If I had told George Orwell that people would pay for the right to have an always on microphone in their house, he would have said, "That's to far fetched even for me. I'll stick with the government forced TV in the living room."
Now you can say that "hey they could be secreting recording you anyway."
Sure, but so could any internet connected device with a microphone or speakers.
This is pre-smartphone tech'.
Even if the current implementation acts as you describe, do you trust that Amazon won't change4 that behaviour in the future? How about when Amazon is handed a national security letter? Do you trust Amazon to pull a LavaBit to avoid having to change the firmware? Do you trust that Amazon actually got the security right and nobody will ever crack the device and change its behavior?
Also, claiming that other devices are also surveillance tools does not excuse this device.
It is an indisputable fact that I didn't pay for Chrome, and Google doesn't care at all about what I buy because they're not selling me anything. My value to them is derived from the data I provide, in many cases, unwillingly.
So, respectfully, I'm not "Wrong", and it's presumptuous to say so.
I can tell exactly when when the Echo is and isn't listening
But the NSA/FBI/Virgina Police can:
get my emails from google
get my emails from my work
get my emails off my phone
read my texts, pix, and other cell phone information
listen to my phone calls
hack my shittily exposed to teh internet home server
get my facebook information
tap my ISP
search my house when I'm not there
bug my house
If they can force Amazon to record me against my will, they can force apple to. Or leveno to record on my laptop. Or the Xbox Kinect on my TV. If I were plotting to join ISIS, yea probably a bad move. Otherwise it's a very minor threat.
One is an established device to actually talk to (usually) one other person, of your choice. The other one records you to send the information ~elsewhere~.
One is - in theory, let's leave the three letter stuff out - protected by quite a lot of battle-tested laws. The other one is so much harder to judge.
If so, Echo advertises that it is listening for its wake word and doesn't transmit the audio until that is used. It sends the information to a service of your choice.
If not, why would you trust that the other device's microphone doesn't activate and send your audio remotely?
What laws protect you from your phone/tablet that don't apply to the Echo?
Now, I admit that this just shows that I'm not part of the target market - just like the thread's author I assume. I don't claim that people are stupid if they buy into Echo, I just don't see why on Earth you would want to.
"why would you trust that the other device's microphone doesn't activate and send your audio remotely?"
As explained above: All voice activated features have an off button and I try to keep an eye on things/removing services/disable whatever I can. The distinction here is that one device works perfectly fine if you can convince yourself that it doesn't listen to you. The other one doesn't.
"What laws protect you from your phone/tablet that don't apply to the Echo?"
IANAL - but tapping your phone is something that the law is rather specific about and it is usually well protected. You can argue that the use of the phone's microphone outside of a call would be really not 'phone' related, but I'd hope (erm.. maybe I do have more trust than I'm aware of myself here?) that a court would find the invasion worse. Again: One is a device that is meant for private communication under your control. The other one is a microphone in your living room that is sold to stream your audio (yes, I understand the wake word concept) to random corporations.
And in the end it's a matter of limiting exposure. I _do_ think that the phone can be abused. It's just not practical to avoid one in my daily life. I take precautions and accept the risk. Without bashing Echo fans, I personally just wouldn't see the benefit and therefor cannot accept the risks.
Bottom line: Having a phone with a microphone and then buying another microphone for the living room isn't a case of 'Ah, all is lost anyway' for me. I don't think the comparison makes sense/leads anywhere.
I'm certainly not a lawyer, and I'm not sure which laws you're referring to, but I know that some laws relate to one's expectation of privacy which would certainly apply to an Echo in your bedroom just as well as your phone.
It's perfectly reasonable not to want an Echo because you don't value its features.
My point is that we may get the emotional 'creepy' factor from thinking about the Echo listening, but that rationally the risks and trust involved are not greater than those with, for example, a smartphone.
We don't seem to agree about the comparison in general.
A smart phone
- offers a button to disable voice activated features
- remains useful without voice activation
- is arguably (job?) not optional
- is no reason to dismiss feeling uneasy about 100% unrelated, additional 3rd party controlled microphones
Yes, a smart phone can probably pull off any attack on my privacy that I can come up with for the Echo. But that's not relevant for my feelings about the Echo IMHO. I can dislike Android AND iOS. I can worry about smart phones AND express similar things about the Echo.
I've never seen 'OK Google' work (because everything Google Now, Google (Games|Music|Books), G+ etc. is terminated and/or disabled and/or removed). Don't claim that this is something you cannot (try to, if we're paranoid) avoid, some mandatory, intrinsic feature of the phone.
I agree that I have no guarantee. That is not related. I don't have a massive problem with the Echo - I plain don't get the risk/reward situation and it's not for me.
The only problem I do have is people jumping from 'having a smart phone' to 'cannot seriously be worried about random other gadgets with microphones'. There's no connection. That logic is flawed.
This is one of the reasons some of us try to make a big deal about fighting "insignificant" things (the DRM module in firefox (EME) is a recent example). They aren't a huge issue today, but when left alone, the sacrifice required tends to grow.
I know of zero people who do this... and I've asked.
I know several people who actually use their TV's Netflix app, and occasionally Youtube or Pandora or something for music, but they're in the minority, and here's why.
Most people already own a TV, and have an HTPC/Xbox/Roku/Chromecast/whatever device that works for them. All that happens is the old device gets plugged into the new TV, and they're good.
Conversely, most of the people I know who use their smart TV's Netflix app have zero dedicated devices to play Netflix on their TV. The ones with Macbooks don't even own the whatever adapter to plug their laptop in using an HDMI cable I'd give them.
They also exclusively use Netflix and Youtube for online video, so the question of codecs on a downloaded mkv file never comes up.
We use it extensively. We've talked about cancelling cable but my wife watches the live sports too much.
PS - We'd also use a HBO Go app if they had one. Currently it is Amazon Fire and game console exclusive as far as I know.
Yes, but no technologically clueful or savvy person is buying or using a "smart tv". Those are "grandma devices" that get sold to the demographic still shopping at Best Buy (whatever that is).
The HN crowd thoughtfully buys computer monitors that don't connect to networks. Like an NEC commercial (airport) display.
Right ?
This is the case for most non-technical people as well.
it's stupendous.