> 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,

> 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...