4 ms·

Amazon’s surveillance drones violate FCC rules

49 points by g_p 6y ago

armada651 6y ago
Title is clickbait, actual article is about the fact that installing microphones in your home, that are always recording, violate FCC rules if you don't get consent from your visitors.
- cbozeman 6y ago
  That is hilarious, they're actually going for the whole recording consent angle. Jesus Christ. VICE has always been sensationalist and desperate, but this is a whole new level.
  - colejohnson66 6y ago
    And it’s pretty much legal as long as Amazon makes it (1) clear that it’s always on[a] or (2) puts it in the contract[b]. Basically, the FCC could try, but my understanding of the law puts Amazon in the clear. (Of course, IANAL; ask a real lawyer for a better answer). EDIT: They’re also throwing in the “us vs them” trash by mentioning that Ajit Pai is a Republican. The article would do just fine without it. We already have enough division in this country. [a]: A device can’t activate by a cue (“Hey, Alexa”) if it’s not listening [b]: As bad as burying terms in the contract is, it’s still legal
    - bitwize 6y ago
      > They’re also throwing in the “us vs them” trash by mentioning that Ajit Pai is a Republican. That's just how American journalism works. You can always tell the party of a corrupt politician by how prominently and frequently the press mentions their party. Since Republicans are assumed by journalists to be in league with the actual Devil, their party affiliation will be front and center; Democrats, not so much. A Republican is caught accepting bribes. Headline: "GOP Lawmaker Implicated in Bribe Scandal". Front page. A Democrat is caught accepting bribes. Headline: "Lawmaker Implicated in Bribe Scandal". The story begins on page three, but the actual party affiliation of the corrupt official isn't mentioned until the story continuation on page six. I noticed this with newspaper stories about Massachusetts state legislators about twelve years ago.
      - colejohnson66 6y ago
        Just because it's how American journalism works doesn't mean I can't complain about it. And your reverse is also true; just look at any conservative news site.
    - a1369209993 6y ago
      > [b]: As bad as burying terms in the contract is, it’s still legal Technically not; a contract by definition (and I'm fairly sure applicable law at least pretends to support this) involves a "meeting of minds" between the parties; any document that is long or unreadable enough far any of its terms to qualify as "buried" in it, is not actually a contract. Practically, though, the courts are useless and will refuse to enforce the illegality of denial-of-service attacks on customers' ability to evaluate contracts.
- suifbwish 6y ago
  Can you explain how Smartphones with always listening virtual assistants like OK Google and Siri do not violate this also if you take them in public?
stevecalifornia 6y ago
Both of this article's authors are activists. They aren't journalists-- they are activists. Of course you will never get to the truth of anything if you don't have both sides of a topic in the same room.
- jayrot 6y ago
  > Of course you will never get to the truth of anything if you don't have both sides of a topic in the same room. Fair enough, in this case, but the both-sides-ism is responsible for some horrible stuff, from climate change denial to anti-vax. It is absolutely a fallacy that you always need "both sides of a topic" to be reported / given a platform.
  - Solocomplex 6y ago
    We must give the flat-earthers the same exact airtime, down to the minute. Because reasons.
  - m4x 6y ago
    It isn't a fallacy, and there is plenty of good discussion that can be had by questioning our proposed response to climate change, or COVID vaccinations. The mistake is calling the extremist view points "the other side". People who think the government is using vaccinations to control the population using microchips are not the other side and should not get a serious platform. People who demand evidence that a vaccine developed in a rush during a pandemic is safe probably should.
    - bryanlarsen 6y ago
      You're saying there are more than two sides. IOW, you appear to agree that it is a fallacy.
  - AndrewUnmuted 6y ago
    There's a reason this is "fair enough, in this case." The headline and article are both highly sensationalized and engage in highly dubious reasoning to make baseless accusations. The authors clearly have an axe to grind and it's strongly influencing their output in this article. So this article is the anti-vaccination side of your "both-sides-ism," concept. And according to you, that's "some horrible stuff."
ipnon 6y ago
The area with potential for innovation is drone surveillance for large rural plots. A farmer with 1000 acres and a herd of cattle may have to spend a day or two searching for a lost head. A drone could methodically surveil the plot, seeing through tree cover and working through the night with IR. I can imagine "cow tippers" of the future being tailed by a drone. The legality of this seems already settled to me. If it is legal to have fixed surveillance cameras anywhere on your private property, why wouldn't it be similarly legal for that camera to take flight, assuming it adheres to any applicable FAA regulations?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
syntheticcdo 6y ago
> Hackers have broken into home surveillance cameras like Ring to harass kids and threaten families. Hasn't it been shown that the majority of these "hacks" are just poor password habits by end-users, ie- password reuse and not changing of shared passwords following breaches?

49 points by g_p 6y ago

Title is clickbait, actual article is about the fact that installing microphones in your home, that are always recording, violate FCC rules if you don't get consent from your visitors.

cbozeman 6y ago
That is hilarious, they're actually going for the whole recording consent angle. Jesus Christ. VICE has always been sensationalist and desperate, but this is a whole new level.
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  And it’s pretty much legal as long as Amazon makes it (1) clear that it’s always on[a] or (2) puts it in the contract[b]. Basically, the FCC could try, but my understanding of the law puts Amazon in the clear. (Of course, IANAL; ask a real lawyer for a better answer). EDIT: They’re also throwing in the “us vs them” trash by mentioning that Ajit Pai is a Republican. The article would do just fine without it. We already have enough division in this country. [a]: A device can’t activate by a cue (“Hey, Alexa”) if it’s not listening [b]: As bad as burying terms in the contract is, it’s still legal
  - bitwize 6y ago
    > They’re also throwing in the “us vs them” trash by mentioning that Ajit Pai is a Republican. That's just how American journalism works. You can always tell the party of a corrupt politician by how prominently and frequently the press mentions their party. Since Republicans are assumed by journalists to be in league with the actual Devil, their party affiliation will be front and center; Democrats, not so much. A Republican is caught accepting bribes. Headline: "GOP Lawmaker Implicated in Bribe Scandal". Front page. A Democrat is caught accepting bribes. Headline: "Lawmaker Implicated in Bribe Scandal". The story begins on page three, but the actual party affiliation of the corrupt official isn't mentioned until the story continuation on page six. I noticed this with newspaper stories about Massachusetts state legislators about twelve years ago.
    - colejohnson66 6y ago
      Just because it's how American journalism works doesn't mean I can't complain about it. And your reverse is also true; just look at any conservative news site.
  - a1369209993 6y ago
    > [b]: As bad as burying terms in the contract is, it’s still legal Technically not; a contract by definition (and I'm fairly sure applicable law at least pretends to support this) involves a "meeting of minds" between the parties; any document that is long or unreadable enough far any of its terms to qualify as "buried" in it, is not actually a contract. Practically, though, the courts are useless and will refuse to enforce the illegality of denial-of-service attacks on customers' ability to evaluate contracts.
suifbwish 6y ago
Can you explain how Smartphones with always listening virtual assistants like OK Google and Siri do not violate this also if you take them in public?

stevecalifornia 6y ago

Both of this article's authors are activists. They aren't journalists-- they are activists. Of course you will never get to the truth of anything if you don't have both sides of a topic in the same room.

jayrot 6y ago
> Of course you will never get to the truth of anything if you don't have both sides of a topic in the same room. Fair enough, in this case, but the both-sides-ism is responsible for some horrible stuff, from climate change denial to anti-vax. It is absolutely a fallacy that you always need "both sides of a topic" to be reported / given a platform.
- Solocomplex 6y ago
  We must give the flat-earthers the same exact airtime, down to the minute. Because reasons.
- m4x 6y ago
  It isn't a fallacy, and there is plenty of good discussion that can be had by questioning our proposed response to climate change, or COVID vaccinations. The mistake is calling the extremist view points "the other side". People who think the government is using vaccinations to control the population using microchips are not the other side and should not get a serious platform. People who demand evidence that a vaccine developed in a rush during a pandemic is safe probably should.
  - bryanlarsen 6y ago
    You're saying there are more than two sides. IOW, you appear to agree that it is a fallacy.
- AndrewUnmuted 6y ago
  There's a reason this is "fair enough, in this case." The headline and article are both highly sensationalized and engage in highly dubious reasoning to make baseless accusations. The authors clearly have an axe to grind and it's strongly influencing their output in this article. So this article is the anti-vaccination side of your "both-sides-ism," concept. And according to you, that's "some horrible stuff."

ipnon 6y ago

The area with potential for innovation is drone surveillance for large rural plots. A farmer with 1000 acres and a herd of cattle may have to spend a day or two searching for a lost head. A drone could methodically surveil the plot, seeing through tree cover and working through the night with IR. I can imagine "cow tippers" of the future being tailed by a drone. The legality of this seems already settled to me. If it is legal to have fixed surveillance cameras anywhere on your private property, why wouldn't it be similarly legal for that camera to take flight, assuming it adheres to any applicable FAA regulations?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

syntheticcdo 6y ago

> Hackers have broken into home surveillance cameras like Ring to harass kids and threaten families. Hasn't it been shown that the majority of these "hacks" are just poor password habits by end-users, ie- password reuse and not changing of shared passwords following breaches?