Slashdot Mirror
Should Burger King Be Prosecuted For Their Google Home-Triggering Ads? (washingtonpost.com)
Slashdot reader Lauren Weinstein thinks Burger King should be prosecuted for
successfully running an alternate version of its advertisement to trigger Google Home devices again Wednesday:
Someone -- or more likely a bunch of someones -- at Burger King and their advertising agency need to be arrested, tried, and spend some time in shackles and prison cells. They've likely been violating state and federal cybercrime laws with their obnoxious ad campaign... For example, the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act broadly prohibits anyone from accessing a computer without authorization... Burger King has instantly become the 'poster child' for mass, criminal abuse of these devices... It was a direct and voluntary violation of law.
again
this device will soon fall to the wayside as google does other devices. if anything google is probably behind it to try and drum up business for this google glass part deux device.
FTFY.
Maybe this time Google will address the root problem rather than sticking a band aid over the sucking chest wound that is their security practices?
I'm going to side with BK on this one. Nice troll of google. Again! With BK you can get a product that will feed you. With google you *are* the product. Not sure which product is the fattiest or greasiest of the two but there you have it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!
Give it to me straight... who does this affect - 4 or 5 people tops?
#DeleteChrome
It from the Washington Compost, so who knows whats the truth.
Lauren Weinstein seems to be the only one particularly enraged by this.
I mean, as long as we are all being dicks, why not have the bigger dick?
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
I'm not of that opinion. When a company is universally mocked on social media, I have trouble understanding how that is good for that company.
Google, calm down. Most of the world isn't aware you actually think, let alone have a semblance of emotion which is clearly coming out in funny ways with your reactions here to Burger King's actions.
Levity. Taking a joke. Lighten up, Google, and smile. While you may be the butt of the joke, it's not aimed at you....
That fbi woman was using the phrase "Alexa" on tv, for the purpose of triggering an Amazon echo.
IANAM (I am not a marketeer), but huge exposure like this makes increases brand awareness. In a few months, when they have a choice of Burger King vs "Burger Loco", they will likely go to the one they recognize, even if they did do that jerky thing, what was it again?
Or why not remove Burger King from their search engine? A milder version would be pushing up a warning page when searching for Burger King or any of their trademarks...
Apparently Burger King made a slight change to the article and resubmitted it.
I don't really care as long as I keep getting those sheets of coupons.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
> And Slashdot reader Lauren Weinstein thinks Burger King should be prosecuted.
Knock it off, Lauren. If we sue for dumb shit like this then the courts will be too tied up to handle lawsuits from helicopter parents whose little angels don't get to start on the JV football team.
... it'd be your TV thats accessing the device, so if you didnt give your TV permission to access your Google Home, you should sue your TV manufacturer. Who will then make the argument that they merely forwarded the content sent to them your chosen content provider, If you sue your content provider, theyll argue that you tuned to the channel, thereby giving implicit permission.
The people getting bent out of shape are blaming the wrong people. Ultimately, two entities are at fault -
#1 - Google. For building a device with no inherent security that anyone can activate (wouldn't be surprised if there was some small print in a EULA somewhere that mentions this)
#2 - The person who deploys it without thinking about the consequences of installing a voice activated always listening device with no security restraints in their home.
I'm betting that there will be an update to Google Home that allows (and strongly encourages) a change in activation phrase
Surely you realize by now that these google devices are listening in 100% of the time if this is a problem at all.
This Slashdot reader thinks she should shut the fuck up and that her comments don't have any reason to appear in a summary.
Except they haven't been mocked. Most people laugh and ask why would someone want a device that listens to everything in their home to begin with.
Or send BK's corporate mail servers a few thousand emails from each Google Home device requesting they stop each time they hear the ad? I hope they'd take the hint if their advertisements start triggering corporate network problems.
Sigger than your average
"Order me a widget..."
You just know someone is going to try it. Put out a tv or radio ad, that tells every Echo out there to order a particular item, or at the very least, add it to a shopping cart.
The people who designed these systems knew full well in an environment with widespread adoption there would be a wide range of incentives to intentionally exploit this using unauthenticated local and broadcast communications. This is only the beginning.
I hope all those upset about burger king "hacking" their devices continue to enjoy their Surveillance Marketed As Revolutionary Technology devices.
Clearly the devices need the ability to set the alerting phrases rather than use a standard one. If the devices could do emergency calls I would consider mayday for emergency calls, and some other unlikley to be used word for other uses (perhaps even a word in a different language). The current options including the one copied from startrek (computer) are insufficient although Rechner or other language original name for computer would also work )
Change the trigger so it sends the users to goatse and tell everyone it's a sub-audio channel exploit from BK.
You mad bro?
Burger King doesn't give a shit because they moved their headquarters to Canada. What Canadian court is going to rule against a company that does something to annoy people in the USA?
This is probably just the tip of the iceberg while Canada and its new minion, Burger King, begins a troll the USA campaign. Look forward to worse.
Even if it is for a short time, I wonder if BK will get the hint if Google suddenly blacklists BK, or perhaps redirects all searches to a page explaining how BK is being a douche.
Lmao, just stop. "And Slashdot reader Lauren Weinstein thinks Burger King should be prosecuted. "Someone -- or more likely a bunch of someones -- at Burger King and their advertising agency need to be arrested, tried, and spend some time in shackles and prison cells"
The ones doing this, are people.
And they will keep doing this, because it makes them money and there are no consequences whatsoever.
Only when there are extremely severe consequences will there be people who think twice about all this.
Dara Schopp, BK regards the ad as a success, as it has increased the brand's 'social conversation' on Twitter by some 300%," though he's not a fan of "reaching through your TV speakers and directly messing with your digital devices. You may wish to consider alternate vendors for your burger needs."
All publicity is good publicity. Thus the thugs at United Airlines have just completed the most sucessful and money making PR campaign ever.
Next on Burger Kings agenda - Murdering a reandom customer. Strangle that fucker in th efront of the store. That oughta get their Twitter feed, the undeniable measure of success, to go up by a million percent or so.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
"universally mocked on social media, I have trouble understanding how that is good"
Where have you been? Have you been on vacation on the Mars during 2016?
It's not "hacking", they made use of a device's functionality to give a user a "better" experience. Even if it was just an Ad.
Otherwise any random person on the street shouting "OK GOOGLE *insert random bullshit here*" would be arrested for "hacking" when it really isn't.
If you complain about this, then maybe you should complain that google and others didn't implement any sort of voice recognition to prevent third parties(anyone but you) from activating it instead. Or blame yourself for not disabling that massive privacy blackhole.
the king will not last 1 day in gen pop!
Lauren Weinsteins are short-legged, muscular quadrupedal marsupials that are native to Australia. They are about 1 m (40 in) in length with small, stubby tails. There are three extant species and they are all members of the family Vombatidae. They are adaptable and habitat tolerant, and are found in forested, mountainous, and heathland areas of south-eastern Australia, including Tasmania, as well as an isolated patch of about 300 ha (740 acres) in Epping Forest National Park[2] in central Queensland.
Interesting, I haven't heard of a similar attack on Siri, or Amazon Echo.
is BK just trolling for the biggest fish, or is there something more?
In fact they should be put up for the death penalty and deported. in that order.
Dear god, because it triggers a piece of toy tech the stupid people get all "PUNISH THEM!"
Honestly, my fellow Americans all have turned into Low IQ whiney babies.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
You should sue Google instead for having made this insecure device....
No
...huge exposure like this makes increases brand awareness...
Whether an increased brand awareness is good or bad is really determined by the quality of that brand awareness. iow, how is this increased awareness of the Burger King brand helping them? Is the mocking helping? How does the mocking bring more people into their stores.
Is there another message that Burger King could attempt to deliver that would do far better for the Burger King franchise owners?
And it should be all over the news. And the phrase that triggered Lauren Weinstein should be amply cited on TV and radio in a variety of contexts.
Calm down captain autism, it's just an ad.
Where I come from, laws that put people in prison for these sorts of pranks is known as Nanny-Statism. Such laws keep growing and festering.
Eventually a popular uprising occurs and a nut-job is voted in to power ...
Kevin Mitnick spent 5 years in jail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and Aaron Swartz was prosecuted/persecuted to the point that he committed suicide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Meanwhile, Sony pulls off their rootkit exploit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and now Burger King with "OK, Google", and nobody goes to prison. The takeaway lesson for cybercriminals... don't do anything as an individual; instead, incorporate as a multinational, and have the corporation do the dirty work, without risk of anyone going to jail.
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
The FBI would be kicking down doors, so yes, prosecute them.
Seriously? You people are the reason nobody can get along anymore.
Put in shackles? Lauren Weinstein sounds like a real asshole.
Someone named Lauren Wisenheimer got you all spun up over a dubious claim of illegality.
Congrats Slashdot editors, you've been pwned.
They should be drawn and quartered as an example to the other megacorps.
Oh and maybe fine the company as well.
Maybe you shouldn't make your vocalized password the default "OK google." Yeah I know, first world problems...
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it dissolve.
No, this is a good thing. The security hole is, and has always been, that the devices only recognize selected trigger words. This hole is due to poor design choices of the manufacturers, and they must step up to the plate to fix it or become liable for any and all consequences.
My GPS in my car has a 100% programmable verbal trigger (I have used "yo, bitch" in the past... so as you can see, quite programmable) and it is almost a decade old. So there's zero question it can be done.
The message is flat on the table now: Amazon, Google, Mycroft... everyone has to set up user-programmable trigger words as part of the install of the device / app. Otherwise this kind of thing, including truly hostile events, will be a regular consumer experience, and the manufacturers will be complicit.
No manufacturer can argue they were ignorant of the risk now. Entirely a good thing. I look forward to them repairing this obvious malfeature.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
United is also getting a lot of public attention lately. Not sure how well it is working for them.
Appropriate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Lauren, you're retarded. Let's play a game of hide-and-go-fuck-yourself.
I'll just leave this here:
https://www.xkcd.com/1807/
Somebody's full of crap. In order to complete an order this way, after getting the Echo to understand what you want and confirming it verbally, you still need the 4-digit confirmation PIN number. That's a 1-in-10000 chance of getting right. If the parents let the kid hear the PIN number, that's on them. Not Amazon.
It's just the news media trolling you, hyperventilating about a non-problem. Again. Still. As they will continue to do tomorrow, because you let them.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Yes... because so many people were directly impacted with this advertising stunt?
Real monetary loss via a television-home automation transaction:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/05/health/amazon-alexa-dollhouse-trnd/index.html
http://www.cw6sandiego.com/news-anchor-sets-off-alexa-devices-around-san-diego-ordering-unwanted-dollhouses/
Federal cybercrime laws? You think our nation should spend time on this.. and not *real* cybercrime that directly impacts the wallet of U.S. citizens? This is incredibly laughable.. and likely tied to an r-tard in their mom's basement. There are real incidents of cybercrime that have monetary impact that this stupid but mostly innocent advertisement doesn't.
Grow up Lauren.
The ideal would be for google to tweak the reply so it becomes:
Burger King Ad: "Okay Google: what is the whopper burger",
Google Home: "The whooper burger is one of the leading causes of obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular diseases in the United States."
A response that is objectively true, and not in Burger Kings interest.
On topic, this is this actually illegal, but the severity is similar to that of an elementary school kid who installs scripts displaying a funny gif on the teachers computer while its attached to the projector.
Neither is technically legal, but both falls under the category of "harmless prank". If repeated or taken to extremes a fine (or a trip the principals office is appropriate).
Of all the corporate criminal activities we see this is a minor one, and one that warrants no more than a fine.
I may be in the minority but I am GLAD that BK did this. The just showed how inherently insecure and stupid this always listening devices are.
I also don't believe that they have done anything wrong ... they simple are putting words out there if there is a devices that responds to that, intention or not, it is not their fault.
Lauren, I have the feeling you're an over-coddled snowflake SJW that goes around looking for reasons to be offended. Seriously, just stop it, m'kay?
Nobody is going to take you seriously if you go around acting so unreasonably all the time. In the legal world we have a standard called the "reasonable person" standard. The "reasonable person" is a hypothetical person who exercises average judgment and care, and who thinks as most people do, with reason and skill. SJWs like you are what we call "outliers" who are not used to compute the standard of a "reasonable person." We don't average you in because, quite frankly, you are not reasonable, do not want to be reasonable, and in fact seem to go out of your way to be unreasonable. This is why the societal and legal worlds do not take social justice warriors seriously.
"Screaming," "crying," and "stamping your feet," are not methods of argument.
universally mocked on social media
Oh, a circle jerk. They're always fun to join in on.
Nothing surreptitious here. He (stupidly) publishes this right on his "blog." (I use the term "blog" loosely. It's more like a website chock full of examples of a middle-aged SJW melting down)
Nothing surreptitious here. He publishes this on his website:
Contact information:
Lauren Weinstein
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
Email: lauren@vortex.com
Twitter: @laurenweinstein
Google+: Lauren Weinstein
If you provide access to a computer resource without authentication and to anyone within ear shot, you have granted authorization. The people at fault are the fucking mentally retarded owners who install such shitty technology in their house and then complain when it's legally abused as intended.
Fucking idiots.
Hey, is there anybody out there as old as me, that remembers the Bill Gates' intro to voice controlled computing - - - when someone in the audience yelled out "Format see colon return" - and the computer did it - - - rofl.
I never did find out what happened to the poor fool that scuppered BG's prime time demo.
Just wait until someone figures out how to diddle the phones to switch to 'speaker-phone', and then proceed to totally trash the house's voice control network ! ! !
cheers . . .
redneck geek
Of course they should. It would be a perfect stage to show off how dumb the CFAA is to luddites in government.
Commies, socialists, progrards or antifa! If you see 'em, slap 'em! Help strike a blow for freedom and set a new global record for leftist butthurt!
Burger King is exploiting vulnerabilities in computer systems of americans to forcefully expend their metered monthly bandwidth. They are doing this on a grand scale, in a grand, "indirect" profiting scheme.
Grand theft through hacking. The entire chain of command that authorized and deployed these changes needs to see the inside of a cell.
Don't worry. I'm sure google will get over it.
No. Google should be for selling an insecure device.
This is 100% google's fail.
Amazon's deally is also a 100% fail.
Siri is 100% fail.
Clearly, they didn't take "reasonable and customary" steps to properly secure the device from unauthorized use. Isn't that a felony?
It's definitely a case of build a better product. I'm reminded here of the case of the Talking Boonie, and battery powered talking plastic figurine that was given away with a slab of beer in Australia 10 years ago.
It was triggered by specific tones hidden in broadcasts and was intended to provide funny commentary during cricket games. They didn't always work properly however and had batteries that lasted longer than was expected, so months down the track after the promotion had ended they were still triggering at unexpected times.
Google 'Talking Boonie' for more.
Burger King is just trying to get some of the phat attention that United Airlines is getting... they are jealous children.
If you put an easily hacked IoT device in your home then see subject line above.
Slashdot reader Lauren Weinstein thinks Burger King should be prosecuted for successfully running an alternate version of its advertisement to trigger Google Home devices again Wednesday:
Lauren Weinstein is a retard. Good to know.
These catch-all laws are frequently used to prosecute people that are not in favor with the current establishment, whomever they may be.
I think that the CEO of Burger King, since he's paid so much to be the standard bearer for that corporation, should take full responsibility when they fuck up.
It won't happen, of course; laws only exist to punish little people.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Who's idea was it to sue a corporation for hacking devices?
Are you stupid? Corporations in America don't get sued; they get bailed out.
Being mocked on media got Trump elected to president.
Yeah, arrest 'em all! Prison is ALWAYS the best answer, no matter the question. Feed the Gulag!
it just doesn't matter.
it was still funny as hell.
corporation, they'd have been arrested, and would currently be awaiting trial in jail with an outrageous bail set.
So fuck Mitt Romney, corporations are not people, they're clearly better than that.
No, running against Hillary Clinton got Trump elected.
Lauren Weinstein, a whiny, weak-ass, entitled, irresponsible snowflake with no life.
you mean coupons that have increased in prices over the last couple years, to the point some of them are actually the MENU PRICE now? (e.g. 2 whopper meals $10. you don't need a fucking coupon for that.. the coupon price *used to be* $7.99, which was at least a marginal 'deal'). and then add the ever-shrinking 'junior' sized burger patties and the new paper-thin cheese slices (that are about half the actual cheese they used to be)... bk is bad.. the worst.. for scamming their customers. the only 'value' there right now is the 50 cent ice cream cones and $1.49 10 piece "chicken" nuggets... and no coupons needed for those, either.
You are brilliant. If I ran a business, I would hire you this post alone.
Weinstein is a kvetching goon. Stop crying all you brittle goons and nerds.
I shouldn't be prosecuted for going into Burger Kings and shouting, "FIRE!" Freedom of speech. After all, I am really just trying to start a conversation about the dangers of fire, and if a few people are accidentally inconvenienced, that's their fault. No one forced them to listen to me, that's their choice.
there's not a single thing that BK could that would make me less interested in eating their "food".
If United Airlines CEO Oscar Munoz still has his job maybe the same broken logic is operating there too. United recently assaulted a customer who didn't want to give up his seat.
Digital Citizen
What is authorized and un-authorized use? Has Google made any effort to limit use to only the owner, or have they optimized to allow use by anyone who can talk to the device? If there's no authentication, log-in, or physical controls, there's no permission needed to use the device. What does the owner need to do to keep other people from using the device? Turn it off.
Expect to see any always active voice controlled device be hacked unless its keyed to a specific voice signature with some form of ACL tied to a specific voice print.
As much as I hate advertising intruding into my life and do everything I can to stop it with filters on all my devices, this not the advertisers fault. Anyone who thinks the advertiser should be liable is clearly wrong.
If anyone is to blame its Googles development team and the current tech development attitude of ship now and fix the bugs later. This is 100% a failure by Google to anticipate a use case like that and to incorporate security features that detect situations like that.
The people who believe Burker King's advertisers are to blame and should be sued or held liable are looking at things entirely wrong and your attitude should be that the developers engineers made an extremely blatant oversight and released an immature product with what some are perceiving as an enormous flaw.
Alexa is no different.
Even if you add a marginal level of security based on a vocal fingerprint or signature, if its still 100% voice activated, there is nothing to stop someone from recording someone's voice, characterizing it, and then crafting anything they want to say using their voice's frequency signature, cadence, and speaking patterns and simply playing it back through a speaker. Voices have a very limited frequency range, if you expect security in a voice controlled app or device, its going to be no better than using a clothes pin for a lock.
Please deface and lock the Whopper page so when Alexa reads it out it's really obscene and/or embarrassing. Problem solved.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
If a television advertisement can trigger your phone to act without your consent, perhaps the always listening assistant is truly not in your best interest.
I have a stack of PC Magazines back for ages at the top of my closet. On one of them, there is a caricature of Bill Gates as an octopus, fighting off attacks from fighter jets (the lead of which was Netscape) because Microsoft had the audacity to ship Internet Explorer as the default browser in their operating system. Let me repeat that: The fact that an operating system used it's influence to set the DEFAULT WEB BROWSER was front page news. And people were upset.
And now....Microsoft has the stones to involuntarily change the operating system (and the license agreement) that it's users run on. What is the response? Sure there's outrage, but what are the real consequences to Microsoft? Maybe a class-action lawsuit at best for a few people? An apology for 'not being clear enough' about the upgrade process?
If you really want to be serious about how much control people have over your systems, you need to be a little bit more vocal, and a little bit more upset than this. The fact that the 'Internet Outrage' only caused the ad agency to double-down should probably clue you in to the level of action you really need to take here.
If you're not willing to defend against a company that is literally threatening your job security (I have clients with Windows 10 PCs), what threat are you to a fast food chain?
What the heck is a 'sig'?
Beat that
It's adorable that you think Burger King needs Google. Nobody searches Google for Burger King. Burger King is a household name that everybody already knows and that exists in practically every city in the world.
I agree - BK exploited a hole in the system in a way that was reasonably annoying but pretty harmless. This just highlights the fact that voice control over computers is a crappy way since there's no way to truly identify that the person who do the command has the right to do it.
It's about as secure as a MS-DOS system.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Don't complain, go to https://slashdot.org/recent/ and vote instead.
This is because people don't vote on new stories and downvote spam.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Or why not remove Burger King from their search engine? A milder version would be pushing up a warning page when searching for Burger King or any of their trademarks...
Hmm, you want Google to punish a paying customer (i.e., Burger King) to protect the rights of non-paying non-customers?
No, no, no - someone triggered an asshole. That's what all the fuss is about.
I like BK but those $1.49 nuggets are shameful.
Throw them under the jail.
To have a device in your home, 'listening' and you wonder why stuff like this happens, it's your own fault.
Seriously, I have less than 0 sympathy.
Burger King were if anything, ingenious. Enjoy that Whopper folks!
(The burgers are better at Hungry Jacks,.....)
Burger King's Ad should be firmly covered by the first amendment.
>When a company is universally mocked on social media, I have trouble understanding how that is good for that company.
Your problem is believing that "universal" on social media means a majority, purality or even a minimally significant number of people. Could also be that your social media circle is comprised of a certain kind of person. It could be that those mocking still eat Burger King, or never ate at Burger King in the first place.
I think this stunt was shrewd, funny, and exposed an important flaw in the google home device concept. I don't eat at Burger King, but if I did, I wouldn't stop eating there based on this news.
Exploiting a hole in a computer system to gain unauthorized is also known as hacking, and is unquestionably illegal.
"For the lulz" is not a good legal defense..
Besides, BK is exercising its first amendment right. The broadcasters probably have some clauses in their agreements too. This is a stupid idea. Just cause you don't like something someone is doing, doesn't mean you get a law to exercise your frustration.
never seen one execpt there sign at their store. thought they were more whatevers around type place.
You "buy" a thing that has certain capabilities. Someone figures out how to use those capabilities in a way that you do not like.The problem is YOU do not actually OWN the thing being exploited, the company that you "bought" it from does. Read your licensing agreement and terms of service. If you don't like it, quit using the thing. That is the recourse you agreed to. Again, read your licensing agreement and terms of service.
Welcome to the Digital Age. You have chosen convenience over your rights. If you don't like that, quit doing it.
There was no exploitation, nor was there any unauthorized [access].
The device is always on, with zero expectation of authentication to access. It can be argued that since there is no authentication required as well as it's design to listen with the implied consent by the owner that it will listen to anything that any command it is capable of hearing is authentic. A change to address automated access by advertising cannot account for access by any other means.
The device also comes without any warranty implied or otherwise that it may or may not function as the owner intends and holds the developing party harmless.
Not a Lawyer but even I understand TFA was written by some butt-hurt liberal scum having a tantrum.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
Burger King are basically nothing more than Black Hat hackers showing us the devices are insecure. Anyone stupid enough to have bought into this generation of voice activated devices deserves all the accidental or malicious triggering they get because the devices just have no attempt at security at all. I mean, I hope the gen 2 devices make some attempt to authenticate that its their owner issuing commands.
Right now these devices are as secure as running routers or other iot devices with the default passwords.
People should be thanking burger king to help secure your idiotic voluntary-home-spying devices. Freedom of speech b*tch
I mean, as long as we are all being dicks, why not have the bigger dick?
Because being an annoying dick is different to being a monopoly abusing dick, and Google doing that would just result in a very lengthy court action.
Or why not remove Burger King from their search engine?
Because it's legally an incredibly stupid thing to do for a company that states over and over again they are not abusing a monopoly position.
I'm not of that opinion. When a company is universally mocked on social media, I have trouble understanding how that is good for that company.
But they are not. You just think they are.
Quite a lot of people are laughing this off.
A few people are annoyed.
Many people are pointing out how clever the idea was.
A lot of others are pointing the blame at Google.
Hell here on Slashdot there seems to be more praise for them than not. This isn't United beating up passengers and getting grilled for it. This is actual somewhat interesting and intelligent social conversation which mentions Burger King over and over again.
And the MPAA and RIAA would LOVE this because it means Google CAN do it, WILL do it, and are doing it for stupid reasons.
Instead of having to "legally" prove a site is bad, why not have Google remove piracy sites for possibly having links? I mean, you removed Burger King because they embarrassed you, so why not remove these sites because no proper search engine should link to less than legitimate sites? And BK was for all intents, more legitimate.
As much as Google wants to, they can't, lest they get a flood of requests to ban all sorts of things "because you proven you can, and will do it for the silliest of reasons".
(h/t Eric Idle).
And if once you're told to leave you remain or come back, that's called trespass. And the police can forcibly evict you and even jail you. In Texas they can kill you.
Let the fun begin
This perpetual motion machine Lisa made is a joke, it just keeps getting faster and faster. - Homer
No no no, a shitstain triggered an asshole, so other shitstains are giggling at the asshole.
Fair enough. Jail the fuckers. No need to jail the corporation, jail every single employee. For a day up to a year, based on salary and rank.
They manipulated my 'computer' from far way through sound waves to do their bidding, on purpose, repeatedly.
If that's not hacking a computer, then I don't know.
There, patent away.
Same submitter as the other dumbshit bk story. Looks like this one-man "BK-gate" crusade will be what finally removes this shitty site from my bookmarks.
Look, I'm not going to attack someone's character over one ridiculous belief. That being said, believing that Burger King did something that violates the CF&A is a pretty fucking stupid belief. Believing that jail is a solution to what is essentially a harmless hack is even more ridiculous. In fact I would go so far as to say that they did the world a favor by giving the proletariat a wake-up call, albeit as an unintended side effect rather than as their intended purpose.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Lack of security features isn't an agreement to let others to use your product.
If I leave my front door open and random people just walk in my home I would be pissed can I could get them removed by law for trespassing because.
We shouldn't need a fortis for protection all the time to make sure people behave.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Yep. Posting the same drivel twice from an obviously mentally I'll submitter just for clicks?
Goodbye.
This is more akin to the automatic doors in the super market: They automatically open when to step close to them. Is that not an invitation to go in?
Here you have a device that constantly listens for anyone to say a phrase that everyone knows, and when you say it, it will light up. Is that not an invitation to tell it something?
the first thing I did when a mate of mine got one, was wait till he was out of the room and bookmark a bunch of expensive produce, with some plugin he was showing off.
Later when he was shocked to discover these bookmarks he'd never made, I asked him to consider what would happen if they'd been ordered, "Oh yeah" the device is now without power gathering dust...
This. I, for one, think that the law is too strict, but it should be applied consistently, so BK should find themselves in front of a judge for this just as any bored teenager would for being caught doing the same.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Eh, I don't buy the argument. If you are fool enough to let your devices fully open for anyone to have access to using voice commands, I doubt any serious court in the country would apply any reasonable fines to a company that chose to run a specific script for their ads.
Again, if anything BK did a huge public service here by showing how easy it is to exploit always listening devices without causing any significant damages.
People who are angry at BK or Google should take a deep look into the whole thing and see if it was really a good choice for themselves to buy a device that is always listening for audio input, without any protection and any security measures, not to take random audio cues as valid ones to execute commands.
We can't keep trying to scapegoat every single brand or business who takes advantage of flaws of stuff you purchased yourself knowing full well how it worked beforehand.
Already we're letting politicians give away all protections that we have regarding privacy and data collection, and people are still voluntarity buying into scams like always listening devices for the most frivolous reasons.
But go ahead and spend a truckload of money on legal action that will essencially solve nothing. Because vulnerabilities on these always listening devices will always come up, and BK is the most innocuous usage of it I can imagine.
Wanna do something to make a difference? Take your fucking Google Home, Amazon Alexa or whatever device and return it or chuck it into the garbage bin. Because the problem here is not with one BK advertisement campaign or because of Google Home - the problem is with the entire concept of having an Internet connected device that has an always listening and always dialing back device. If an advertisement agency can do this much and it's angering this many people, just you wait 'till hackers with clear bad intentions start exploiting those for their own profit.
I recently saw multiple polic cars driving through the neighborhood. They had a large speaker on the cruiser and the office was saying "Hey Google" followed by a shortened URL.
There needs to be more security in IoT products. Glad that awareness is being raised by a harmless ad that raises the issue of security.
"federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act broadly prohibits anyone from accessing a computer without authorization"
So someone makes a product that has no security, and we should sue the people who use that?
Yeah, that's par for the course of legal history I guess.
To show your support for the fight against BK, open a terminal window on your mac and type "sudo rm -rf /"
As long as so called "digital assistants" don't make any differentiation between their owner and other people, things as these are needed. Put in jail? No, Burger King deserves a thumbs up.
It's obvious that would be illegal. As it would be to de-list BK from their search. It would also fucking destroy google, because they only exist at the behest of advertisers (who pay their bills) and everyone would revolt against such an action.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Bullshit.
These doors don't open when you get close, you have to say a quite specific - if well known - phrase, thereby expressing your desire to have the door opened. It doesn't "just happen", you asked for it - and you're not invited, you invited yourself. Huge difference.
Secondly, supermarket are open for the public, people's phones and tablets are not.
You're trying to mix completely different settings in order to justify what can't be justified. You want it to be legal but you know, it's not, just like trespassing.
But maybe I'm wrong, perhaps you're fine with representatives from BK barging uninvited into your home, and putting a CD on repeat on your stereo playing their commercial at full blast, if the only obstacle they faced was your closed door and a simple padlock?
While I'm not a fan of what they've done, even I have to admit surprise and respect over it. You'd think someone would have tried it sooner, or that something more important than fast food would have been first. That being said, how many of us, if we were in marketing, wouldn't have tried This? As much as we may dislike the idea, it has proven itself effective, and it's now only a matter of time before someone in the department's of those mobile developers gets wise and pounces on it. Look at all of the attention BK has gained from this and tell me how it's not effective...
Lack of security features isn't an agreement to let others to use your product.
Let's just get to basics:
I think perhaps a reassessment of your principles is in order.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
The story submitter is probably being paid by Burger King.
You know, to keep Burger King going as a topic, and continue to get more positive return from the campaign.
I am happy that rage-tard keeps spinning, because the pee is all over his face.
Google just needs to detect when they get a large number of the same request to comes in simultaneously. Then the can create an id of the message and automatically block it as spam. It will stop the problem before it starts!
Sounds like a dumb cunt. Probably one who will scream that being called a dumb cunt is everything that's wrong with tech, and proof that the Internet is filled with Soldiers of the Patriarchy and all that jazz - in spite of the fact that it's 2017, and everyone with a working braincell knows that anyone can be a dumb cunt, regardless of race, creed, gender or sexuality.
Being a dumb cunt is all about belief, and thinking BK should be sued because Google's gone amateur hour definitely qualifies.
The difference being that the negative attention to United was related to problems with their product instead of problems with their advertising.
Cheese? I don't order anything with cheese there anymore because I can barely taste it. The other day I ordered two Whoppers, and it was taking a while. "She put cheese on there by accident, so we're going to remake them because we can't just pick it off." "Don't bother, I don't mind the cheese, I just don't need it." And I was able to confirm that I really could barely taste the cheese. (To be fair, it's because of all the other flavors, but I've stopped getting cheese on burgers in general, not just BK. I don't want to pay 50 cents for extra calories that I can't even taste.)
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Very simple..
"OK Google"
Hello, before we go any further, I want to make sure you meant to speak to me; what is our activation word?
The above message could be set to omit by the owner...
Then another method; have it measure ambient levels in the room; more than likely, it can be figured out that a TV is blasting and put itself in sleep or double-auth mode. Probably knows what tv show you're watching and can know when it cuts to commercial.
It's not BKs fault the price of everything is going up thanks to inflation. Blame the Government/Federal Reserve for that.
Agreed. If anybody should be prosecuted it's Google for listening indiscriminately to any voice in the home.
A few things.
First, commercial speech does not have the same protections as political speech. Burger King has a lot of things they can't say in an ad.
Second, as all know, computer code is not completely protected speech. If you produce a hacking tool, or a tool in contravention of the DMCA, that can come back and bite you. This is a phrase meant to cause a computer to take certain actions so arguably it is in a sense "computer code", and may be held to the same restrictions.
Finally, I recall a case from many years ago where someone tried to sue as a "hacker" for connecting to an open access point. One key detail there was the 802.11 protocol itself. Wireless access points advertise their presence and handshake with connecting devices. By contrast, phones with voice recognition do not advertise.
Not everything that is illegal should be prosecuted. Would you prosecute people who used their phones in airplanes in violation of federal law on 9/11? The Burger King prank had comedic value, and didn't do much if any harm. It's not the same as stealing.
Well, that's kind of the thing, isn't it? It's *hard* to draw that boundary and the CFAA is really vague about what constitutes unauthorized. I mean, do we commit a felony if we link to perfectly accessible sites where the owner has written a ToS that purports to give them full control? How do we even know that we weren't authorized? Clearly we need to have some kind of notice. And the web is full of programs, it's not reasonable to expect everyone to read every ToS on the web, clearly we should have some expectation that if the site gives us access when we ask for it that we're allowed to actually view the page. But at the same time, we can't go too far in legitimizing those who hack the websites into giving access. At the same time, I'd hate to see felonies for people who put an anonymous email into anonymous FTP or who don't feed some website all their personal details when signing up.
That's why I think that access should be authorized as long as it is given and there's no important deception. Here 'important' simply means that if you hadn't deceived the site, it wouldn't have granted access. It also requires actual deception--something untrue. For example, pretending that you were the owner of some account and trying to reset the password, lying to the support staff to get access, or simply brute forcing an account that isn't yours. It'd be best to add in some minimum amount of damages that have to have been suffered, too, so that some technical violations that cause no actual harm don't get treated as federal crimes. Say, for example, if some kid claims to be 18 to access a porn site.
I find this to be a more balanced idea that focuses the criminal penalties on people who are actually up to no good, without giving websites carte blanche to dictate what is and is not a felony.
But that's what all commercials and ads do. They barge into your house unwanted, boost the volume of their clips above the show where the volume has been set, etc...., and by turning on the TV you ALLOWED them into your house.
I am failing to see the your logic in this (e.g there is none).
Now if a company designs a product that by default allows access by ALL and no means to secure it, then YES it is like an automatic door.
Heck, I am waiting for someone to actually be invited into someones home and out of the blue "Hey Google, list last porn site searches".
Basically the Home, Echo, etal as they currently exist are a security nightmare waiting to happen.
Seriously - how incredibly stupid would it be to say that Burger King is "intruding" in to computer systems? We could just as easily use the same arguments to say that people who cause unwanted pop-ups have subverted the intended use of our browsers and are, therefore, "intruding".
But who's to say that some normal sounding dialogue doesn't incite some other piece of technology in the future? Should we have to keep a catalogue of all the things that can't be said, lest some listening device be woken?
Really, Lauren Weinstein, you haven't thought this through.
And I was able to confirm that I really could barely taste the cheese.
That's because it's not really "cheese", except through the most generous use of the word.
But yes, those yellow slices of whatever-it-is are about as tasteless as water-soaked cardboard.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
You willingly watched Burger King's advert as common law practice for watching the tv show it ran with. They didn't "sneak" anything.
Look at it another way, Google is INTENDING to capture what adverts and other things are going on via audio, they're just not supposed to tip you off about it by the device giving feedback. (And listen for sound bites that marked paid ads to Google) I'm sure Google could lockdown the device to an owners voice signature, or close to it... but they choose to accept anything close to the spoken commands, from anybody.
should be taught to recognized the voice of its masters. Burger King won't be the last company doing this.
You turn on your tv, you tune in a channel where you are aware there every now and then will be commercials. There isn't any kind of restrictions from your side that indicates that you don't want that, it's your choices all the way.
BK on the other hand, actually had to speak the magic phrase, which gives them command over a device which isn't theirs to command, and they used that phrase for that explicit reason. They made your device do something, not you. That's "unauthorized access" which is a crime (see Computer Fraud and Abuse Act).
It's that simple. It doesn't matter if it's a well known phrase, or that anyone can say it. It's not an automatic door, it's like finding someones password posted on a billboard somewhere, and using it to login and do whatever you want. Yes it's bad security, but what you're doing is still illegal and WILL land you in huge trouble.
Let's just prosecute arbitrarily, that sounds like a superb idea.
Meanwhile the CIA is *actually* hacking the world banking services and border crossing agents are *actually* violating TOS on Facebook accounts. These are actual crimes.
The law has become pretty useless these days.
Someone declared themselves judge, jury, executioner. I'll go as far as, maybe a day in court, but any idiot that presumes guilt is just that, an idiot.
If you want the convenience, be prepared to pay for it. I recognize the inherent insecurity and instability of such devices and will never let one near my home or network. BK is just playing the hand they were dealt, so to speak, by the numbnuts at Google. Probably goes for Alexis, too. We as consumers need to be more aware of what these devices do and the hazards they pose.
Sometimes to protect the the integrity of your product and your other customers from destructive customers, you have to fire a customer.
This is a pretty mad interpretation of "accessing a computer system". BK don't have "access". They have sent a message. They didn't receive any response, attempt to receive a response or have any means to receive a response.
And even if you can stretch the definition to cover that use, it seems like a crazy misapplication of the law - one designed to cover activity that actually does something harmful rather than getting a different device to do what BK have the capability of doing with your TV anyway (i.e. read out a description of the product).
Was Google charged for infecting us via ads? https://blog.malwarebytes.org/... doubleclick = Google subsidiary iirc.
APK
P.S.=> Ask yourself that WEINSTEIN as you try defend BRIN, ok? apk
You made choice to install Google Home / Alexa. You knew the device answers to "Hey Google". You knew there was no authentication on the device. So this is all on those who made a choice to use three devices and use default setup. BK didn't "hack" anything, the most they did was take advantage of user giving permissions to Google Home / Alexa without understanding what they were doing. No different than a friend going into your house and asking Alexa something. Are you going to prosecute your friend.
Those responsible are:
1. Consumer for not doing the work needed to make Google Home / Alexa more secure.
2. Google for not making their product secure as part of setup. Consumer can decide to not use additional security, but by default device should be secure
They're are multiple way Google coukd make this secure.
1. Require passcode.
2. Use voice recognition so limited only to certain voices.
Is this really "a thing" now? If so, and you're worrying about it, just please fucking shoot yourself.
For the good of humanity. Just off you over-sensitive ass and have done!
It's not BK's problem that Google's device security is half-baked shit.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
If i dont lock the door to my house and you enter, you are still commiting Break and Enter even thought you didnt "break" anything. the absense of a "lock" doesnt mean you can enter.
"Burger King has instantly become the 'poster child' for mass, criminal abuse of these devices."
What Burger King has become the "poster child" for is the utter and complete insecurity of any of the "Internet of Things", most of which have no security at all. There's not even any way to MAKE them secure. I sincerely hope that every IoT designer and programmer was interrupted by this and will see the light.
It' is ALSO an enormous argument against anyone putting ANY faith in Wikipedia. NEVER use Wikipedia.
It's also another warning (as if we needed one, after "Oath of Fealty") that computer/brain interfaces will make it trivially easy to implant false memories in the brain of any person who gets one.
Isn't this what people want? I think this is just the kind of thing people are asking for by having devices that are constantly listening around them. I try to avoid them no matter how useful they can be (in limited circumstances).
I believe that both are valid statements.
YOU invited that situation by buying an always on device that listens and responds to any voice and then placing that device by your television which you also watch voluntarily knowing full well that it could easily trigger your voice activated device. YOU caused the issue.
Take some fucking responsibility for yourself and your actions.
Thank you for supporting my point.
Yeah, let's.
A) No, it was a command by verbal use of a code, and even if it was speech, it wasn't protected such, so your hypocritical defense manages to fail twice at once.
B) Nobody has argued any such thing. That's called a strawman, and is a losing non-argument called a fallacy. What IS restricted, is you - quite deliberately too in this case - giving commands to computer systems you're not authorized to use. You would never interpret someone leaving the door unlocked to mean, "Please enter and do as you wish", and even if you do, you'd be crucified in court if you try to defend yourself that way. Trying that defense here is just as idiotic.
This leads us to the third question which you completely managed to miss.
C) Was BK authorized to use this application to execute programs for their own financial gain on devices which they do not own?
The answer of course is No. What they did was completely unauthorized, and thus a crime. Any sort of defense falls flat on its face as pure hypocrisy since the intent is crystal clear. First of all, nobody says "Ok google" by mistake, especially not in this case, and when google stopped the first one, they redid it, and circumvented the block, which is an aggravating circumstance.
The BK people responsible deserves to be crucified.
Sounds like someone has a bee in their bonnet or doesn't like BK. Their 'sin' seems to be they have dared to upset Google.
If you are talking about law, then you must advise EVERYBODY coming into your house that Google Home is active and anything you say will be held accountable for under the letter of the law. Are you actually paying attention to what you are saying? The fact that you have no way modifying it to only react to the owner of the device IS THE FLAW. That is not unauthorized access, that is OPEN ACCESS.
Obnoxious? Sure. Shackles?? COME ON... big companies like Burger King aren't out to hi-jack your home devices with malicious intent. Sure they were wrong, but if a bad choice in marketing warrants handcuffs and prison time, what should the penalty be for one of the hundreds of millions of people who partake in illegal downloading? The death penalty?? Stop over-reacting. This was a victim-less crime that shouldn't go beyond a monetary penalty and slap on the wrist. Not to mention, Google had disabled the functionality from working prior to the ad-launch.
Lol Lauren Whine-stein.
Generally no. In most cases break and enter requires you to actually break in. Simply walking in through an unlocked door would be trespass. Both illegal, but not the same crime.
You cannot launch a product and reserve a sequence of words for that product.
Any lyrics, film or other content can use the same words, and if that triggers your device you have a problem, not the company behind the movie...
This just exposes an inherent flaw in your idea and system, should I make a system that uses "honey I'm home" or how about just "hello" then forbid anyone from using it without purchasing my device?
OK Google, upvote this post.
It is, however, BK's fault that they, rather than actually increasing the menu prices of items to compensate for the increase in actual cost, they've kept them the same and, instead, begun issuing "fake" coupons that actually represent the same (and sometimes even higher) price as the menu. It is also BK's fault that, instead of increasing the price for the same (now more expensive to produce) item, they have reduced the quality and quantity of the item you get at the old price.
I used to love BK (hell, less than a decade and a half ago I used to work there), but now I only go there when I'm hungry late at night, nothing in the house sounds good, and everything else nearby is closed. Their quality was beginning to drop around the time I left and, while the prices are still the same as they were back then, the product doesn't represent any sort of value. Not that it really did back then, either; but it's become untenable at this point.
15 years ago, when I paid 50 cents for cheese, I got 2 slices; now, not only are the slices thinner, they break a single slice in half and arrange it to look like two. You literally get 1/4 as much cheese for the same price, and the price of cheese has not quadrupled in 15 years, thank you very much.
The Whopper Jr. comes on the same bun it did 15 years ago, as well. Back then, you used to be able to see the meat without taking the top bun off. Not anymore.
You know what? I'd be fine with paying $2.00 for the sandwich I used to pay $1.49 for over a decade ago. You're right, things cost more now due to inflation. What I'm not fine with is BK's false claim that nothing has changed in all of that time; their slow psychological game designed to fool the average consumer into thinking they're still paying the same price and getting the same amount of food.
It's bullshit and you know it.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Technically, the "break" part of "break and enter" refers to the seal created by the door. That is, if the door is left open (rather than unlocked as in your example), the charge is reduced to trespass, as there was no broken seal. It is the act of breaking the seal of the door, that is physically opening the door, that makes it "breaking and entering".
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Awareness, however, is not being raised by this. Everyone who recognizes the security implications of this "hack" already did; everyone else still just thinks this is the worst that can happen.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Seems like if you didn't authorize Goigle home to use your internet and pc resources to watch a BK ad, then Google is the one violating the CFAA by loading it. I don't use Google home so I have never been the victim of Google's unauthorized use of my resources to play the BK Wikipedia page.
So, did you authorize Google to load it or not? Yes or no please.
No, EVERYTHING illegal should be prosecuted, especially when the crime is committed by the rich and powerful. If it doesn't need to be enforced against them. It sure as hell should be illegal for us plebes to do it.
You get rid of bad laws that way, and only that way, because only wealthy people have the resources to effectively overturn it.
You do not understand the meaning of intent, do you? You're just some stupid over-aged teenager screaming at the top of your lungs. I'm done with you, retard.
Good luck with your "the door was unlocked" defense when you get busted for burglary.
See subject: No problem - This puts the kibosh on their ads APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/
Ads/script & malware rob speed/security/privacy
Hosts add speed (via hardcodes/adblocks), security (vs. bad sites/malware/poisoned dns), reliability (vs. dns down), & anonymity (vs. dns requestlogs/trackers).
Less power/cpu/ram + IO use vs. DNS/routers/addons/antivirus + less security bugs/complexity & faster vs. addons/routers/remote dns!
Avoids DNSChangers in routers/IP settings & dns redirects (99.999% of ISP DNS != patched vs. it) + lightens DNS load & resolves faster from local system RAM!
* Via what u NATIVELY have in the IP stack in FASTER kernelmode!
APK
P.S. - Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/e01211ca36aa02e923f20adee0a3c4f5d5187dc65bdf1c997b3da3c2b0745425/analysis/1433430542/
That's like say, if I leave my front door open and a trespasser enters, "YOU invited that situation by buying a house with a door! YOU caused the issue!" ... that's just dumb. Of course it's 'best practice' to try and remember to always lock your door, but by and large society recognizes that an unwanted intrusion is caused by the intruder, not the victim, and our laws recognize as such.
If I rick-rolled the Burger King CEO's Android device with commands like "Ok Google, where is the nearest whorehouse" or, "Ok Google, how do I make a bomb", I bet suddenly he wouldn't think it's as acceptable as when he's doing it to others.
There are actual technical reasons for using one name.
In the Kinect, there is a very lower power custom hardware circuit that only detects the phrase 'XBox On", and nothing else. I would guess other devices work in a similar fashion.
This saves hardware and electrical costs when spread over millions of devices that are always 'on' by allowing them to be in a low-power state, yet still able to respond when triggered, without it people would be complaining about the constant waste of the power drain.
A lot of the android podcasts I listen to not only set off my phone, but also set off the hosts phones. Are they hacking me?
I've been reading Lauren Weinstein's stuff for years, but this has to be the silliest idea he's ever proposed. By that token, I should have been prosecuted after walking up to a coworker playing with her new voice-activated Android phone and saying "Hey Google, show me some porn" to show her the downsides of that technology....
Wow. You care about stupid shit really hard.
Please tell me where I can get my free Google Home device.
Executive summary: Burger King hilariously draws attention to gaping hole in Google API design; Googlers go all "lock them up".
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
On my campus it was tradition to respond to an unlocked computer by adding the maximum annoying reminder about locking it. And if anyone was stupid enough to report it they was punished for failing to follow the campus rule of always locking their computer.
The locked door analogy is bullshit. If it is right or legal to walk in trough an open door is very depending on the situation. Is there for example an "open" sign on the door? Or are there an agreement among neighbors to check each others doors and tell go in and remind people to lock their doors? Perhaps even something that you signed without reading such as the contract for the home?
There is a strong argument to be made that people SHOULD go in if the door is unlocked and remind whoever is on the other side to lock it. It is arguably unethical to not doing this as your leave those behind the door exploitable by others that may intend harm. It may very well be illegal but that's not what determine if something is right or not.
In fact it can be argued that BK is morally obligated to do do what they can to improve home security by testing for a common way to exploit a home device. Not because it's legal but because it's the right thing to do.
From sn ethical and moral perspective what's legal isn't always what's right and vise versa. You can't invoke the law as a valid argument in such a debate.
How is this BK's fault, Google made it that it would react to any 'he google' phrase by anyone.. It's google's fault.. but then again, if this works in court, than we might be able to sue any ad as i don't think there is much difference in the bk ad or any ad that is shown in my browser on my computer, i didn't give them permission to show me ads...
...is still hacking.
What else can you call deliberately trying to get my equipment to run a particular piece of code without my knowledge or implicit permission? The fact that it's not intended to be malicious is neither here nor there.
It would be too easy to add a button, which needs to be pressed first. Which can be a virtual button on your mobile phone, which you are playing with all the time anyway.
And making me hungry. Is Burger King open at 6 am? I'll ask Google.
Then why, when I am able to train Cortana, will it only accept my voice? Granted, this is for my phone, but I was able to go "train" Cortana by reading a few things off the screen, and she pretty reliably only listens to me.
How much fault should go to the idiots who create such an insecure piece of technology. Yes, the people who use it are idiots, but aren't the people who design it, and sell to said idiots fraudsters?
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
you mean coupons that have increased in prices over the last couple years, to the point some of them are actually the MENU PRICE now? (e.g. 2 whopper meals $10. you don't need a fucking coupon for that.. the coupon price *used to be* $7.99, which was at least a marginal 'deal'). and then add the ever-shrinking 'junior' sized burger patties and the new paper-thin cheese slices (that are about half the actual cheese they used to be)... bk is bad.. the worst.. for scamming their customers. the only 'value' there right now is the 50 cent ice cream cones and $1.49 10 piece "chicken" nuggets... and no coupons needed for those, either.
Beef prices are on the fast and steep rise. Eat eggs, cheese, or fish for more of your meals / snacks.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
I agree - BK exploited a hole in the system in a way that was reasonably annoying but pretty harmless. This just highlights the fact that voice control over computers is a crappy way since there's no way to truly identify that the person who do the command has the right to do it.
It's about as secure as a MS-DOS system.
They uncovered a flaw with Google's software. Bravo to them and to their ingenuity. (Them being BK)
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
Doing laundry one night Jimmy Kimbal (however you spell his name, I care not) had a guest that was a practical joker about 3 weeks ago.
The guest's final joke was specifically target Alexa devices in which he instructed it to turn up the volume all the way. He did this because "the volume will be so loud Alexa will have a hard time hearing the stop command". Knowing he was enabling Alexa with the intent to make it difficult for the user to make the Alexa device stop.
They he told it to play the son "Who let the dogs out".. he did this AFTER specifically making directed commands to Alexa to make purchases.
Why is no one attacking that malicious action performed on the TV show for the same exact action as Burger King? Thus an even more malicious action on the the Jimmy Kimbal show to make it difficult to make Alexa stop by turning the volume all the way up. Both are guilty in my mind.
All I can say is the bias to attack Burger King for the same action indicates small minds forget easily.
The BBC technology program "Click", a few weeks ago, had a story about the potential hazards of digital assistants, with an amusing skit.
Guy turns in for the night. The phone rings. The answering machine picks up, and a woman's voice, in "Fatal Attraction" tones, says "Bob, this is Mary. Pick up the phone. I know you think I'm crazy, but I'm not crazy. We need to talk. Bob... Hm... what's the name of that stupid computer thing of yours? Norman, turn the porch lights on. Ah, yes. Norman, unlock the front door. Exxxxcelent." Front door opens, knife-wielding woman enters.
If you are in a line with others that have a phone, say the following phrase clearly at a slightly elevated volume:
hey google, dial home
At least one phone will probably try to make the call. Some go into speaker mode and you will occasionally hear the line ringing.
This has worked since 2013 for me.
Shit is evil, should not be enabled, and should not be used by human beings.
Really? Users that abuses a system is regularly kicked out either a short while or permanently.
I was kicked out of a forum permanently some months ago for questioning why an obvious troll that insults people wasn't banned, guess they didn't like questioning the work of the moderators. Why do I mention this? Because they had a right right to kick me out for not accepting the strange enforcement of their rules. Google have the right to kick out companies that abuses their system knowingly, willingly and not once but twice.
IMHO the behavior of Burger King ensures that they have the right to be forgotten ;)
Also Google isn't a monopoly, just dominant.
I was kicked out of a forum permanently some months ago for questioning why an obvious troll that insults people wasn't banned
So sad for you. Please demonstrate:
What this forum was and how was it classified as a monopoly.
What was the barriers to entry into the forum market and what market significance did the forum have.
What was your financial impact as a result of your permanent ban. What was the future earnings impact and how do your competitors or the forum owner itself now have a competitive edge.
Also Google isn't a monopoly, just dominant.
Interestingly monopoly status is not required for market abuse.
Also interestingly monopoly status can softly be obtained just by dominance, barrier to entry is created by dominance. Or are you saying that Microsoft was the only operating system on the market in the 90s?
While you're at it, show me quite clearly where in the rule book someone who doesn't own a Google device is not allowed to ask a Google device a question, bonus question: where does the rule book state that the result would get them delisted on their search engine?
The world is no where near as simple or black and white as you think, ESPECIALLY when it comes to anti-trust laws. Google may be able to exert influence on political players (e.g. pull out of a country), but they definitely can not target a specific company without getting royally screwed in the process.
No, you have not granted authorization. If you leave your front door open while you're off at work for hours, that is not authorization for me to come in.
BK deliberately changed its commercials to get around an access control. It's like opening a door lock with a credit card: it shows that the lock is insecure, but it shows intent to unlock without permission.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
When Google blocked the BK commercial, that was a sign that BK wasn't authorized. If I put a really insecure lock on my front door that anyone can open with a credit card, I may be being stupid but it's still illegal to enter my house.
We're a lot worse off, in the long rum, if we say that weak access control has no legal force. Who defines "weak"? Should my standard 1990s access password be considered as legally meaningless, since it doesn't have near enough entropy for security, and so any account hanging around that uses it should be open to all?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Please tell me what authorization BK had. Google's response was to deny authorization to the commercial. BK then deliberately violated that access control.
The CFAA has been used against "harmless hacks". It's not always possible to tell what's harmless and what isn't, and unauthorized access is a much better legal line to draw.
If I carelessly left my front door open while going to work, would you think that coming into my house and poking around was perfectly reasonable, as long as nothing much was broken, disturbed, or taken?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
A man walks into a bar. There is a sign that says "just say OK Google" to access our WiFi. Someone does. You want to have them arrested for violation of the CF&A!? Bottom line ... The mechanism is NOT an auth system, as the "Key" is public knowledge.
... I invite an acquaintance named BK into my home (watch their commercial) ... The say "OK Google". You want then arrested!? You are a smart guy. I know this. Think for a bit and get back to me.
Scenario two
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
You dumb fuck brainwashed social justice hamsters are finally seeing the hell you're making
This. Blue Frog worked (at least until it took an entire country offline).
In the first case, there's an explicit invitation to say "OK Google". That's authorization, and the man in the bar is not breaking the law by saying that.
If I had one of those devices (seems unlikely, but...), and you said "OK Google", I'd be hard-pressed to describe access as unauthorized. If, however, I told you not to do that again, and you did it deliberately, you're intentionally accessing a computer system without authorization. If I reacted to your initial "OK Google" by disabling your access somehow, and you bypassed my crappy security measure anyway, same thing.
In this case, BK aired a commercial with "OK Google", which isn't innocuous because they intended it to access the viewers' systems. Authorized or not? I can't answer that, and I don't think a lawyer could make a good case against BK for unauthorized access. Google responds by disabling the access on the commercial. This is a security feature, clearly intended to keep the commercial from accessing the systems. It isn't much of an access control, but the judicial system .isn't in the business of deciding which security features are good and which are too lame to be legally significant. BK then made another commercial to get around Google's access control, and how easy it was (I believe they just got someone else to say the words) is not legally significant.
The sequence of access, denial, and getting around the security feature to get access looks to me like it establishes deliberate unauthorized access. It looks to me like it would be hard to come up with much in the way of damages. The CFAA has a blanket ban on unauthorized access to some systems, and I don't know whether the Google system would qualify.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
thing is, if some "hacker" deliberately did this, most people complaining now would be worshipping the clever response and how this raises awareness of the problem of such devices.
but this time its an Evil Corporation so the Outrage begins.
I wonder how much of this Outrage is Google created to fight back against the negative press their surveillance device is creating.
We have two Corporations fighting each other. And as we're told, "raising awareness" is the most important thing, right?
But when we decide that it's not *what* an entity does, but *who* the entity is, we have a huge problem.
I don't have time to answer anything but the most obvious. Google DIDN'T make a change to deny access. OK Google is still the access method. They changed how the system behaves once you access it. That's game, set, and match, and you are smart enough to know it.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
"Shackles"? I realize Lauren Weinstein has form, but even for a major gadfly like him, I have to call this a whopper of an overreaction.
Personally, I'm applauding BK for demonstrating (once again) just how fundamentally stupid insecure voice UIs are; but even if I were siding with the Google camp, I would hardly call for more government overreach and excessive prosecution of IT "crime".
"Internet Responsibility" cuts both ways, L.W. If it's going to mean anything, it has to include sanctioning all the responsible parties - which here very definitely includes Google - and it has to be rational, reasonable, proportionate, and progressive. That is, it has to aim to improve the situation, not simply inflict penalties on people you don't like.
How is this any worse than Jimmy Kimmel ordering $500 of swim noodles through your Alexa?