101–110 of 185 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://jacquesmattheij.com/if-you-have-nothing-to-hide/
Yes, I agree but for me personally I don't care even if that dystopia happened. It's still worth it for me, again, personally. I'm against mass-surveillance because then it affects everyone, whether you agree on it or not but in this case I'm actively buying this thing and expose myself to it.
That is contradictory.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, I agree but for me personally I don't care even if that dystopia happened. It's still worth it for me, again, personally. I'm against mass-surveillance because then it affects everyone, whether you agree on it or not but in this case I'm actively buying this thing and expose myself to it.
>Yes, I agree but for me personally I don't care That is contradictory.
I know that this article itself doesn’t have much content but I’m interested in what the police are actually requesting, and what they end up getting. Do they assume/suspect that Echo/Amazon continuously records and logs audio, akin to a security camera? Or do they have evidence that Echo was actually activated around the time of the murders, or afterwards by the suspect himself? I was also interested in this quote:…
It. Alexa is a a device, not a person.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, I agree but for me personally I don't care even if that dystopia happened. It's still worth it for me, again, personally. I'm against mass-surveillance because then it affects everyone, whether you agree on it or not but in this case I'm actively buying this thing and expose myself to it.
>Yes, I agree but for me personally I don't care That is contradictory.
I know that this article itself doesn’t have much content but I’m interested in what the police are actually requesting, and what they end up getting. Do they assume/suspect that Echo/Amazon continuously records and logs audio, akin to a security camera? Or do they have evidence that Echo was actually activated around the time of the murders, or afterwards by the suspect himself? I was also interested in this quote:…
>Echo is doing far more surreptitious surveillance and analysis, i.e. not just listening for the trigger word This should be trivial to prove.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why sarcasm? If I was being attacked and remembered I would absolutely do that.
And the next question, what would you say to ensure it was recorded, identifiable, sent to the right person and had the right phrasing to ensure it could be used in court?
Now, on my cell phone in the Alexa app, this text is present, regardless of anything else. Amazon also has this data. They absolutely have every command/request sent to them, even if the request was not understood/processed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What is it that users don’t realize? You answered yourself in an exemplary fashion, but I'll state it explicitly (and simply). People don't think about it. I'd like to imagine anyone who realises the implications of owning such a device would refuse to own one, although I know I'm mistaken. I don't mean that people should know better (although ofc they should), but new technology is all too easily likened to any ho…
You are mistaken. The utility of Alexa/Google Home is worth any privacy intrusion for me. I simply don't care. Convince me otherwise.
See Cory Doctorow on how privacy invasion socializes risk.
https://locusmag.com/2018/07/cory-doctorow-zucks-empire-of-o...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>And it doesn't look like that happened. What indication of that is there? My original comments were listing scenarios in which the wake word might have activated. >based on the premise that Amazon gets more than just wake-word activated data. I don't see that at all. It seems to me the police are saying "there's a chance the wake word activated, let's check, and if so, get those recordings".
> What indication of that is there? My original comments were listing scenarios in which the wake word might have activated. And what indication do you have that it has happened? > I don't see that at all. It seems to me the police are saying "there's a chance the wake word activated, let's check, and if so, get those recordings". Well, no. > "The court directs Amazon.com to produce forthwith to the court any recordi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You can monitor Echo itself over your network No, you can't. The SSL certs are pinned. You can determine the metadata and quantity of data transferred, but not the contents.
This is the point - a constant stream would be easily detected from metadata alone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All of the above. I don't think it's sensitive and I think the risk is negligible but even if it happened I still think it's worth it. Like I said in my sibling comment I'm against mass-surveillance in general because then you have no choice but here I'm actively deciding to expose myself because I find the utility worth it.
I agree. We talk about the "identity theft" problem here quite a bit. One time someone wrote about how there is no such thing as identity theft. If someone persuaded a bank to give them money by pretending it was me, the thief didn't steal anything from me. The bank gave the thief money and should try to recover it themselves. I'm not a part of that equation. I think it is stupid to establish any kind of causality ba…
Well if your diary contains perpetrator's knowledge then obviously yes? Even if not, it may count as circumstantial evidence.