161–170 of 191 posts
When someone shows me their new Alexa or Google Home, I ask it to add ingredients to make thermite in to its shopping cart. Then I ask it to look up flights to Syria.
Google has already disabled this from responding on the server side.
Isn't this technically an unauthorized use of my device?
I don't necessarily agree with this argument but... it seems that by intentionally purchasing and installing in your home a device explicitly designed to respond upon hearing the phrase "OK, Google, ..." one could argue that you have authorized it to do exactly that. Perhaps you didn't intend or expect it to be co-opted by a Burger King commercial, but "unauthorized use" (in the legal sense) might be a bit of a stret…
> it seems that by intentionally [making available a server on the Internet] a device explicitly designed to respond upon [receiving the request] "[GET ]" one could argue that you have authorized it to do exactly that.
FWIW, I'm not convinced that should constitute unauthorised access. I do think the Burger King case is slightly different though - no "OK, Google" commands would be likely expected from a remote third-party, whereas third-parties are authorised to make _some_ GET requests. If anything, I'd say that makes it more likely to be considered an unauthorised use.
When someone shows me their new Alexa or Google Home, I ask it to add ingredients to make thermite in to its shopping cart. Then I ask it to look up flights to Syria.
I suppose it's nice having all of your friends in one place, even if that place is Guantanamo Bay. The beach parties must be great.
Do these people have no idea how much they are annoying their own customers? I just bought a google home (it's only just been released here), and if it either plays me adverts, or other adverts (ab)use it - I will return it to the store without hesitation. This was not sold as an ad-supported service. To take an extreme position - Google should take Burger King to court via the computer fraud and abuse act - they've…
really? People voluntarily installed a listening device in their homes. That should no way encroach on complete freedom of speech, no matter how tricky.
Burger King knowingly attempted to access the device of thousands of people and then issue voice commands, without permission.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Never reason based on meaningless aphorisms. This particular one leaves you completely vulnerable to trivial deception. Want to get away with something evil? Just pretend to be dumb, make it look like you don't know what you're doing, then people on the Internet will defend you as "merely incompetent, not evil." Besides, did you even read the article? Burger King is doing this on purpose! Says so in the first paragra…
>Asked whether he was concerned that consumers might find the spot invasive, he said, “We think about our guests’ perception and their perspective on how we interact with them, but on balance we felt this was a really positive way to connect with them.” This paints their president as clueless about positive ways to connect with customer. FWIW, I don't think the president should be evil or incompetent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, being childish/petty != being fun. I get some people have their pet causes/conspiracy theories - but is doing this at your friend's place really the place to be getting on your soapbox? If you want to make a change - go run for office, or campaign for something. Don't just be a armchair jerk. I know plenty of people like this that have their pet causes (usually government surveillance, or the industrial-corpor…
> ... but is doing this at your friend's place really the place to be getting on your soapbox? Who said it's a soapbox? Personally I'd find it hilarious watching a friend scramble to unplug their poorly-designed voice assistant—assuming they even cared, which they probably wouldn't. > ... proselytising and ranting to your friends is one thing ... What about to people on the internet, telling them they're childish, im…
I was remarking at lunch today that for so long the goal of speech recognition was 'speaker independent' recognition and now that is a handicap. Early speech input systems required an individual to read several pre-defined words, usually several times, in order to train the algorithm to understand their speech. And then the next person to use the system would have to do the same. This was considered a 'negative' beca…
Do these people have no idea how much they are annoying their own customers? I just bought a google home (it's only just been released here), and if it either plays me adverts, or other adverts (ab)use it - I will return it to the store without hesitation. This was not sold as an ad-supported service. To take an extreme position - Google should take Burger King to court via the computer fraud and abuse act - they've…
> Google should take Burger King to court via the computer fraud and abuse act It certainly is unauthorized use of a computer... not a stretch at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Found it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmINGWsyWX0
That could quite possibly be the weirdest thing I've ever watched.