7 ms·

If I had told George Orwell that people would pay for the right to have an always on microphone in their house, he would have said, "That's to far fetched even

by Trisell 11y ago

If I had told George Orwell that people would pay for the right to have an always on microphone in their house, he would have said, "That's to far fetched even for me. I'll stick with the government forced TV in the living room."

ddlatham 11y ago
Is there a reason you trust this device less than the computer with a microphone that you carry around in your pocket all day?
- darklajid 11y ago
  Not the GP: One of these advertises 'always listening'. The other one doesn't. One is an established device to actually talk to (usually) one other person, of your choice. The other one records you to send the information ~elsewhere~. One is - in theory, let's leave the three letter stuff out - protected by quite a lot of battle-tested laws. The other one is so much harder to judge.
  - ddlatham 11y ago
    Do you trust the advertising/documentation/claims? If so, Echo advertises that it is listening for its wake word and doesn't transmit the audio until that is used. It sends the information to a service of your choice. If not, why would you trust that the other device's microphone doesn't activate and send your audio remotely? What laws protect you from your phone/tablet that don't apply to the Echo?
    - darklajid 11y ago
      If I'd be a trusting person, I probably wouldn't have this exchange with you. I don't have social network accounts (except for a ~mostly~ readonly Twitter thing), I don't use Google Now etc. Now, I admit that this just shows that I'm not part of the target market - just like the thread's author I assume. I don't claim that people are stupid if they buy into Echo, I just don't see why on Earth you would want to. "why would you trust that the other device's microphone doesn't activate and send your audio remotely?" As explained above: All voice activated features have an off button and I try to keep an eye on things/removing services/disable whatever I can. The distinction here is that one device works perfectly fine if you can convince yourself that it doesn't listen to you. The other one doesn't. "What laws protect you from your phone/tablet that don't apply to the Echo?" IANAL - but tapping your phone is something that the law is rather specific about and it is usually well protected. You can argue that the use of the phone's microphone outside of a call would be really not 'phone' related, but I'd hope (erm.. maybe I do have more trust than I'm aware of myself here?) that a court would find the invasion worse. Again: One is a device that is meant for private communication under your control. The other one is a microphone in your living room that is sold to stream your audio (yes, I understand the wake word concept) to random corporations. And in the end it's a matter of limiting exposure. I _do_ think that the phone can be abused. It's just not practical to avoid one in my daily life. I take precautions and accept the risk. Without bashing Echo fans, I personally just wouldn't see the benefit and therefor cannot accept the risks. Bottom line: Having a phone with a microphone and then buying another microphone for the living room isn't a case of 'Ah, all is lost anyway' for me. I don't think the comparison makes sense/leads anywhere.
      - ddlatham 11y ago
        I think the point is: why do you trust the "off" button for the features on your other devices but not trust the assurances of the Echo about what it is doing? The other devices could just as well lie about whether they are off. I'm certainly not a lawyer, and I'm not sure which laws you're referring to, but I know that some laws relate to one's expectation of privacy which would certainly apply to an Echo in your bedroom just as well as your phone. It's perfectly reasonable not to want an Echo because you don't value its features. My point is that we may get the emotional 'creepy' factor from thinking about the Echo listening, but that rationally the risks and trust involved are not greater than those with, for example, a smartphone.
        darklajid 11y ago
        We agree that smart phones could spy on you. We don't seem to agree about the comparison in general. A smart phone - offers a button to disable voice activated features - remains useful without voice activation - is arguably (job?) not optional - is no reason to dismiss feeling uneasy about 100% unrelated, additional 3rd party controlled microphones Yes, a smart phone can probably pull off any attack on my privacy that I can come up with for the Echo. But that's not relevant for my feelings about the Echo IMHO. I can dislike Android AND iOS. I can worry about smart phones AND express similar things about the Echo.
  - epmatsw 11y ago
    Both Android and iOS have always-listening modes: OK Google and Hey Siri.
    - darklajid 11y ago
      I have no clue about iOS. I've never seen 'OK Google' work (because everything Google Now, Google (Games|Music|Books), G+ etc. is terminated and/or disabled and/or removed). Don't claim that this is something you cannot (try to, if we're paranoid) avoid, some mandatory, intrinsic feature of the phone.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
      - mynameisvlad 11y ago
        And, once again, how do you know you disabling all that actually turned listening off. It could easily still be listening and just not reacting to OK Google because that component was disabled. You have absolutely no guarantee that what you did works, and that your device is not spying on you, but you somehow have a massive problem with the Echo (which also has a "turn off microphone" button) spying on you.
        darklajid 11y ago
        Read the sibling threads. I agree that I have no guarantee. That is not related. I don't have a massive problem with the Echo - I plain don't get the risk/reward situation and it's not for me. The only problem I do have is people jumping from 'having a smart phone' to 'cannot seriously be worried about random other gadgets with microphones'. There's no connection. That logic is flawed.
  - cbhl 11y ago
    A lot of Moto devices actually are "always listening" -- they have a co-processor that just listens for the "OK, Google" hotword.
  - pbreit 11y ago
    None of those points are very compelling. Fact is, any pc or cell phone could be rigged to eavesdrop and it would behoove the providers to implement and prove that it's not possible.
maxmcd 11y ago
Smart tv's have already beaten this one to the punch by a few years now.
- DanielBMarkham 11y ago
  Are TV manufacturers continuing down this path of lunacy? I thought once they got caught they'd turn the damned thing off.
  - sp332 11y ago
    They were planning to evaluate the reaction after they got caught and then determine whether to continue. Seems people forgot about the whole thing after a few months and I doubt it caused more than a blip in lost sales, so they're probably still doing it.
    - DanielBMarkham 11y ago
      So if I buy a new TV the first thing I do is turn off WiFi connectivity. I pay for a bunch of features that nobody in their right mind would use if they thought through the consequences.
      - pdkl95 11y ago
        So don't give them your money! Yes, sometimes fighting against crap like this requires sacrifice. Right now, the people that are trying to normalize surveillance are betting that most people are too addicted to TV and won't go without. This is one of the reasons some of us try to make a big deal about fighting "insignificant" things (the DRM module in firefox (EME) is a recent example). They aren't a huge issue today, but when left alone, the sacrifice required tends to grow.
- r00fus 11y ago
  Does anyone actually use the "smart" features on their smart TV? I know of zero people who do this... and I've asked.
rhino369 11y ago
It's on "always on" to the extent it's listening for a trigger word. Now you can say that "hey they could be secreting recording you anyway." Sure, but so could any internet connected device with a microphone or speakers.
- Someone1234 11y ago
  Plus non-internet connected cellphones. We know full well that the baseband within cellphones can be updated to turn a cellphone into a passive listening device. This is pre-smartphone tech'.
- pdkl95 11y ago
  As we recently saw with this feature being forced into Chromium, implementations change, and auto-updates happen. Even if the current implementation acts as you describe, do you trust that Amazon won't change4 that behaviour in the future? How about when Amazon is handed a national security letter? Do you trust Amazon to pull a LavaBit to avoid having to change the firmware? Do you trust that Amazon actually got the security right and nobody will ever crack the device and change its behavior? Also, claiming that other devices are also surveillance tools does not excuse this device.
  - spdustin 11y ago
    Yes. Yes, I do. Because I am the paying customer, not the product being sold.
    - throwawayornot 11y ago
      Wrong. You and your habits/data are the product for Amazon to sell/use. The box isn't the product.
      - spdustin 11y ago
        It is an indisputable fact that I paid for my Echo, and that my information as a result of that purchase is used by Amazon, where they may profit from me when I purchase more products. I do not believe that Amazon grossly misuses my data; what reason do I have not to trust them? My value to them is derived from my purchasing decisions. It is an indisputable fact that I didn't pay for Chrome, and Google doesn't care at all about what I buy because they're not selling me anything. My value to them is derived from the data I provide, in many cases, unwillingly. So, respectfully, I'm not "Wrong", and it's presumptuous to say so.
comex 11y ago
Dunno, paying for objects that respond when you call their name (and, like the Echo, make a lot of sound, and are mostly useless) is a pretty longstanding practice. The old type is more emotionally fulfilling, but higher maintenance.
fastball 11y ago
But the TVs in 1984 did have microphones, didn't they? Or at least cameras.
- mynameisvlad 11y ago
  I'm pretty sure the parent was commenting on the "will pay for it" vs "government-forced"
pnathan 11y ago
It's pretty depressing! It's also the case that so many photos are taking place in urban areas that if you are Google/Apple/Facebook, you can almost certainly face-recognition someone's path through all the photos people take of the areas. it's stupendous.
pbreit 11y ago
I do think Amazon should implement and explain why it could never be used to eavesdrop.
dogma1138 11y ago
You have a microphone, camera, GPS tracker and wireless transmitter on you at any given moment how much different is this really?

by Trisell 11y ago

ddlatham 11y ago

Is there a reason you trust this device less than the computer with a microphone that you carry around in your pocket all day?

darklajid 11y ago
Not the GP: One of these advertises 'always listening'. The other one doesn't. One is an established device to actually talk to (usually) one other person, of your choice. The other one records you to send the information ~elsewhere~. One is - in theory, let's leave the three letter stuff out - protected by quite a lot of battle-tested laws. The other one is so much harder to judge.
- ddlatham 11y ago
  Do you trust the advertising/documentation/claims? If so, Echo advertises that it is listening for its wake word and doesn't transmit the audio until that is used. It sends the information to a service of your choice. If not, why would you trust that the other device's microphone doesn't activate and send your audio remotely? What laws protect you from your phone/tablet that don't apply to the Echo?
  - darklajid 11y ago
    If I'd be a trusting person, I probably wouldn't have this exchange with you. I don't have social network accounts (except for a ~mostly~ readonly Twitter thing), I don't use Google Now etc. Now, I admit that this just shows that I'm not part of the target market - just like the thread's author I assume. I don't claim that people are stupid if they buy into Echo, I just don't see why on Earth you would want to. "why would you trust that the other device's microphone doesn't activate and send your audio remotely?" As explained above: All voice activated features have an off button and I try to keep an eye on things/removing services/disable whatever I can. The distinction here is that one device works perfectly fine if you can convince yourself that it doesn't listen to you. The other one doesn't. "What laws protect you from your phone/tablet that don't apply to the Echo?" IANAL - but tapping your phone is something that the law is rather specific about and it is usually well protected. You can argue that the use of the phone's microphone outside of a call would be really not 'phone' related, but I'd hope (erm.. maybe I do have more trust than I'm aware of myself here?) that a court would find the invasion worse. Again: One is a device that is meant for private communication under your control. The other one is a microphone in your living room that is sold to stream your audio (yes, I understand the wake word concept) to random corporations. And in the end it's a matter of limiting exposure. I _do_ think that the phone can be abused. It's just not practical to avoid one in my daily life. I take precautions and accept the risk. Without bashing Echo fans, I personally just wouldn't see the benefit and therefor cannot accept the risks. Bottom line: Having a phone with a microphone and then buying another microphone for the living room isn't a case of 'Ah, all is lost anyway' for me. I don't think the comparison makes sense/leads anywhere.
    - ddlatham 11y ago
      I think the point is: why do you trust the "off" button for the features on your other devices but not trust the assurances of the Echo about what it is doing? The other devices could just as well lie about whether they are off. I'm certainly not a lawyer, and I'm not sure which laws you're referring to, but I know that some laws relate to one's expectation of privacy which would certainly apply to an Echo in your bedroom just as well as your phone. It's perfectly reasonable not to want an Echo because you don't value its features. My point is that we may get the emotional 'creepy' factor from thinking about the Echo listening, but that rationally the risks and trust involved are not greater than those with, for example, a smartphone.
      - darklajid 11y ago
        We agree that smart phones could spy on you. We don't seem to agree about the comparison in general. A smart phone - offers a button to disable voice activated features - remains useful without voice activation - is arguably (job?) not optional - is no reason to dismiss feeling uneasy about 100% unrelated, additional 3rd party controlled microphones Yes, a smart phone can probably pull off any attack on my privacy that I can come up with for the Echo. But that's not relevant for my feelings about the Echo IMHO. I can dislike Android AND iOS. I can worry about smart phones AND express similar things about the Echo.
- epmatsw 11y ago
  Both Android and iOS have always-listening modes: OK Google and Hey Siri.
  - darklajid 11y ago
    I have no clue about iOS. I've never seen 'OK Google' work (because everything Google Now, Google (Games|Music|Books), G+ etc. is terminated and/or disabled and/or removed). Don't claim that this is something you cannot (try to, if we're paranoid) avoid, some mandatory, intrinsic feature of the phone.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - mynameisvlad 11y ago
      And, once again, how do you know you disabling all that actually turned listening off. It could easily still be listening and just not reacting to OK Google because that component was disabled. You have absolutely no guarantee that what you did works, and that your device is not spying on you, but you somehow have a massive problem with the Echo (which also has a "turn off microphone" button) spying on you.
      - darklajid 11y ago
        Read the sibling threads. I agree that I have no guarantee. That is not related. I don't have a massive problem with the Echo - I plain don't get the risk/reward situation and it's not for me. The only problem I do have is people jumping from 'having a smart phone' to 'cannot seriously be worried about random other gadgets with microphones'. There's no connection. That logic is flawed.
- cbhl 11y ago
  A lot of Moto devices actually are "always listening" -- they have a co-processor that just listens for the "OK, Google" hotword.
- pbreit 11y ago
  None of those points are very compelling. Fact is, any pc or cell phone could be rigged to eavesdrop and it would behoove the providers to implement and prove that it's not possible.

maxmcd 11y ago

Smart tv's have already beaten this one to the punch by a few years now.

DanielBMarkham 11y ago
Are TV manufacturers continuing down this path of lunacy? I thought once they got caught they'd turn the damned thing off.
- sp332 11y ago
  They were planning to evaluate the reaction after they got caught and then determine whether to continue. Seems people forgot about the whole thing after a few months and I doubt it caused more than a blip in lost sales, so they're probably still doing it.
  - DanielBMarkham 11y ago
    So if I buy a new TV the first thing I do is turn off WiFi connectivity. I pay for a bunch of features that nobody in their right mind would use if they thought through the consequences.
    - pdkl95 11y ago
      So don't give them your money! Yes, sometimes fighting against crap like this requires sacrifice. Right now, the people that are trying to normalize surveillance are betting that most people are too addicted to TV and won't go without. This is one of the reasons some of us try to make a big deal about fighting "insignificant" things (the DRM module in firefox (EME) is a recent example). They aren't a huge issue today, but when left alone, the sacrifice required tends to grow.
r00fus 11y ago
Does anyone actually use the "smart" features on their smart TV? I know of zero people who do this... and I've asked.

rhino369 11y ago

It's on "always on" to the extent it's listening for a trigger word. Now you can say that "hey they could be secreting recording you anyway." Sure, but so could any internet connected device with a microphone or speakers.

Someone1234 11y ago
Plus non-internet connected cellphones. We know full well that the baseband within cellphones can be updated to turn a cellphone into a passive listening device. This is pre-smartphone tech'.
pdkl95 11y ago
As we recently saw with this feature being forced into Chromium, implementations change, and auto-updates happen. Even if the current implementation acts as you describe, do you trust that Amazon won't change4 that behaviour in the future? How about when Amazon is handed a national security letter? Do you trust Amazon to pull a LavaBit to avoid having to change the firmware? Do you trust that Amazon actually got the security right and nobody will ever crack the device and change its behavior? Also, claiming that other devices are also surveillance tools does not excuse this device.
- spdustin 11y ago
  Yes. Yes, I do. Because I am the paying customer, not the product being sold.
  - throwawayornot 11y ago
    Wrong. You and your habits/data are the product for Amazon to sell/use. The box isn't the product.
    - spdustin 11y ago
      It is an indisputable fact that I paid for my Echo, and that my information as a result of that purchase is used by Amazon, where they may profit from me when I purchase more products. I do not believe that Amazon grossly misuses my data; what reason do I have not to trust them? My value to them is derived from my purchasing decisions. It is an indisputable fact that I didn't pay for Chrome, and Google doesn't care at all about what I buy because they're not selling me anything. My value to them is derived from the data I provide, in many cases, unwillingly. So, respectfully, I'm not "Wrong", and it's presumptuous to say so.

comex 11y ago

Dunno, paying for objects that respond when you call their name (and, like the Echo, make a lot of sound, and are mostly useless) is a pretty longstanding practice. The old type is more emotionally fulfilling, but higher maintenance.

fastball 11y ago

But the TVs in 1984 did have microphones, didn't they? Or at least cameras.

mynameisvlad 11y ago
I'm pretty sure the parent was commenting on the "will pay for it" vs "government-forced"

pnathan 11y ago

It's pretty depressing! It's also the case that so many photos are taking place in urban areas that if you are Google/Apple/Facebook, you can almost certainly face-recognition someone's path through all the photos people take of the areas. it's stupendous.

pbreit 11y ago

I do think Amazon should implement and explain why it could never be used to eavesdrop.

dogma1138 11y ago

You have a microphone, camera, GPS tracker and wireless transmitter on you at any given moment how much different is this really?