Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Locked-down lawyers warned Alexa is hearing confidential calls

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 215 posts

Re: Locked-down lawyers warned Alexa is hearing confidential calls

#121

Post by Riseed »

javagram wrote: post #78
gruez wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wrong threat model. Those devices only record maliciously if they're hacked. Smart speakers/home assistants inadvertenly record during normal operation. See: all the news stories about their owners discovering their recordings on their google/amazon account.

My iPhone has activated “hey Siri” before by accident too. It just doesn’t have a website where i can see all the times it was activated by accident AFAIK.

If you turn Siri off, it doesn't activate by accident, and the iPhone still works as intended. If you turn off Alexa, the home assistant doesn't activate by accident because it doesn't work at all.

Re: Locked-down lawyers warned Alexa is hearing confidential calls

#123

Post by californical »

matz1 wrote: post #79
AlexandrB wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sure it can be used to harm me but it won't be a good business decision In the advertising industry harming you is often a great business decision. Dissatisfaction breeds demand.

How exactly is advertising industry harming me ? Especially compared to the benefit I get ?

Maybe not you specifically, but it can be hard to say. Generally though, by making people unhappy with what they have and by convincing them that they need to always be spending money on something new to find happiness.

I've found a lot of improvement in my life satisfaction (and the size of my savings account) since getting rid of ads almost entirely. I've also found that I never feel the need to be in a hurry to buy something. Buying seems to be a slower process -- whenever I want the thing and feel good about it, not just because it's hot right now or I'll miss a deal. I know there will be another.

This may not apply to everyone but it was my experience. Clearly not a big fan of the ad industry haha.

Re: Locked-down lawyers warned Alexa is hearing confidential calls

#124

Post by pas »

akerl_ wrote: post #95
pdkl95 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The court stated that this does not constitute a search From the court's opinion (the above [1]): >> ... obtaining by sense-enhancing technology any information regarding the home's interior that could not otherwise have been obtained without physical "intrusion into a constitutionally protected area," constitutes a search--at least where (as here) the technology in question is not in general public use. >> Based o…

You’re subtly altering the meaning of “in general public use”. As used in the court’s opinion, they’re drawing a distinction between whether the average person could perform this activity against another person. If the average person carried around thermal imaging tech that would have been capable of performing the same actions as the police, it would have not constituted an unlawful search. Extrapolating that to say…

Meh. These things are just a [re]interpretation away from each other. Even if we now think our model is clear and simple.

That's why face recognition bans and other privacy protection laws ("personally identifiable information") are so welcome.

Re: Locked-down lawyers warned Alexa is hearing confidential calls

#125

Post by capableweb »

nikofeyn wrote: post #103
capableweb wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only things in my pocket are my wallet and keys. My phone[1] could probably be used for remote surveillance, but without a warrant, that's a crime. Sure, a bit naive, but I digress. Even if it's illegal, it would be better if it was simply not possible in the first place. It's optionally having that functionality, rather than building solutions considering privacy in the first place. > without any type of "voic…

you have to give explicit permissions for those things. google assistant doesn't work on my phone because i never gave it permission to enable that feature.

> you have to give explicit permissions for those things. google assistant doesn't work on my phone because i never gave it permission to enable that feature.

I wouldn't trust that whatever people who sit in power doesn't have a way of overriding that.

Re: Locked-down lawyers warned Alexa is hearing confidential calls

#127

Post by dmix »

gumby wrote: post #126

My understanding is that the "microphone mute" button on Alexa devices is a hardware switch that cuts the wire to the microphone, at engineering's insistence. I'm rather short of praise for Amazon but if this is still the case, great.

Which is notably a feature of the Librem phones and laptops as well:

https://puri.sm/posts/lockdown-mode-on-the-librem-5-beyond-h...

Re: Locked-down lawyers warned Alexa is hearing confidential calls

#128

Post by gumby »

My girlfriend celebrates passover which involves discussing "Elijah". The way she pronounces that name (she's a New Yorker) triggers her Alexa device, to much hilarity.

More soberly: I had no idea what Elija stands for so I asked the device, which recited part of the wikipedia. It then said, "while I have your attention here are some notifications you missed" and began to recite the first of her messages from her work which are definitely not for public consumption. (She was able to throttle it, but still -- what if I had asked and she had not been present?)

Re: Locked-down lawyers warned Alexa is hearing confidential calls

#129

Post by anticensor »

capableweb wrote: post #125
nikofeyn wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you have to give explicit permissions for those things. google assistant doesn't work on my phone because i never gave it permission to enable that feature.

> you have to give explicit permissions for those things. google assistant doesn't work on my phone because i never gave it permission to enable that feature. I wouldn't trust that whatever people who sit in power doesn't have a way of overriding that.

Those toggles are not inert, it does loudly throw errors if I revoke any permission of Google Play Services

Re: Locked-down lawyers warned Alexa is hearing confidential calls

#130

Post by snvzz »

jrockway wrote: post #4
snvzz wrote: post #2

I find the title biased against Amazon to begin with. As if having assistants from other companies listening in was any safer. Why namedrop Amazon's own?

They mention Google in the first sentence. I think it's important to not overly freak out about these home assistants. Your phone company or video conferencing company is already listening to your confidential client calls. Your email provider is reading your email. Your internal applications run on Amazon's servers. Your upstairs neighbor has their ear to the floor. I think lawyers are used to thinking "as long as i…

>They mention Google in the first sentence.

Sure. But the title is what it is.

Post reply on HN