Slashdot Mirror
German Government Tells Parents: Destroy This WiFi-Connected Doll (theverge.com)
It's illegal in Germany now to sell a talking doll named "My Friend Cayla," according to a story shared by Slashdot reader Bruce66423. And that's just the beginning. The Verge reports:
A German government watchdog has ordered parents to "destroy" an internet-connected doll for fear it could be used as a surveillance device. According to a report from BBC News, the German Federal Network Agency said the doll (which contains a microphone and speaker) was equivalent to a "concealed transmitting device" and therefore prohibited under German telecom law... In December last year, privacy advocates said the toy recorded kids' conversations without proper consent, violating the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act.
Cayla uses a microphone to listen to questions, sending this audio over Wi-Fi to a third-party company that converts it to text. This is then used to search the internet, allowing the doll to answer basic questions, like "What's a baby kangaroo called?" as well as play games. In addition to privacy concerns over data collection, security researchers found that Cayla can be easily hacked. The doll's insecure Bluetooth connection can be compromised, letting a third party record audio via the toy, or even speak to children using its voice.
The Electronic Privacy Information Center has said toys like this "subject young children to ongoing surveillance...without any meaningful data protection standards." One researcher pointed out that the doll was accessible from up to 33 feet away -- even through walls -- using a bluetooth-enabled device.
Cayla uses a microphone to listen to questions, sending this audio over Wi-Fi to a third-party company that converts it to text. This is then used to search the internet, allowing the doll to answer basic questions, like "What's a baby kangaroo called?" as well as play games. In addition to privacy concerns over data collection, security researchers found that Cayla can be easily hacked. The doll's insecure Bluetooth connection can be compromised, letting a third party record audio via the toy, or even speak to children using its voice.
The Electronic Privacy Information Center has said toys like this "subject young children to ongoing surveillance...without any meaningful data protection standards." One researcher pointed out that the doll was accessible from up to 33 feet away -- even through walls -- using a bluetooth-enabled device.
This time it's the dolls :(
Will you never learn Germany?
The real reason the doll was banned is because talking dolls are haram.
If they can do that to a mere doll, what would they do to an Echo?
Citizen, report to jail immediately.
Since some people in the home might not know it was there or what it did?
Or does the fact that Alexa or Home only respond when a keyword is spoken mean it's somehow ok under these laws?
The Alexa or Home device is still listening and transmitting the voices to a server right?
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Well that isn't creepy at all.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
I thought at first that I saw: "Destroy This WiFi-Connected Dell" and was quite ready to read anyways. What wasn't I thinking? Shocking!
May the lies we live by make us strong, healthy, happy and wise - Kurt Vonnegut.
Report on jail states: This sucks.
Why is this allowed but the doll is not?
.......at loosing the monopoly on spying :-)
I know, right? Why can't I put a concealed, Internet-connected surveillance device in my daughter's bedroom? This is a clear violation of my freedoms!
Make it work. Make my gut wrench with terror of the runaway plausible. Thank you!
Surely they could've included a database engine and a database big enough to give a plausible answer to most childhood questions.
As for database updates, that could be done by connecting it to a charging station that accessed the Internet.
Sure, it wouldn't always be up to date with current events or do other "live connection required" stuff but it wouldn't be creepy.
This spies on you just as bad as that doll but nobody is crying foul.
I'm shocked that people walk around with cell phones, tablets, laptops, game systems, and all sorts of devices these days that track them and invade their privacy. While I object I'm not convinced it's the governments job to force parents and people in general to make smart choices in life. I don't have a microphone or web cam in my computer. I avoid my smart phone like the plague using it only for local Bitcoin transactions and the very occasional phone call. My most utilized means of communications locally is a radio. Yea- it works well enough when combined with a repeater. I also have a larger antenna on my roof for due to the distance and siding materials my house is built of inhibiting my handheld radio from working as well indoors.
I want more freedom and liberty and moved to Keene, New Hampshire for the purpose of pursuing the formation of a free society here in New Hampshire. It's the only way to revolt against state aggressions. I partake in the Shire Society and Free State Project which are migrations of liberty oriented people to New Hampshire among lots of different projects here that enable us to fight back at the local and state level (which is what is resulting in the most harm- most people who wind up in prison are their at the state's doing-not the federal government- even if that can be really terrible- even worse).
The entire point of internet enabled devices is to collect your data. They are all surveillance devices.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Your statement, while true, totally fails to consider that the goal of making and selling such dolls is not to make children happy and to keep their privacy intact. These dolls are built to collect data, sell that data for profit, and deliver targeted advertisements to children.
Humans have eyes and ears to see and hear... and this doll has eyes and ears. Not everything is some weird conspiracy, it's just a cute doll for kids.
This will be great. Your daughter can practice having her own little auto da fe. She and her friends can dress up as Inquisitors, subject the dolls to the Question using Mommy's kitchen knives, then tie the doll to a little stake in the back yard. Pile some twigs around the base and light it off chanting Death to Technology. Post the video to You Tube. OK, maybe that's a bit over the top. How about just return the doll to where you bought it and demand a refund. If they give you any guff, start asking them why they're trying to spy on your little girl's bedroom. Loudly.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
would have been a more appropriate name.
I used to use radios, but now use pundit lights.
Citizens are not allowed to choose who/what may spy on them (assuming one wanted such a thing), yet the government imposes unaccountable state intrusion on people without any implicit or explicit consent (there was never a vote or referendum), or choice,and with potentially much more horrific consequences. This is the very essence of tyranny and oppression. (http://www.dw.com/en/germany-to-pour-cash-into-mass-surveillance/a-19537549)
A government that uses trojan and virus infested Windows computers and servers knows for a fact. So you better listen, people!
Why can't they just stitch "I record audio and upload it to the Internet" on a replacement shirt for the doll and call it done?
It is. The very idea that a government watchdog group presumes to 'order' people to do anything is repulsive. Nanny state authoritarianism and a servile population of betas.
Mamma.mamma.
Bite bite bite...
Is the theory that the parents don't know that this doll has these features, or that they might take the doll somewhere outside their house and use it as a question-answering surveillance device there?
Frankly, outlawing this seems like a boneheaded decision.
What about Mattel's Barbie doll?
Klaus? Not a big seller.
Have gnu, will travel.
I think is more to do with being a concealed recording and playback device, that is hack-able at a distance, and is placed in a child's bedroom, where they interact with it unsupervised.
If you cant see that providing a means by which completely unknown strangers can have unsupervised sessions with your underage child, in a place they feel safe, so have their guard down, is not unbelievably dangerous, then its you who is the bonehead.
Microwave on high. 15 seconds should be enough.
I've NEVER had a Bluetooth device maintain connection at 30 feet WITHOUT walls.
I've never had one work through a door much less drywall...
Many baby monitors are so powerful that they effectively cover the entire home and pick up all kinds of adult conversations. A scanner and a bit of extra effort and you can tune in and learn a whole lot about what goes on in some families. Read that as whose baby is it. When daddys away mommies often have numerous "friends".
Getting all irate over a journalist's use of misleading words is something you should do something about, as the German agency would be more accurately described as warning or advising, not ordering, the parents.
What is a baby kangaroo called in German?
What will the toy answer? The higher ranked answer from one of those cloying 'hot network questions' on stackexchange?
This is HILARIOUS! The German Government spies on all its citizens communications (like all governments these days) and now it pretends that it cares about privacy, ROFL ! The German Government sends police around to intimidate citizens about their tweets criticizing insane government policies and it pretends that a doll is the real threat? No, anyone who understands that 'democide' of citizens by their own governments in peacetime was the greatest unnatural killer in the last century realizes that the German Government threatening its own citizen's Free Speech is the vastly greater threat than some dumb doll. Go and look up the democides of the last century and you will see the same common thread - any time a government puts the collective society ahead of individuals and their liberty it ALWAYS results in individuals suffering. Yes, even collectivist Sweden is falling apart these days because the insane government suppressed the concerns of its citizens. This is the danger that the self-selecting sociopaths who run governments don't want you to see.
The fact that a 3rd party company was collecting all recordings from the dolls all over the country did not alarm the parents nor the government? That is so fucking strange.
How about disabling wifi entirely since it will automatically join spoofed SSIDs ? Nobody at IEEE or whatever the wifi consortium is seems bothered to fix that. I could be wrong (i am not) but I believe every iPhone for example will join the Apple store's wifi SSID .. and then you have companies like Xfinity and starbucks which many people's phones auto connect to. They can see all your non encrypted traffic and also redirect you to their own shit.
...bite my shiny plastic ass...
In Germany, covert listening devices are illegal to operate and own (exceptions for law-enforcement apply). That is why these dolls were illegal all along, because it is not readily obvious what they do. The "Bundesnetzagentur" has just pointed that out.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
This IoT device is also easy to hack as well, so maybe the note should be changed to "I record audio and upload it to the Internet. Everyone can listen in and tell me what to say."
The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
What can they actually do? Apart from inserting random extraneous commas, I mean.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I don't have a problem with a government ordering someone to respect someone else's privacy. Not that I don't find some things governments do repulsive. I do have a problem with governments illegally invading their citizen's privacy, and then imprisoning whistle blowers. Jesus bloody Christ, worry about something that actually matters.
The problems you outline have nothing to do with the electronics being hidden inside a doll, and everything to do with them having lousy security. Banning it for being hidden when the problem is insecurity is, as I said, boneheaded.
How German of them. All obeying orders, stepping towards a bright Germanic future. I wonder what would happen to those who would not comply. Schutzstaffeln? Gaszimmer? Arbeit macht frei?
Smartphones are "concealed transmitting devices", too. They have microphones, cameras, and record data even when not used as phones. Users cannot control the times when they open the microphone and record sound in order to provide "useful" features such as voice recognition. Moreover, they can definitely be used remotely by an intruder as surveillance devices.
So, why aren't Germans required to throw them away, too?
the doll (which contains a microphone and speaker) was equivalent to a "concealed transmitting device"
the doll (which contains a microphone and speaker) was equivalent to a "smart TV"
Betas? Grow up. But at least you didn't use "cuck" that is so popular with the extreme right nowadays, presumably describing themselves and their fantasies...
For us that can read German (and those that have the intelligence to use a translation service for that matter) can differentiate between orders and advise.
The article is wrong. The state didn't ORDER it, they RECCOMMENDED it.
A doll that reports to some corporate database is not ok.
Yet a doll that pretend reports to some corporate database is perfectly OK. They sell them around Thanksgiving, called "The Elf on the Shelf".
Well, that depends on how you interpret it.
The German agency could be ordering people to destroy the doll because they are 'protecting' the child from her parents.
The parents are likely in all cases completely innocent, but that doesn't preclude a Government Agency from assuming the worst and prosecuting the parents.
"Cayla wants you to meet the candyman by yourself at the bus stop. Will you help Cayla out? It's a secret so let's do it quietly!"
Frankly, outlawing this seems like a boneheaded decision.
Frankly, not understanding how "the law" works is a pretty bonehead attitude.
The law is clear. What do you expect the judge to do? Say: "well, lets make an exception, because it is just a doll!"?
It does not change the fact that the doll obviously can be used by third parties to hack into and listen to conversations in the house of the doll owner.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
If parents know about the capabilities, they aren't hidden. That's why I was asking about the theory of this thing being a covert surveillance device.
Actually, they pointed out that a device like this is illegal and parents are supposed destroy it. Not doing it would be a criminal offense but so far they don't have any plans for prosecution.
There are various entrypoints and none of them manages to display the settings window. It stalls in an empty window that can be closed but cannot switch to other setting pages. So my BT mouse is disabled and without one laptops are a small hell. If someone could do this to my BT, certainly they can do the same to a doll ! (sic). Strange coincidence, again.
How I understand it, every stranger can connect to the Doll. And as I understand it: it is a bug that the device can be activated without activating the 'recording light'. I doubt parents know that.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Then the problem isn't that the audio recording is "hidden" in the usual sense -- it's that it is insecure. How many smart TVs and other devices have similar security holes? Would they be illegal under the same law?
The point it is using Bluetooth.
So it is a "wireless communication device".
I did not check the law, as there was no real case in court. It was only a "recommendation" by the agency that gives licenses to radio operators and telecommunications etc.
Look at it from this point of view: it is illegal to place a "bug" into your rooms for private persons, regardless if relatives etc. And this doll comes Close to a bug.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Your phone uses Bluetooth. If you leave it in your pocket, does that make it a hidden surveillance device?
You're not making a coherent point, or distinguishing this doll from hundreds of other products that no one seems to think should be considered illegal under this law.
Well,
if you think I don't write coherent, then let me ask 2 question:
a) did you even read the summary?
b) did you read the article?
My phone can not be used as mobile radio to pick up your phones microphone input and transfer that microfone input as "wireless signals" that happen to be BT and then play them back as audio on my phone.
If I gift you such a doll, and you think "what a silly gift" and put it on your desk: I can spy on you. Such spying and using such devices for spying is illegal. It is exactly the same thing as if I hand you nice looking stone with a "bug" inside. That it uses Bluetooth in this particular context is irrelevant, every "wireless transfer method" would fal under the same argumentation. Was that now coherent enough?
Sorry, I only try to explain, and really grasp what you want to know. Obviously you have done neither a) nor b) above and just sidejumped into the discussion.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Yes, I read the summary and the article. I posted my original comment because neither of them make much sense.
This doll is no more capable of picking up my phone's microphone input than your phone is. Almost all phones have Bluetooth -- usually with more features, and easier programmability, than this doll has. If the doll's Bluetooth functionality is inherently a problem, so is your phone's.
Your example of putting this doll on another person's desk is frankly stupid. That is not a typical way to use a doll, and it is perfectly easy for me to come up with a case where you hide your phone near my desk (or in your pocket, as I already said) with the idea of recording things without my knowledge. In either case, the problem is the way someone uses a device that has a microphone and transmitter, not in the device itself. You have still not distinguished this doll from any of many other devices that people are happy to allow.
I will try to elaborate on why I don't think the law, as described in the article and by most of the comments here, makes much sense.
What makes the device illegal? That a microphone and either a storage device or a transmitter are inside some other object (I will call this the hardware rule), or that the software on the device allows third parties to capture audio (I will call this the software rule)?
If we use the hardware rule, what qualifies it as a "hidden" device? Is a Smart TV a hidden surveillance device? Is any "smart home" control device (pick your favorite vendor/device) a hidden surveillance device? If such a device, or a webcam, usually has an LED to show it is active, but the LED can be disabled by software or can be covered up, does that make it a hidden surveillance device? Is it illegal to cover such a device with a towel, or put it behind a decorative screen, or do similar things?
If we use the software rule, is it intentional features that make the device illegal, or can bugs do the same thing? If the rule is based on intentional features, does telling recipients about those features mean they are not hidden, and thus the device is legal? If bugs are enough to make the device illegal, what happens before we know about the bugs, or after the bugs are fixed? If security bugs are fixed, are devices without the bug-fix illegal, but legal once they get the fixed software?
In the US, anti-snooping laws almost always hinge on someone actually doing covert recording. It would be hard to have a law that outlawed a class of recording device because the First Amendment broadly protects things and methods that someone might use to gather news and facts. Outlawing devices means that lines would have to be drawn between legal and illegal devices, and I do not see a good way to draw those lines.
Sorry,
you are either the stupids nitpicker I have ever heard of or simply don't want to grasp it. ... and that was the point.
This doll is no more capable of picking up my phone's microphone input than your phone is
Facepalm, no one said this. However my phone is able to pick up what you are talking if the Doll sends it to my phone
What you say about our phones is irrelevant anyway, but I give you a hint: a phone is a device that is PURPOSELY designed to allow wire less COMMUNICATION via radio waves. It has a FCC number e.g. and gets in EVERY COUNTRY where it is sold an APROVEL, or can't be sold.
That doll is SUPPOSED to be a DOLL and NOTHING MORE. The Bluetooth chip involved might require an FCC number, too. No idea. The doll is NOT A COMMUNICATION DEVICE. Correct?
However the doll can be ABUSED as a COMMUNICATION DEVICE. That is illegal on several ends first the owners don't know it, secondly it has not the required LICENCE as a COMMUNICATION DEVICE.
To make it half way legal and your point halfway correct, the Doll needs at least a license/ist own FCC number to be legaly used in "consented communications". Every BABY PHONE has such a license. Why not the Doll???
And then finally, why you don't want to grasp the fact about the secret spying, is beyond me. It is ILLEGAL to OWN devices that have the sole PURPOSE to be used for EVESDROPPING for everyone except LAW ENFORCEMENT (under order of a judge!)
This all has nothing to do with the question if the Doll had a build in mobile phone, uses Bluetooth, uses Wifi or is an UHF radio. The simple fact that it is transmitting voice is the start of the legal problem chain.
And instead of arguing wether the german agencay that pointed out that those devices are illegal is right or wrong, I would suggest to check your own laws regarding that first.
E.g. start with: http://www.wikihow.com/Get-an-...
Wow, you need a license to operate a powerfull radio transmitter. In Germany you unfortunatly need basically for EVERY apparatus that does transmissions a license. Either the one producing the device. or the owner, or both.
I guess as soon as the software bugs are weeded out the doll simply counts as sophisticated baby phone, and all is fine. So what is your proble?
Sorry for the random capitalization of singel words, but this is IE under Win 10, it is autocorrecting bullshit and I can not see all mistakes (because the whole text is red)
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Actually, to distinguish a phone from this doll, you wrote:
This is factually wrong. This doll doesn't work like that, and a phone can capture audio and transmit it to another phone even more easily than this doll can. So the facepalm is because you said the thing that "no one said".
The FCC is a US regulatory agency. It doesn't approve wireless radios for other countries. In Germany, the BNetzA licenses such devices. Why did it approve this doll for sale in the first place? What changed between then and now? (As a side note, in the US just as in Germany, you need a license to transmit on most frequencies. Even "unlicensed" bands can only be used in connection with devices that are approved by the FCC, so that they only transmit within approved bands, at permitted power levels, in ways that allow other users to use the band, and so forth. WiFi and Bluetooth run in such an "unlicensed" band, and the FCC has very strict rules about WiFi and Bluetooth radios.)
This doll was designed to listen to children and respond with speech, so saying it was designed "to be a DOLL and NOTHING MORE" -- and in particular that it is "NOT A COMMUNICATION DEVICE" is silly. Talking is one form of communication. Radio transmission is another form. I will repeat my original question: Is this doll supposedly illegal because parents were not told that the doll could communicate over Bluetooth or WiFi? How would the doll do speech interaction at all if the parents (or child) didn't have to set it up to use a WiFi network or pair with some other device over Bluetooth?
You still have not explained why the doll is considered a hidden surveillance device, but a phone in your pocket or a smart TV is not. As far as I have seen, this doll only transmits audio to an attacker if the attacker exploits a bug in the Bluetooth interface to run malicious software on the doll. Any device with a microphone and a radio can have the same kind of behavior due to software bugs.
I did not say or meant to say that the law makes. I tried to explain what the law is.
The law divides devices that use radio waves for transmission of voice into two big groups:
A) allowed, partly with restrictions, like requiring a license e.g. for VHF radios on boats
B) not allowed
As the law right now is, the interpretation of "Die Bundesnetzargentur" is: such devices fall into category B. The mentioned agency is the agency that grants licenses for A) if the person passes the tests (in case a license is needed, as for naval short range radio certificate (SRC) ). It is somewhat equivalent to the US FCC and NCTA.
To get the parliament to change the law for such a trivial case, especially when every member will be aware about the bugs that allow the eavesdropping: is basically zero.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
You have only explained that the regulatory agency somehow finds this particular doll to be a hidden surveillance device now, but apparently did not find it to be one before.
This is like so much under civil law: An arbitrary, idiosyncratic decision that does not provide any real insight into how the next decision about a similar example should be made. Do voice-over-IP applications on your phone make your phone fall under the "not allowed" group, or are all such applications allowed with certain restrictions? Are laptops with microphones allowed to use WiFi or not? How would the restrictions be enforced for such applications?
This is factually wrong. This doll doesn't work like that,
The argument in the article is: the doll works like that. It gets activated by someone else and then sends the audio that it captures to that one else.
phone can capture audio and transmit it to another phone even more easily than this doll can. ...
No it can't. No idea what is so difficult to grasp. My phone can not use BT to activate the microphone on your phone and convince it to sent all audio it picks up to my phone via BT. For that to happen you would need to have an malicious App on your phone and BT activate, and I need to be the one knowing about it and how to exploit it. And you can't do the same trick with my phone neither, I have no such App, and BT is deactivated
Why did it approve this doll for sale in the first place? ... or whatever.
It is most likely not approved because the "voice transition" feature to unknown malicious partners was not "known" and hence the vendor/manufactor did not even ask for a license. Or, it is approved, but then again the same argument holds: it was unknown at time of approval that it easy can be convinced to transfer voice to devices that are not paired upfront
and in particular that it is "NOT A COMMUNICATION DEVICE" is silly. Talking is one form of communication.
Well, with nitpicking you don't win arguments, you only make you either look silly (very silly) or make you enemies.
My elaboration was about "communication via radio waves between two devices" That is actually pretty clear.
That the Doll talks to children and "understands" simple phrases and hence is "communicating" with the child has obviously nothing to do with radio waves, telecommunication etc.
You still have not explained why the doll is considered a hidden surveillance device, but a phone in your pocket or a smart TV is not.
And why should I explain that? I explained very clearly the laws divide devices in group A) and group B). I don't care which device is in which group.
A phone is a phone is a phone. Plain and simple. It is not looked at and some one asks: uh, can that be used as a hidden spy device? The law simply defines: the phone is ok.
Facepalm. Why are you nitpicking over something stupid like this?
Car analogy
Car with a driver with a proper license and insurance: ok.
Self driving car: not ok
Uber analogy
Driver with a commercial person transport permit: ok
Driver without such a permit: not ok
Rifles analogy
Rifle with only limited automatic fire: ok
Rifle with unlimited automatic fire: not ok
Your question is simply silly.
As far as I have seen, this doll only transmits audio to an attacker if the attacker exploits a bug in the Bluetooth interface to run malicious software on the doll. ... ... a no brainer. So why do you raise them as example?
No, he is running the standard software on the Doll
The doll is attackable, hence its license, if it ever had any, is void as the BNetzA argued in their press notice.
The same would happen with your phone or smartTV
Any device with a microphone and a radio can have the same kind of behavior due to software bugs.
Of course it can. Facepalm.
And when it happens AND GETS DISCOVERED the BNetzA will place such a device from category A) into category B)
As soon as the bugs are fixed the device can be put back into the other category.
What are you arguing about? Having laws and arbitrarily ignoring them just: because ...????????? I mean you are asking the people working at the BNetzA to neglect their duty. They can be sued for that. Why not let them do their duty?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Trying to understand what distinguishes a legal device from an illegal one is not nit-picking. It is trying to understand the law. Asking someone to explain the difference between two similar things, where one thing has a trait (legal device, even number, whatever) and the other does not, is a very common approach to learn about a topic.
The stories I have seen say the doll is illegal because it has a hidden microphone (perhaps because journalists are too lazy to write more than 200 words about this story). You are the only person I have seen claim that it is specifically because bugs can invalidate its license to transmit voice over a radio. Those are two very different reasons for declaring it illegal. For example, if it is illegal because certain bugs invalidate its radio license, then a similarly buggy device that transmits voice over a wired network connection would not be covered.
Juist because it is not clear to you what is allowed or not does not make it unclear for the people making the decisions.
This is like so much under civil law: An arbitrary, idiosyncratic decision that does not provide any real insight into how the next decision about a similar example should be made.
And how is case law or if you aim more for criminal law different?
Why you hint VOIP Apps could or should fall under the "not allowed" category is beyond me. Especially as the rules are made for devices, not for Apps.
Are laptops with microphones allowed to use WiFi or not?
As soon as you find one that can be remotely triggered to activate the microphone and convinced to sent the voice to you, I would assume yes. (And yes I know about laptops where bugs like this exist and that some experts claim every laptop/computer with camera can be easily hacked to do that.)
The problem with the Doll is probably not that it offers the ability per se, but that it is hackable and furthermore that it was probably disguised as an A) and now was found to be a B)
I mean a Doll that clearly claims to be baby phone via the mobile App, would probably have no issues at all: provided it follows simple security standards e.g.
But why do you care? I don't ;D pffft.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
No, but when there are conflicting explanations and nobody seems to be able to clearly explain why this thing is not allowed but similar things are allowed, it suggests that the criteria are unclear.
I was trying to distinguish civil law regimes from common law regimes. Under common law, higher courts make precedent: They explain general rules that lower courts are bound to follow, and how those general rules apply to particular cases. A lower court must follow precedent unless it can distinguish the relevant fact pattern in a new case from the rules laid out by precedent. This tends to make decisions of law a little more predictable.
Well, you said that the radio license is invalidated based on the behavior of the software on the device, and in particular whether bugs can allow an attacker to record audio and transmit it over the radio. VOIP apps are another example of third-party software running on a device that records audio and transmits it over the radio; I am not sure what part of a desktop with add-on microphone and add-on WiFi dongle would have voice-over-radio approval. HTML5 includes ways for web sites to request microphone input, and if a web browser had a security bug in that area, that might mean lots of computers are suddenly illegal devices.
I am trying to understand how the line is supposed to be drawn, and why the law is consistently described as a "hidden surveillance device" law rather than a voice radio licensing law or software correctness law, even though you say (plausibly) that the radio license and software correctness are critical parts of the decision -- which also suggests to me that the device looking like a doll, rather than a computer, is largely irrelevant to the BNetzA's decision.
Your phone uses Bluetooth. If you leave it in your pocket, does that make it a hidden surveillance device?
No. If you set it to record, it does make your jacket the illiegal device and you the manufacturer of an object that contains a hidden recording or transmission
device.
As long as the phone is clearly recognizable as a phone, there is no problem with the phone or for the phone manufacturer.
bickerdyke
In Germany, the BNetzA licenses such devices. Why did it approve this doll for sale in the first place? What changed between then and now?
I don't think anything has changed.
It was never licensed in Germany, but if it us sold anywhere in the EU, it can be imported into Germany without problems. And even radio equipment that was licensed and tested to behave to its standards (like Wifi, Bluetooth, LTE...) in one EU country is legal to be used everywhere in Europe. (Assuming it is correctly operated according to additional national regulations and instruction manual. Example: Operating WiFi is legal only if the channel selection is set to your current country - channel assignments vary)
But as not all laws are identical all over germany, it may be legal to sell or buy something in france that is illegal 5 miles away across the border. People from the states should know that. It's exactly like buying alcohol in a supermarket in Virginia and driving back to Maryland.
bickerdyke
In that case, then two results obtain:
Then what is the precise definition of an illegal hidden surveillance device? You apparently disagree with angel'o'sphere's conclusion that this doll is illegal because its security bugs void its license to transmit voice over a radio. Would the examples I have given elsewhere in this thread be legal or illegal?
First of all, it has nothing to do with any radio licensing or bugs or hijacking, The description of what is forbidden is pretty clear:
die ihrer Form nach einen anderen Gegenstand vortäuschen oder die mit Gegenständen des täglichen Gebrauchs verkleidet sind und auf Grund dieser Umstände oder auf Grund ihrer Funktionsweise in besonderer Weise geeignet und dazu bestimmt sind, das nicht öffentlich gesprochene Wort eines anderen von diesem unbemerkt abzuhören oder das Bild eines anderen von diesem unbemerkt aufzunehmen.
Let's start from the back: The device has to be capable to record or transmit non-public speech or image unnoticed. Check. But that would be true for any phone or mp3-player, so there are some other required features: The device has to be either a) pretending to be another class of object or b) to be disguised with an everyday object or c) suitable and meant to facilitate secret recordings or transmissions.
We have a recording device that is hidden in a doll (everyday object). It transmits speech to a server. That's basically it. Even small changes, as local speech processing would let that doll of the hook, so comparisons to your other examples are academic exercises, as these aren't identical. Then lots of detail is lost in translation, like a subtle difference for audio and "images" (still or moving)
The case would be clear for Alexa: This device is not disguised and lights up when recording or transmitting. So nothing unnoticed.
The phone in the pocket.. well.. just say if you set it to record before putting it into your pocket, you would WISH that this law was used, because secretly recording someone is a criminal offense, while this here only calls for verified destruction of offending devices.
The microphone and camera in the Smart TV is a really interesting case. If you think actions should be taken, there is an email address to report suspicious devices.
And as a fun fact: it is not enough to attach a warning label to legalize hidden recording devices. Heck knows why. But we're talking about lawyers, so it's probably not heaven knows why....
Reference: 90 TKG
bickerdyke
Thank you. I greatly appreciate your citation to the law, your translation of it, and explaining that disclosing the recording capabilities does not make it not "hidden". I think my fundamental disagreement with the law is based on that last part, but my opinions do not change German law :)
:-) While not being that old I guess that law just predates the idea that anyone in his sane mind could even have the idea to use a hidden microphone and a radio transmitter as a toy.
bickerdyke
Well,
I try to summarize, your last posts and answer.
The laws for telecommunication regulate devices that use the radio spectrum.
The laws regarding "spying" on someone are a subset or associated law as we have something like "secrecy of letters", no eavesdropping on privacy without warrant, no eavesdropping at all by non law enforcement.
No, but when there are conflicting explanations and nobody seems to be able to clearly explain why this thing is not allowed but similar things are allowed, it suggests that the criteria are unclear.
The device is used for eavesdropping, no other explanation needed. The owner can not disable it, and likely does not know about that option.
I was trying to distinguish civil law regimes from common law regimes. Under common law, higher courts make precedent: They explain general rules that lower courts are bound to follow, and how those general rules apply to particular cases. A lower court must follow precedent unless it can distinguish the relevant fact pattern in a new case from the rules laid out by precedent. This tends to make decisions of law a little more predictable.
That is only your perception. In real life you still need an expert to ask and to search for cases if you want a good opinion about a certain "thing". You never know if the next court will decide completely different.
We prefer law. As then it is simply written in the law what is "right or wrong", nearly 100% predictable.
However in both cases, your laws and mine: the courts and the law is close to irrelevant as the "ruling" is done by "guidelines and rules" or "regulations" that are not law and can be changed more or less arbitrarily. You can only after you had a hit on the head go to court and claim clarification. Exactly the same in your common law and our civil law system.
Well, you said that the radio license is invalidated based on the behavior of the software on the device, and in particular whether bugs can allow an attacker to record audio and transmit it over the radio.
If the device was unable to transfer voice via radio, it would not need a radio license.
VOIP apps are another example of third-party software running on a device that records audio and transmits it over the radio; I
No they are not. Sorry to ask again: why are you nitpicking? Why can't you grasp the simplest concepts?
VOIP is software!!! Using an established system, what ever it is (computer, Phone) to transport data that happens to be voice. It uses a device that already has "radio authority clearance", a device where everyone KNOWS it can record and transmit and replay: voice. Why does the device have a clearance? Because you can not change frequencies outside of the parameters that device gives you. In other words: a VOIP software can not use your laptops WiFi CARD to interfere with air traffic control, or radio over the local FM station. And: both sides of the end of communication AGREE on the communication.
In the Doll problem above: no one AGREED in using the Doll to be listend on. No one asked for a license to have the Doll as a communication device and "officially" put the option into the "VOIP" bluetooth software. The bluetooth software is not "VOIP" it is a HACK!
I am trying to understand how the line is supposed to be drawn, and why the law is consistently described as a "hidden surveillance device" law rather than a voice radio licensing law or software correctness law, even though you say (plausibly) that the radio license and software correctness are critical parts of the decision -- which also suggests to me that the device looking like a doll, rather than a computer, is largely irrelevant to the BNetzA's decision. ...
The fact that it looks like a doll is indeed irrelevant. It could be a IoT controlled light
Wich part(s) of the regulations where the BNetzA's is responsible to look over, the Doll violated I don't know exactly. For that you need to read the law and the regulations and g
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
But those approvals concern electrical safety - which hasn't been challenged. Whether the CC company would take the manufacturer/ importers failure to realise that data protection laws apply .... much more dubious. But you're better positioned with a 363kg gorilla leading your fight. If you paid by diect debit or whatever, you're pretty fucked. try to sell them to Americans. NSA staffers for their family's kids, perhaps. You might even cover your arse by making the "supplier's packaging" that describes it as a "covert spy doll" with more decorative interior layers of packaging for the target to see.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"