backtracked ) that legal gun purchases are verbotten ( https://dailycaller.com/2013/01/16/bank-of-america-credit-debit-cards-not-blocked-from-purchasing-guns-ammunition/ https://dailycaller.com/2013/01/16/bank-of-america-credit-de... ). Though that particular cases again seemed to deal more with individual specialist decision and was not a policy decision.
nobody9999 6y ago
>Why wouldn't an average person be worried? Because it did not affect them yet? It is not part of the culture? Because the average person doesn't understand the pervasive nature of the surveillance capitalism model. In fact, as Shoshanna Zuboff[0] discusses in her book, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism[1], those engaged in such activities take great pains to make sure that you don't notice it. We're only talking about this here, now because it's highly visible and the state has taken an interest in using such surveillance data for its purposes. You might think it's a good thing that people are starting to notice, and on some levels it is. However, this sort of activity has been going on for so long and is so embedded in the culture that people just don't pay attention any more. But this sort of thing has a long history of happening, mostly unimpeded in the US at least. Credit reporting agencies/scoring and the data brokers that go with them have been around for decades. Advertising Research[2][3] goes back a century, with automated data analysis reaching back to the late 1960s. Statistical techniques developed then were refined in the early to mid 1970s at Grey Advertising among other agencies and moved into the advertising mainstream by the 1980s with projects like Backer Spielvogel Bates' GlobalScan[4]. However the costs of collecting primary data across the globe was prohibitive for all but the largest advertising agencies/consumer products companies. This limited both the scope and effectiveness of such research. Since the advent of "Social Media" the sorts of data collected by projects like GlobalScan at the cost of millions/annum are now freely provided by vastly more people. That drives the thirst for more data, more detail, more ability to identify target markets. And that's great. For marketers. Less so for those who are constantly bombarded by increasingly individualized ads for products, services and political messages. This wholesale collection of data about people has been so successful that it has become an important part of many organizations -- even if data collection/analysis/brokerage isn't their core business. What we see now with Amazon Echo/Ring, Google Nest, etc. is just the logical (if incredibly evil) evolution of this market trend. That law enforcement wants to tap into this enormous stream of data isn't remarkable. They've been data mining pen registers[9] and phone location data (using the Third-Party Doctrine[10] as justification) via telecom records. And Stingray[5] tracking has been a thing for quite some time. They also dig through social media too. And the hubris/liberty endangering partnership of Amazon (with Ring devices) and law enforcement[6] is quite frightening. And this isn't the first time that police have attempted to access conversations from "smart" speakers to use in criminal prosecutions[7][8]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshana_Zuboff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshana_Zuboff [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Surveillance_Capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Surveillance_Capita... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_research [3] https://thearf.org/about-arf/ https://thearf.org/about-arf/ [4] https://www.coursehero.com/file/p7tsoeb/Backer-Spielvogel-Bates-Global-Scan-BSB-Global-Scan-Encompasses-18-countries/ https://www.coursehero.com/file/p7tsoeb/Backer-Spielvogel-Ba... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stingray_phone_tracker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stingray_phone_tracker [6] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/08/28/doorbell-camera-firm-ring-has-partnered-with-police-forces-extending-surveillance-reach/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/08/28/doorbel... [7] https://www.thedailybeast.com/police-seek-amazon-echo-data-in-murder https://www.thedailybeast.com/police-seek-amazon-echo-data-i... [8] https://www.engadget.com/2019-11-02-florida-police-obtain-alexa-recordings-in-murder-case.html https://www.engadget.com/2019-11-02-florida-police-obtain-al... [9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pen_register https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pen_register [10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine Edit: Added detail about Pen Registers and the Third-Party Doctrine.