3 ms·

> But I, for example, have my Echo configured to automatically delete voice recordings, and to disallow manual review. Let me see if I understand correctly. Y

> But I, for example, have my Echo configured to automatically delete voice recordings, and to disallow manual review. Let me see if I understand correctly. You bought a device from a third-party (Amazon in this case), which intentionally listens to audio in your home and sends that data elsewhere - literally a promoted "feature". You obviously don't trust said "third-party" with your audio, as shown by you admitting that you toggled a couple checkboxes to delete your voice recordings and disallow manual review. And you trust that these settings that you clicked on, on a settings page designed by said third-party, actually do what they say they do? I mean, your trust has some really odd boundaries. "I trust Amazon! Except not entirely... But I trust them when they give me the option to make them more trustworthy! Kinda..." OP has a point. It's literally a spy device designed to help you control music and order toilet paper. Cool, yes. But it's still what it is... People have a justifiable reason to not trust anything about these devices and go with the roll-your-own-sollution route. It's nowhere near a "dumb argument".

matthewmacleod 6y ago
Yes, you understand correctly. I am willing to give up some amount of privacy in exchange for some features, like pretty much everybody who uses some kind of connected device. I'm aware of the level of privacy and control that I want to have of the data I produce, and have set the appropriate settings. I am reasonably confident that the tools provided to control this do what they say. It's possible that Amazon is lying to me, but I have no immediate reason to think that is the case. I don't find this odd, counterintuitive, or unusual in any way. "I trust Amazon! Except not entirely... But I trust them when they give me the option to make them more trustworthy! Kinda..." More like… "I trust Amazon to do the things that they say they do, and this is the extent to which I am willing to risk my data on that". It's literally a spy device No, it's literally not. People have a justifiable reason to not trust anything about these devices People are entirely free to make their own decisions about what level of trust they are willing to place on third parties. It's nowhere near a "dumb argument". Yes, the argument that anybody who uses one of these devices has then essentially no right to control or complain about the privacy of them is obviously dumb.
- kempbellt 6y ago
  > No, it's literally not. Yes, it literally is. It's a remote-accessible listening device, controllable by someone who is not you. By any classical definition, this is a spy device... > Yes, the argument that anybody who uses one of these devices has then essentially no right to control or complain about the privacy of them is obviously dumb. Moving goal posts and bordering a straw-man argument by adding the "no right to control" part, but saying it's obviously dumb doesn't make it so and isn't productive conversation. When you buy third-party hardware running third-party software that you cannot audit yourself, there is implicit risk that the device can do nefarious things. I don't explicitly believe that Amazon is doing anything malicious, but I also don't trust their systems implicitly. One developer with the right access can potentially remote-access any device, anywhere... I understand this risk, and I believe you do as well, but I also don't go around complaining that this risk exists. This is implicit in purchasing third-party products, which is the underlying point the argument tries to make...
webmaven 6y ago
> You bought a device from a third-party (Amazon in this case), which intentionally listens to audio in your home [...] Perhaps I am missing something, but isn't Amazon the second party to this transaction?

matthewmacleod 6y ago

Yes, you understand correctly. I am willing to give up some amount of privacy in exchange for some features, like pretty much everybody who uses some kind of connected device. I'm aware of the level of privacy and control that I want to have of the data I produce, and have set the appropriate settings. I am reasonably confident that the tools provided to control this do what they say. It's possible that Amazon is lying to me, but I have no immediate reason to think that is the case. I don't find this odd, counterintuitive, or unusual in any way. "I trust Amazon! Except not entirely... But I trust them when they give me the option to make them more trustworthy! Kinda..." More like… "I trust Amazon to do the things that they say they do, and this is the extent to which I am willing to risk my data on that". It's literally a spy device No, it's literally not. People have a justifiable reason to not trust anything about these devices People are entirely free to make their own decisions about what level of trust they are willing to place on third parties. It's nowhere near a "dumb argument". Yes, the argument that anybody who uses one of these devices has then essentially no right to control or complain about the privacy of them is obviously dumb.

kempbellt 6y ago
> No, it's literally not. Yes, it literally is. It's a remote-accessible listening device, controllable by someone who is not you. By any classical definition, this is a spy device... > Yes, the argument that anybody who uses one of these devices has then essentially no right to control or complain about the privacy of them is obviously dumb. Moving goal posts and bordering a straw-man argument by adding the "no right to control" part, but saying it's obviously dumb doesn't make it so and isn't productive conversation. When you buy third-party hardware running third-party software that you cannot audit yourself, there is implicit risk that the device can do nefarious things. I don't explicitly believe that Amazon is doing anything malicious, but I also don't trust their systems implicitly. One developer with the right access can potentially remote-access any device, anywhere... I understand this risk, and I believe you do as well, but I also don't go around complaining that this risk exists. This is implicit in purchasing third-party products, which is the underlying point the argument tries to make...

webmaven 6y ago

> You bought a device from a third-party (Amazon in this case), which intentionally listens to audio in your home [...] Perhaps I am missing something, but isn't Amazon the second party to this transaction?