Amazon Echo Look

Post by heimidal » Wed, Apr 26, 2017, 5:02 PM UTC

markkanof wrote: post #194

toddmorey wrote: post #35

The HN reaction to this device is what I expected: we're somewhere between suspicious and terrified. I'll be really fascinated to know how the wider market reacts. I was one of those who believed consumers would look at the always-on living room microphone with suspicion. But I think the lesson was pretty clear that people will trade privacy for convenience. (Likely an overabundance of trust or a lack of understandin…

I get your point, but has the "general consumer" actually demonstrated that they will trade privacy for convenience with regard to Amazon Echo (and competitors)? This stuff is still very early days. I don't know anyone that has an Echo, even among my tech literate friends. I think it is yet to be seen if this type of technology really gets universal adoption.

Post by creaghpatr » Wed, Apr 26, 2017, 5:05 PM UTC

hasbroslasher wrote: post #148

A great many thinkpieces will be written about this, but let me beat someone to the punch: Foucault's Panopticism is the obvious tie-in. Usually when we talk about the Panopticon in the modern era, we're talking about mass surveillance or the performative act of social media. When we act in a certain (digital) way, posting this link, for example, we signal our values to the community. "You shall be known by your work…

Post by awill » Wed, Apr 26, 2017, 5:08 PM UTC

yomly wrote: post #196

cthalupa wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I was one of those who believed consumers would look at the always-on living room microphone with suspicion. But I think the lesson was pretty clear that people will trade privacy for convenience. I don't think it's a matter of trading privacy for convenience, as long as you believe Amazon when they say they're not sending anything when you're not using the wake word. All evidence points towards this being the case…

Not an EE, but I wonder if it is possible to bake into the hardware an LED that activates when the camera is active. That would at least protect users from unintentional recording

Post by CaptSpify » Wed, Apr 26, 2017, 5:15 PM UTC

Johnny555 wrote: post #192

api wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, for several reasons. (1) This device is absolutely sealed and opaque. It can't (easily) be analyzed to see what it's running, doing, or sending. It's even more opaque than a phone. It has enough processing power to do local image analysis, object recognition, etc., so just looking at bulk traffic won't prove anything about whether or not it's watching. (2) The camera in this device is part of its core functional…

Well, not completely opaque -- it uses your wifi network, so you can watch its traffic to see if it's sending streaming video back home without your permission. The stream should be encrypted, so you may not know exactly what it is sending back home, but you simple traffic analysis will tell you if it's sending video. Having it being completely sealed without the ability of the end-user to install software is a secur…

Post by gbrown » Wed, Apr 26, 2017, 5:20 PM UTC

awill wrote: post #205

yomly wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not an EE, but I wonder if it is possible to bake into the hardware an LED that activates when the camera is active. That would at least protect users from unintentional recording

This is quite straight forward, and I'm surprised no one has done it (to my knowledge). You simply wire the camera in such a way that powering it also powers the LED. If done properly, you couldn't hack this with software.