3 ms·

The device hasn't caused harm, did the device itself physically put the child at risk? No, it didn't The information from the result of a query, didn't either,

The device hasn't caused harm, did the device itself physically put the child at risk? No, it didn't The information from the result of a query, didn't either, if a unsupervised child, who wasn't taught not to do things like electrocute themselves comes across the information, and does themselves harm, surely you can see that this is at least partially if not entirely on the parents. If a child is left at home, with a load, unsecured gun, and wasn't taught gun safety, would it be the guns fault, or the parents. To me the situation is similar, the device was not defective, the device did not directly present risk to the child, the device makes no assurances that the information relayed will be sanitized such that a 10 year old mind could not harm themselves by following it blindly.

shkkmo 5y ago
> the device makes no assurances that the information relayed will be sanitized The device (or rather the service behind it) removed the critical safety warnings and context from the content, directly encouraged the child to engage in dangerous activity and then added a timer to encourage the child to engage in that activity with as little consideration of the consequences as possible. As a society we are well aware that 10 year old minds have not developed the capacity to reliably consider and understand the consequences of their actions; this is why we limit their legal ability to make choices for themselves. If this is not "defective" , then Amazon would be guilty of attempted murder. Clearly this is a software defect, the only question is if the design The webpage that Alexa sourced this "challenge" from exists precisely because there are lots of children who are put at risk
- Meph504 5y ago
  You make the assumption that the device knew it was being used by a child who was unsupervised. This thread and the some of the responses in it are just getting absurd. Before making outlandish legal claims, maybe read up on the law. instead of just making hyped up claims.
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    > You make the assumption that the device knew it was being used by a child who was unsupervised. That the device didn't know it wasn't being used by a child is all you need to know. > This thread and the some of the responses in it are just getting absurd. Before making outlandish legal claims, maybe read up on the law. instead of just making hyped up claims. Since you claim to be so well versed, perhaps you have an argument to make besides calling names? The entire point I was making is that it is blindingly obvious that this is a defective behavior. Amazon immediately acknowledged that. The question that is unanswered is the degree to which these sorts of defects are inherent in the software design or the degree to which they can be fixed without a fundamental rework of the design. If this is a fundamental type of defect in the design, Amazon needs to take steps to secure their devices against unsupervised children.

shkkmo 5y ago

> the device makes no assurances that the information relayed will be sanitized The device (or rather the service behind it) removed the critical safety warnings and context from the content, directly encouraged the child to engage in dangerous activity and then added a timer to encourage the child to engage in that activity with as little consideration of the consequences as possible. As a society we are well aware that 10 year old minds have not developed the capacity to reliably consider and understand the consequences of their actions; this is why we limit their legal ability to make choices for themselves. If this is not "defective" , then Amazon would be guilty of attempted murder. Clearly this is a software defect, the only question is if the design The webpage that Alexa sourced this "challenge" from exists precisely because there are lots of children who are put at risk

Meph504 5y ago
You make the assumption that the device knew it was being used by a child who was unsupervised. This thread and the some of the responses in it are just getting absurd. Before making outlandish legal claims, maybe read up on the law. instead of just making hyped up claims.
- shkkmo 5y ago
  > You make the assumption that the device knew it was being used by a child who was unsupervised. That the device didn't know it wasn't being used by a child is all you need to know. > This thread and the some of the responses in it are just getting absurd. Before making outlandish legal claims, maybe read up on the law. instead of just making hyped up claims. Since you claim to be so well versed, perhaps you have an argument to make besides calling names? The entire point I was making is that it is blindingly obvious that this is a defective behavior. Amazon immediately acknowledged that. The question that is unanswered is the degree to which these sorts of defects are inherent in the software design or the degree to which they can be fixed without a fundamental rework of the design. If this is a fundamental type of defect in the design, Amazon needs to take steps to secure their devices against unsupervised children.