8 ms·

Yes that is the technical conclusion. But maybe the most important thing is that we have to do an actual teardown of the product in order to have some confidenc

• blackoil 6y ago
  We have options of either to trust the company or some other auditor. We can try getting some laws made to ensure honesty, but I personally don't like that route this early in the technology. What we need a completely independent organisation like EFF to audit and certify basic guarantees around privacy/safety. The companies should also prefer this route as it would give take some heat off in EU/Congress without creating bureaucratic bottlenecks. One problem I see that such an organisation can act as front for the cartel to prevent entry of new startups/players.
  • jstanley 6y ago
    > We can try getting some laws made to ensure honesty I'm pretty sure we already have laws to ensure honest advertising. The problem is that it's hard to tell the difference between malice and incompetence.
  • Daho0n 6y ago
    That would make EFF a de facto certifier, taking on the role of state and make it a (bigger) target for big business. Really, we need laws (and a system that isn't broken. More like in Scandinavia, less like the Federal Communications Commission).
  • mhb 6y ago
    Isn't this Consumer Reports?
• KraftKacke 6y ago
  To me it's unfathomable to have such a device around. I even feel uncomfortable with my neighbor having one (which I _hear him talking to). I assume it's like reading the side effects of medication and think they are other people's problems somehow. How do people trade core privacy for setting the alarm or getting the weather report by voice command. I don't respect them. Same with off the shelf IP cameras in one's bedroom. Hello? Air gapped speech recognition and FOSS, or this should never, ever become a thing.
  • randomsearch 6y ago
    How is it different from having a mobile phone on the table?
    • breakfastduck 6y ago
      If anything it's even worse with a mobile phone because that follows you after you've left the house.
    • ballenf 6y ago
      I think the issue is one of the consumer's intent: are you buying a phone with a bunch of extra capabilities or a microphone hooked to a data center around the world? And that explicit decision is what is jarring to people who value privacy. Of course they both have microphones hooked to data centers, but the Alexas/Echos are almost worthless without the microphone enabled. Many people I know have turned off listening for trigger words on their phone. That being said, I have a HomePod that I have to manually press the touch button on top for it to listen. I use it for music, an occasional family conference call and occasional for generic assistant stuff like weather. I tried a Google Home but couldn't get it configured in that mode -- listen on physical touch only (that was 3-4 years ago). And doubly couldn't get it setup without deep integration into a google account. The HomePod complains occasionally that it can't answer because it hasn't been personalized to an account, but is otherwise totally fine operating without access to my every inner thought (web/location history, etc.). I'm just as concerned about every modern car essentially being a microphone hooked to a datacenter on wheels. And new TVs. And a few refrigerators and kids toys. And light switches. At least phones (well iPhones -- haven't used the last few Android versions) are easy to setup without listening enabled. And on iPhones it's opt-in during the setup process (the Siri checkbox is default on, but you are prompted to decide with no other confusing decisions on the screen at the same time).
• dbuder 6y ago
  I'd want the source and the build chain for all the mcus on that board, you can turn many things into a microphone. I wouldn't put it past FAANG to get cute with it.
• rubyfan 6y ago
  The stakes are so high for Amazon to tell the truth here. If they were lying then there would be outrage among users, media, competition, etc. I’ve dealt with many people from Amazon in my professional life and based on their handling of customer data I believe Amazon take seriously the trust customers place with them. Amazon believe the Alexa and Echo platform will grow their retail and service relationships with customers. I don’t think they would throw that away to fool us all into believing a fake mute button - for what?
  • everdrive 6y ago
    I think both you, and the parent you're responding to are correct. Amazon is not evil, they're merely self-interested. This can lead them to do some evil things, but they are not a cartoon villain, twisting their mustache in shadows. On the other hand, it's important to verify claims, and Amazon should be very happy about this verification. It proves that their claim could be trusted. Some other conclusion could have just as easily been true.
  • darepublic 6y ago
    I'm honestly not sure what the public response would be. I'm inclined to believe the revelation that the microphone is always on would not effect bottom line too much. Though maybe if a good meme campaign materialized people would join in on the public flagellation. But I bet more on people appetite for a public lynching than sacrificing their own convenience for long term considerations
  • verbify 6y ago
    Couldn't they have implemented mute in software? There would be little outrage if they had (users don't care about the difference) but spy agencies (e.g. NSO Group) would have a backdoor. The fact that they used a hardware switch means they did it the right way. By contrast my Logitech camera has a light to show when the camera is running - but the light can be disabled via their software which makes me uncomfortable with fully trusting the light.
    • cmiles74 6y ago
• xg15 6y ago
  You're right, but how to do it otherwise? With the camera, there is at least the option of installing a mechanical shutter that can be easily seen (and understood) by users. With audio, I can't think of any similar solutions at the top of my head. Of course, technically, not even this hardwired circuit is complete proof that there is no trickery going on. If Amazon really wanted, they could simply hide a second mic at some other place inside the device. I think the only solution that would really solve this was public auditing of the whole device.
  • ehnto 6y ago
    I think we are at a point with electronics and connectivity that trust is all consumers really have. Your average joe isn't going to think too hard about how they work, and they also lack the skills to assess it themselves. It's not a problem without prior art though, and other industries have had to find solutions such as certifications, regulatory bodies etc. Think of medicine, food, vehicle saftey standards and the like. I'm not an electrical engineer but I can trust my fridge to draw what it says it will, because I know it's been through the regulatory processes to get to market and be stickered with the 4 star energy rating. I think at this point we might need a privacy and ethics regulator for technology, with a certification program.
• SilasX 6y ago
  This. It's why it's so important for laptops to permit a physical slider to block the integrated camera. It is a low-cost, low tech way to verify that the camera is not picking up usable images. The real problem is that we don't have something analogous for microphones. The best we could do is some kind of humming device that you could turn on near the sensor that would drown out any noises it might otherwise pick up (and also be unobtrusive).
  • throwawayp123 6y ago
    Well, a physical open/close switch that's in line with the microphone lead would do the same thing. But, obviously that would be assuming privacy needs are incorporated into the design. I would imagine this could be added on some older laptop models with more physical space(I'm thinking of older thinkpads), but it would be a non-trivial process of opening a case, adding a cut-out for a switch, etc.
    • SilasX 6y ago
      To be analogous, it would have to actually interfere with the thing-being-sensed. The idea is that it should work despite you having no knowledge, and being completely untrusting, of what shenanigans they might have regarding how it's wired up.
  • ansible 6y ago
    > It is a low-cost, low tech way to verify that the camera is not picking up usable images. It is definitely not low cost. In the hardware business, we count pennies. We count fractions of pennies with the costs of various components. A shutter means at least one extra mechanical part, and a more complicated housing and increased assembly time at the factory. You might look at a piece of plastic and think it is only a few pennies of plastic. But by the time you get it integrated into the product, and shipped out to consumers, it can add up to a dollar of cost. That really eats into the profits of low-margin hardware. Only if enough consumers care about hardware shutters does it make business sense to include it. If most don't, and it is not a part of their buying decision making, then you're just throwing away money. Especially if it leads to increased post-sales tech support costs: ("My camera doesn't work! Is the shutter closed? Oh it is!"). Note that this is not an argument not to have hardware shutters. They are a good thing. But they come at a significant (to the final price) cost.
• BurningFrog 6y ago
  > But maybe the most important thing is that we have to do an actual teardown of the product in order to have some confidence that Amazon is not lying on it's Echo capabilities. Isn't it also the most obvious thing? To be confident something is true, you need to confirm it. How else would the universe and human perception work?
  • HourglassFR 6y ago
    From a hackers perspective I guess it makes sense yes, and as we are on HN this is perhaps not surprising. Still, this is not how humans usually interact. I trust there is no poison in my food without analysing it, I trust people to no shot me as I walk in the street, I trust the shopkeeper to accept that I have paid if the card reader says so… As ethno points out [1], some social work is needed here for our collective trust no to be misguided. Crucially, if the social work to buy trust does no exist, it entirely falls on you. I consider myself that trusting the Echo (or other home assistance devices) is too much work for the meager benefit it provides. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25747404 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25747404
    • cmiles74 6y ago
      I disagree with the idea that people, on average, take the word of business or corporate entities on faith. In the US we have organizations that vet drugs and medication (FDA) as well as to verify the safety of foods (USDA). I believe most US states license restaurants and have a process to ensure they aren't poisoning customers. In my opinion, it's only in the case of electronic and software products where we are supposed to take so much functioning of the device on faith. Perhaps this is a bad idea and we need an organization to vet these products as well.