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

Amazon Echo Look

amazon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 328 posts

Re: Amazon Echo Look

#291

Post by Spivak »

Antrikshy wrote: post #236
miguelrochefort wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it not a good thing?

CUZ FUTURE IS SCARY OMGeee!

This isn't the place for 4chan/reddit style low quality content like this.

Reducing someone's legitimate complaint about using a networked device designed to give fashion recommendations to profile their behaviors and categorize/log all their possessions for analytics and marketing to 'you're just afraid of the future' is ridiculous. In any other industry this would be a flagrant ethics violation.

Re: Amazon Echo Look

#292

Post by coldsmoke »

CPLX wrote: post #249
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…

> But I think the lesson was pretty clear that people will trade privacy for convenience. (Likely an overabundance of trust or a lack of understanding of all the real implications and potential for exploit.) Or perhaps more accurately, most of the people in question are members of the mainstream dominant culture and don't really have much if anything in their life that they worry about someone else finding out about.…

They're not, actually. Almost no one is average if you look at multiple features at once. I would guess that most people have something they wouldn't be too happy with everyone knowing about.

"In his research measuring thousands of airmen on a set of ten critical physical dimensions, Daniels realized that none of the pilots he measured was average on all ten dimensions. Not a single one. When he looked at just three dimensions, less than five percent were average. Daniels realized that by designing something for an average pilot, it was literally designed to fit nobody." [0]

[0] http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/on-average/

Re: Amazon Echo Look

#293

Post by twothamendment »

maxerickson wrote: post #147
vishbar wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a much more immediately practical reason to keep it in-firewall as well: if the utility company accidentally cuts a fiber line outside my house, I don't want to be suddenly unable to turn off my hallway light.

Maybe building codes could spec that home automation devices must have local controls. The companies aren't going to do it without regulation.

Wait, so now building codes are going to get involved with what I run in my house after it is built and inspected? That doesn't sound like building codes. If anything, regulation from the FCC or someone else would be more uh, fitting.

Re: Amazon Echo Look

#294

Post by DanBC »

mdpopescu wrote: post #280
DanBC wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No he didn't. How did you come to such a ridiculous conclusion?

For example, [1] [1] http://www.times-series.co.uk/news/15242729.Online_hate_crim...

According to your source he hasn't made any new laws, he's just setting up a police unit to enforce existing laws.

The existing laws do not say "anybody who posts stuff against muslims on social networks is guilty of a hate crime".

Here's an example of the kind of crime they're talking about: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/sentencing-remarks-of...

Here's the criminal prosecution guidance about online hate crime: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/communications_sent_via_s...

Re: Amazon Echo Look

#295

Post by ReedJessen »

I really like how this product has SO MANY use cases but they have picked just one to go to market with. More will come later. But for now, it just helps you pick you clothes.

This is good because it keeps you expectations low so you will be pleasantly surprised when it does something else.

They did this with the Echo as well. It was just an egg timer at first and played music.

Re: Amazon Echo Look

#296

Post by ReedJessen »

twothamendment wrote: post #158
Johnny555 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know? Amazon says their camera only records you when you ask it to, if you don't trust them, then how do you trust that your cellphone or laptop isn't recording you illicitly?

How do I know my smart phone isn't shooting a video of me when I'm dressing? It isn't pointed at me. It doesn't sit on a stand with a view of the room. Sure the microphone might catch something interesting in the bedroom, but setting up an internet connected camera with a view is very different than than one that is pointed in a safe direction. Firearms: never point it at something you don't want to destroy. Internet…

You have my upvote for distilling my ambiguous worries into a catchphrase I can repeat to my friends and family.

Re: Amazon Echo Look

#297

Post by trevyn »

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…

simple traffic analysis will tell you if it's sending video

This is not super-useful; it could locally cache "bad" video and send it later when you think it is only sending "good" video.

Re: Amazon Echo Look

#298

Post by uptown »

miguelrochefort wrote: post #231
uptown wrote: post #88

Amazon Says: "We're going to blur the backgrounds so your outfits pop" Amazon Does: "We're going to identify everything in our field of view, and filter this into the profile we've built about your possessions and interests to enhance our recommendations engine.

Why is it not a good thing?

Because there's the massive potential for some of the data collected in these photos to reveal things about people they don't publicly share with friends, family or companies. The customer thought they were just buying something to get some advice on what shirt to pair with their pants. Instead, they've unwittingly exposed themselves to Amazon. If this is Amazon's intent -- and I suspect it is -- they should just be up-front about it. If it is, I'm sure it's buried somewhere in thier TOS. Make it opt-in.

Re: Amazon Echo Look

#299

Post by ppod »

coldsmoke wrote: post #292
CPLX wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But I think the lesson was pretty clear that people will trade privacy for convenience. (Likely an overabundance of trust or a lack of understanding of all the real implications and potential for exploit.) Or perhaps more accurately, most of the people in question are members of the mainstream dominant culture and don't really have much if anything in their life that they worry about someone else finding out about.…

They're not, actually. Almost no one is average if you look at multiple features at once. I would guess that most people have something they wouldn't be too happy with everyone knowing about. "In his research measuring thousands of airmen on a set of ten critical physical dimensions, Daniels realized that none of the pilots he measured was average on all ten dimensions. Not a single one. When he looked at just three…

This is meaningless without considering the granularity of the unit of measure. Most people are of average height when measured to the nearest meter. The motivation behind the measurement determines the granularity -- for a cockpit, the seat and pedals and stick probably have to be within a couple of inches of tolerance. For a society, how racist or treacherous or murderous does a person have to be before we no longer accept them in society?

I think there are simple guidelines: first, make clear the distinction between public and private spaces. No mandatory or secret surveillance in private places. Second, informed consent and transparency: Those willing to give up privacy for convenience within private spaces must have access to (but not be forced to read) clear, understandable, honest descriptions of what their information devices are doing.

Re: Amazon Echo Look

#300

Post by qohen »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #248
blister wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you may be missing the brilliance of this product from a sales perspective. Even if this product isn't a massive success, the units they do move will have a huge potential impact to their retail clothing lines. Now, instead of suggesting clothing items in the store based on other items you've looked at, they can now suggest clothing items in their sales material based on what you already own and look good wea…

I'm not sure what's creepier - the privacy issues, or the fact that everyone seems to be assuming that machines can make better fashion choices than people.

Is it that hard to imagine that a machine can do a better job than at least some people, particularly if the machine is trained by experts and/or Big Data and/or even Mechanical Turk? There's a reason we have terms like "fashion-challenged" after all.

Also, even if its judgement were about as good as a person's, it might be helpful in being able to quickly render that judgement vs. people to-ing-and-fro-ing. A machine might be able to even provide explanations for why it thinks something looks better than others, e.g. "While this outfit fits you well, it does not look as good on you now as it did 5 months ago -- its light colors make you look very pale, possibly because it is currently winter and you are not as tanned as you were then (or perhaps you just have a cold) -- better to save it for summer months".

Post reply on HN