Amazon May Give Developers Your Private Alexa Transcripts (engadget.com)

According to The Information, Amazon may give developers access to your private Alexa audio recordings. Until now, Amazon has not given third-party developers access to what you say to the voice assistant, while Google has with its Google Home speaker. Engadget reports: So far, Alexa developers can only see non-identifying information, like the number of times you use a specific skill, how many times you talk to your Echo device and your location data. The Information reports that some developers have heard from Amazon representatives about more access to actual transcripts, though how and how much wasn't discovered. If developers knew what exactly is being said to their skills, they could make adjustments based on specific information.

Comments

So here's a question:

[PFactor]

When people speak in Star Trek, the computer is always listening. What changed in that hypothetical future's past that needs to change in our present to make wholesale gathering of our voice comms acceptable?

Re:So here's a question:

[sgage]

It requires people to just give up any notion of being a private person, and just becoming a sheep. It would also require trust - trust of corporations, and trust of government.

Also, Star Trek is fiction.

Re:So here's a question:

[budsetr]

Didn't they have to say "Computer" first? Or hire Sigourney Weaver to say it.

Re:So here's a question:

[Anonymous Coward]

They got rid of money.

They reward themselves by sucking each other's dicks and not by greed.

Re:So here's a question:

[vux984]

"When people speak in Star Trek, the computer is always listening. What changed in that hypothetical future's past that needs to change in our present to make wholesale gathering of our voice comms acceptable?"

Its an interesting question.
The capabilities of the star trek technology means that within a few seconds of Picard/Riker or Kirk/Spock/Scotty/etc decided to breach protocol or violate an order and discussing it anywhere on the ship... his superior officer would show up on the view screen and relieve him of duty; and teleport him to the ships brig.

Real-time spying of everyone on the ship at all times... would turn into a dystopia pretty quick.

They'd need a constitution that guaranteed them absolute privacy; and complete immunity from persecution/prosecution from such eavesdropping/electronic monitoring if it were to take place. And a system of checks and balances that had the people's faith that the audio wasn't being archived, reviewed, and misused.

Re:So here's a question:

[Anonymous Coward]

No. The computer is always listening and providing the universal translator as a passive service. This was made explicit in an episode of Deep Space 9 when unknown aliens arrive on the station and nobody can understand them until the computer samples enough of their speech to translate their language automatically.

Re:So here's a question:

[Anonymous Coward]

Its an interesting question.
The capabilities of the star trek technology means that within a few seconds of Picard/Riker or Kirk/Spock/Scotty/etc decided to breach protocol or violate an order and discussing it anywhere on the ship... his superior officer would show up on the view screen and relieve him of duty; and teleport him to the ships brig.

Yes, and that's exactly what happened when McCoy and Scott conspired to mutiny against Janice Lester who was impersonating Kirk at the time.

The only way Picard or Kirk get away with disobeying orders is by virtue of being at the top of the chain of command and out of radio range of their superiors.

Re:So here's a question:

[R3d M3rcury]

Well, arguably Star Trek did not make "wholesale gathering of our voice comms acceptable." At least in The Original Series, you usually had to flip a switch to talk to the computer.

That said, it seems like everything was recorded...

Re:So here's a question:

[pushing-robot]

What changed in that hypothetical future's past that needs to change in our present to make wholesale gathering of our voice comms acceptable?

We're no longer being ruled by the Ferengi.

Re:So here's a question:

[jenningsthecat]

When people speak in Star Trek, the computer is always listening. What changed in that hypothetical future's past that needs to change in our present to make wholesale gathering of our voice comms acceptable?

In Star Trek the eavesdropping computers weren't owned by private corporations looking to turn the users into products by selling and/or otherwise monetizing every scrap of data they could collect. The computers were there to serve the greater good, not the shareholders' good.

Re:So here's a question:

[Desler]

Your comparing make believe to real life? Uhhhh... what?!!

Re:So here's a question:

[chipschap]

Your comparing make believe to real life? Uhhhh... what?!!

You're right. Make-believe is generally very much better.

Re:So here's a question:

[Anonymous Coward]

In Star Trek I think everyone would be able to drop the space warp core or whatever onto the Earth and kill all life on Earth in a moment. Even if you're a renegade you can steal a shuttle that's warp-capable (so, the sharp abilities to relieve people of duty within two seconds aren't used often) and either the warp core in it or the anti-matter needed would provoke a dinosaur-killing asteroid kind of explosion though they didn't necessarily know that in the 60s or 80s.

Re:So here's a question:

[vux984]

Yes, and that's exactly what happened when McCoy and Scott conspired to mutiny against Janice Lester who was impersonating Kirk at the time.

Yeah. One time. Once. On one episode. That's the flaw of star trek as a work of fiction. It would have been always happening, every episode.

The only way Picard or Kirk get away with disobeying orders is by virtue of being at the top of the chain of command and out of radio range of their superiors.

Really? How many episodes did they conspire against a superior officer on their OWN SHIP? Why didn't the ship rat them out?

And how many episodes did little Wesley or Worf or some red-shirt of the week break the rules and not get snitched on by the computer immediately?

How many times did someone go missing or rebel or whatever, without the first command being... hey computer, dump everything that officer said to anyone the last 48 hours, also what were they reading, who were they with, what's the last thing they ate and drank? If that computer were real, that would be step #1 for pretty much everything.

Re: So here's a question:

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. That, and the fact that Star Trek episodes have few or no fat chicks and the njggers don't want to be thugs is conclusive proof: clearly this is an advanced civilization!

Re:So here's a question:

[spire3661]

Picard has root access to the *Enterprise* computers. That is the difference. Also, The Federation has strong personal liberty protections that generally dont get violated (Section 31 being an exception)

Re:So here's a question:

[Anonymous Coward]

Did the Star Trek computer record everything and then share it with third parties behind the scenes? Hey, I see another 2001 A Space Odyssey coming-up: "Hal, I did not say that!" Yes, Dave, you did, on March 3rd 2017, at 18:23 hours".

Re:So here's a question:

[Anonymous Coward]

How many times did someone go missing or rebel or whatever, without the first command being... hey computer, dump everything that officer said to anyone the last 48 hours, also what were they reading, who were they with, what's the last thing they ate and drank? If that computer were real, that would be step #1 for pretty much everything.

It was. Standard procedure when an officer went missing was to ask the computer to locate them, and when it couldn't, dump the officer's personal logs for clues about where they had run off. It did happen all the time, crew were always asking the computer when and how other crewmembers left the ship. Geordi spent an entire episode listening to the personal logs of an officer who went AWOL. Barclay was constantly getting in trouble for abusing the holodeck and his superiors would pull up the log of every program he had used.

Re:So here's a question:

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, Star Trek is purely socialist. They skipped the whole UBI thing and went straight to having no money.

Imagine what types of real personalities would be attracted to working under orders in Starfleet for no money. Imagine what types of people would thrive in that environment and still be motivated to increase in rank. Every captain would be a psychopath.

Re:So here's a question:

[Anonymous Coward]

Even without antimatter/warp capability a shuttle travelling at full impulse (.25c) has a kinetic energy equivalent to many gigatons (shuttles weigh ~17,000 kg according to memory alpha). Something starship-size would hit with a force orders of magnitude larger than the dinosaur asteroid.

Re: So here's a question:

[Anonymous Coward]

Star Trek has never been very good with subtlety

Re:So here's a question:

[ArmoredDragon]

Also, Star Trek is purely socialist. They skipped the whole UBI thing and went straight to having no money.

Being able to replicate anything you want at any time you want makes money irrelevant, which also means that concepts like socialism and communism don't apply either. In Star Trek Voyager where resources were scarce, they had money in the form of replicator rations. If the entire economy was truly automated like that, you'd end up with no need for money and there would never be a need for UBI at any point along the path. UBI is trying to solve a problem that probably won't ever exist, and it certainly can't offer enough money to end homelessness or solve any other socioeconomic problem you can name.

Re:So here's a question:

[theweatherelectric]

Being able to replicate anything you want at any time you want makes money irrelevant

Except that you can't replicate everything. Star Trek never addressed the ownership of real estate in the Federation beyond saying "well, there are lots of planets to colonize and lots of places to live". Picard's brother lived in a vineyard. Why did he live there and not someone else? How do you transact the ownership of real estate outside of war and inheritance in the Star Trek universe? Other Star Trek empires still used money for these problems.

Replicators are a nice idea but they don't solve the whole economic problem.

Re:So here's a question:

[jordanjay29]

You forget that all the occupants of ships on Star Trek were members or guests of a paramilitary organization. They'd have to give up their privacy in that respect when they joined or boarded the ship, in order to make use of such conveniences for Starfleet's purposes. This easily sidesteps today's privacy concerns since Starfleet owns and operates the ships of its own fleet. Rarely do we see civilian homes in the shows, and I can't recall a time when a civilian had a computer system like Starfleet.

Re:So here's a question:

[Anonymous Coward]

Every captain would be a psychopath.

They are. Captains are tinpot dictators with delusions of godhood. Admirals hold whole planets hostage and start interstellar wars for fun. Starfleet command is full of insane admirals especially in the aftermath of the bluegill incident.

Re:So here's a question:

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't even solve the energy problem

But that's why they had dilithium

Also, warp space, tractor beams & gravitic plating make massive space habitats comparatively trivial to build and maintain

Unfortunately those features probably require the physics of the universe to be slightly different to the one we actually live in.

Re: So here's a question:

[Anonymous Coward]

The ship's computer was not in the cloud.

Re:So here's a question:

[Farmer Tim]

Power corrupts. Warp power corrupts and...um, warps?

Re:So here's a question:

[Anonymous Coward]

It requires people to just give up any notion of being a private person, and just becoming a sheep. It would also require trust - trust of corporations, and trust of government.

Also, Star Trek is fiction.

People ever being able to trust Governments and Corporations is also Fiction. It doesn't mean the sheeple won't trust them, only that they shouldn't.

Re:So here's a question:

[vux984]

Standard procedure when an officer went missing was to ask the computer to locate them, and when it couldn't, dump the officer's personal logs for clues about where they had run off. It did happen all the time, crew were always asking the computer when and how other crewmembers left the ship.

Yes, you remember when it happened. You don't remember when it didn't. it certainly did happen when it furthered the plot. But watch through again, and see how often they *didn't* use the computer's universal monitoring when they could have.

Geordi spent an entire episode listening to the personal logs of an officer who went AWOL. Barclay was constantly getting in trouble for abusing the holodeck and his superiors would pull up the log of every program he had used.

I don't deny it happened when it happened. I'm just saying there were a multitude of times where it DIDN'T happen where it should have. just look at episode 2 of stng season one (that's as far as I had to go to find a crazy good example)... all kinds of places where a computer that knows where everyone is at all times, and listens/records everything that happens everywhere on the ship.

I mean less than a minute in before even the opening credits an away team is exploring a ship trying to figure out what happened...no life signs... but no one thought to just ask the computer to play back everything that happened...should have done that before even boarding the ship... of course that might have prevented them contracting the virus in the first place and would have made for a pretty boring episode.

Then they confine geordie to sick bay, and he just walks out. How was that not monitored? How wasn't he immediately run down by the ship who knows where everyone is, and can hear everything everywhere... sure he took off his communicator but so what?... they have to manually search the ship? because the computer couldn't have just told him where he went - figuring out what doors he opened... , etc etc or it couldn't pick him up by voiceprint chatting with Wesley in his room... etc etc etc etc...

I'm not irritated per se, it was a TV show, and although it was decent SF... it wasn't really trying to be a completely internally consistent hard-SF projection of humanity in the future. And It wasn't trying to explore what humanity would look like if it had a computer listening to everything said... that was just a plot gimmick -- used when convenient, forgotten when not. And the show was generally exploring other themes.

Re:So here's a question:

[AmiMoJo]

They seem to have rules enforcing privacy in Star Trek. For example, when they ask the computer where someone is, it actually tells them where their comm badge is. If they take the badge off, they computer appears unable to locate them, even though the ship's sensors can apparently detect individuals on a planet full of other living creatures from orbit. There must be some kind of hard lock-out in place as they never even think to try to override it.

Presumably the computer would be programmed to ignore and never record anything it hears until it is address directly by name, which is why they always prefix any question or order for it with "Computer."

Re:So here's a question:

[Anonymous Coward]

What changed in that hypothetical future's past that needs to change in our present to make wholesale gathering of our voice comms acceptable?

Donald Trump?

A better question would be what did NOT change.

Re:So here's a question:

[Anonymous Coward]

There's only one thing.

Ethics.

Without that we're all fucked.

Re:So here's a question:

[Anonymous Coward]

just because it is always listening doesn't mean that its storing... in fact most of these conversations are probably really boring with maybe 10% being semi interesting and 1% being really juicy with out the context of actually knowing the people speaking.

Re:So here's a question:

[Anonymous Coward]

It requires people to just give up any notion of being a private person, and just becoming a sheep

So dramatic... RESIST RESIST!!!!1!1!

All tools have a purpose, limitations and risks. Knowing and weighing those limitations & risks and choosing to use a tool appropriately in no way makes one a 'sheep' nor no longer a private person. There are reasons I don't have an echo in my bedroom, bathroom or car and several reasons why I DO have one in my kitchen.

Re:So here's a question:

[Anonymous Coward]

That's strange, Various books indicate that the Federation and Star Fleet pay is based on Credits though we have no idea what a credit is worth - TNG/DS9 both use them. Simply put, the Federation Standard Credit is like the Federation Standard Year for the same reason that planets have a monetary/banking system. Provide an abstracted medium of exchange. It's why the value of bitcoin is so volatile - it's abstracted too far from a real basis unlike the Dollar, Ruble, Simoleons or even Timbuktu's.

Re:So here's a question:

[wyHunter]

It's quite simple. In left wing utopias like Star Trek, the politically favored live in such lovely places.

Re:So here's a question:

[wyHunter]

It wasn't paramilitary, it was military.

Re:So here's a question:

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no reason Alexa cannot be an appliance without a constant internet connection. Just a 10T hard-drive with an encyclopedia, a music collection, a CPU/GPU whatever for AI stuffs, etc., and all running locally... with perhaps periodic updates over the internet. With settings that allow you to keep everything (literally, everything) local.

I'd be in a market for a device like that. Even paranoid folks would probably give it a spin.

This whole "we need to be online, and send everything within earshot to our cloud" is bullshit, and has more to do with marketing than with the ``business of an intelligent assistant''.

Re:So here's a question:

[Anonymous Coward]

The computers were there to serve the greater good

Yeah, the greater good of arresting your ass because you don't agree that a bunch of aliens on the Federation council decided to hand over your home to the spoonheads.

Re:So here's a question:

[Anonymous Coward]

Very true. You would imagine that the space on home planet would be at a super duper premium. Especially with hundreds of other planets needing embassies etc on it. Unless half the people just got up and left, which by all accounts is not the case. I think 99% of people in StarTrek never leave the planet they were born on.

Re:So here's a question:

[Anonymous Coward]

Again, STAR TREK IS FICTION. The writers did not figure this shit out and glossed over it.

Re:So here's a question:

[beanpoppa]

Who cares if a computer is always listening to what we are saying so that, in a closed loop, it can respond to our needs? The creep factor that people feel is mostly irrational. Computers are already reading all of our email and reading all of our files. That's how antivirus and spam filtering works. It's only an issue when the computer or AI is doing something outside the realm of what we are considering acceptable. Having a computer listen to everything that is being said so that it can instantly turn on the lights, or adjust the temperature is fine.

Re:So here's a question:

[SCVonSteroids]

You make it law that anything spoken cannot be used to prosecute you.
Let them gather whatever evidence/information they want, but they cannot prosecute you unless an action is made.

Is this perfect? No. But without it they'll throw us in jail just for saying you want to "Kill X for doing Y" out of shear anger, as most of us have done at some point in our lives but don't actually mean to do. And this is one of the more obvious cases I can think of. God knows how far it would span if we were stripped of our rights down to that level.

We need something, because barring any world-ending (our world) event, it's coming very soon.

No, they won't

[Kargan]

I don't own any Amazon devices, and that is not going to change.

Re:No, they won't

[reboot246]

Amen! This is why I don't own any device - Amazon, Google, or whoever - that can listen to what I'm saying. If privacy protection ever evolves into what it should be, I may reconsider, but I'm not holding my breath.

I will continue to buy stuff from Amazon. Since I buy for myself and a lot of other people, Amazon has never really understood exactly what I'm personally interested in.

Re:No, they won't

[Anonymous Coward]

You may not, but your friends, workplace, shops, etc may have one or more listening.

It's much the same issue with social media, in particular, Facebook. Even if one doesn't have an account, many of their friends, family, etc likely do and hence personal information can leak. Pictures taken by others, details mentioned by family (ie. listing names of their kids, grand-kids, where they live, work, etc), and general traffic analysis (who interacts with who; fake account info does little to protect against this).

On a related topic of listening in, many public transit vehicles now have microphones recording too. Not just the big name transit authorities either, but also many smaller ones. Something to consider before taking the bus, train, etc. It's becoming more difficult by the day to keep one's conversations private.

Re:No, they won't

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if one doesn't have an account, many of their friends, family, etc likely do and hence personal information can leak. Pictures taken by others, details mentioned by family (ie. listing names of their kids, grand-kids, where they live, work, etc), and general traffic analysis (who interacts with who; fake account info does little to protect against this).

You are absolutely right. I would mod you up if I could.

If you want to avoid the fucking panopticon, you get forced into a smaller and smaller little box all the time. It is fast reaching the point where you must either give up socializing iwth other human beings, or accept that THEY will turn your private data (conversations between you and your friends, your photograph, etc) over to social media companies and internet ad agencies and data brokers.

   

Re:No, they won't

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, of course you know that's bullshit. Amazon knows who your relatives and friends are because surely they have your Facebook (or Twitter and other SM info). That being said, it's really really difficult to stick to your principles when you actually get a valid service for your info. I'm not calling you out - AC doesn't have any fucking clout - and I fully admit that as much as I despise Wal-Mart it's one of the few grocery stores in my area that's worth a shit. I despise eBay, yet Paypal is accepted damned near *everywhere* online...much easier than actually protecting my privacy the way that I should. And yes, Amazon too...they all (surely) know far more about us than we would feel comfortable with.

We have the luxury (even if we're participating in the social bullshit) of knowing that, for the most part, we aren't important enough for anyone to bother paying attention to *us specifically*. We are...simply put, data. Data to be analyzed (largely by computers anyway) and manipulated (by computers) into buying items that are managed (by computers). Until we're running for office, playing the lead in a new movie, or getting our most recent appearance on COPS, nobody gives enough of a shit to bother looking.

At least, that's what I tell myself in order to sleep at night. Isn't the American Dream "2 Acres of Land, a Mule, and a sign that says 'Fuck off'"?

Re:No, they won't

[Anonymous Coward]

This. If I had the need for every word I say being analyzed and possibly used against me, I'd get a wife or move back in with mom.

Re:No, they won't

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree... they only way I could be completely myself, was if I were to leave all my electronic devices at home and then take like a weeks vacation in a secluded cottage of mine...

still has TV but its an old CRT TV, still has power and water, but no internet and only vintage computers without internet connections...

Sorry to say, but we will all have to accept the fact that we are under 24 hour surveillance at this point, even as I type this post, it is being stored in god knows how many servers and tied to my big data identity, despite that I post this as an AC.

The fight for privacy was lost many moons ago by my estimate...

Atleast it seems more regular folks are beginning to protest against the loss of net neutrality:

http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/24/technology/fcc-net-neutrality/index.html

But privacy as a whole,

well I am afraid that ship has sailed long ago... we will not have privacy fir the rest of our lives, our kids and grandkids wont... and we might not have privacy for the next many generations to come...

even "sensitive" data about everyone is everywhere, I live in a country were the goverment regulary lets "secret" and "sensitive" data slip out, data that can be used for identity theft and all other sort of bad things... for example they insist that the nr equal to the us social security number should be secret despite allowing everyones social security numbers leak without consequences 10 times in the last 10 years... they are so careless about protecting data, any data, that it is surreal!

Summary doesn't make sense

[DogDude]

"If developers knew what exactly is being said to their skills, they could make adjustments based on specific information."

Is this supposed to make sense?

Re:Summary doesn't make sense

[haruchai]

"If developers knew what exactly is being said to their skills, they could make adjustments based on specific information."

Is this supposed to make sense?

Alexa wrote the summary

Re:Summary doesn't make sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Developers create skills, for the Alexa bot thing, which enable it to perform various tasks like tell you the local weather or schedule an appointment. Amazon is saying that if the developers of the skills had the actual audio being supplied to them, the developers could tune them for better performance and presumably deliver a better end user experience.

Re:Summary doesn't make sense

[Anne Thwacks]

Amazon, and its (her) creators are unable to distinguish between apps and skills...

Hold on, I think there are four norsemen with paperclips at my door ...

Re:Summary doesn't make sense

[Anonymous Coward]

"If developers knew what exactly is being said to their skills, they could make adjustments based on specific information."

Is this supposed to make sense?

Alexa wrote the summary

And the /. article was posted by "BeauHD" so that adds to the questionable nature of the entire topic.

Re:Summary doesn't make sense

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that's wrong. Amazon does not share audio with third parties and won't. This article and summary are non-sensical. What they are talking about is raw text vs. intent/slot model only. This is nearly a non-issue, since the basic capabilities have been there in the Alexa Skill Kit since the beginning, it's just never been supported.

This is the difference between a skill getting:
{SearchIntent topic="Donald Trump"}
and
{text:"I'd like to search for information about Donald Trump"}

In neither case does it have anything to do with audio, nor with "private transcripts", nor with sharing any of your other Alexa interactions with third party developers. It's just a terribly written article all around.

Re:Summary doesn't make sense

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the difference between a skill getting:
{SearchIntent topic="Mickey Mouse"}
and
{text:"I'd like to search for information about Mickey Mouse"}

The former limits you in terms of certain types of dialog modeling strategies, optimization, doing your own NLU and so on. The latter empowers developers and shares no private or secret information, just the actual words you used in your query.

None of this has anything to do with "private transcripts" or audio or any of the other garbage I see in these comments. The story is terrible, the summary is awful and the comments are completely ill-informed.

hey y'all, watch this!

[turkeydance]

it ain't private no more

I don't see the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

If you buy one of these devices, you clearly don't give a fuck about privacy.

Re: I don't see the problem

[Hatfelt]

Is there a surprise here? Doesn't Alexa (big sister?) hear and report everything?

Just fuckin' perfect.

[Anonymous Coward]

I went ahead and bought a Dot on Prime Day because they were dirt cheap. Now I see what the larger plan was. FUCK. Sending it back.

Re: Just fuckin' perfect.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's okay,
You're a poor and the card you put in was declined so it won't show up anyway

Re:Just fuckin' perfect.

[Oswald McWeany]

I went ahead and bought a Dot on Prime Day because they were dirt cheap. Now I see what the larger plan was. FUCK. Sending it back.

The problem isn't having a device that can listen in on you.

The problem is that there is no regulation of privacy. The company gets to set the rule. It's one thing while devices like DOT are novelties. You as an individual buy them and bring them into your own home.

10 years from now, almost every room you step in, and almost every new car you buy, and almost street you walk down is going to have internet connected devices. Many of which will be recording you or one or more aspect about you. These aren't going to be devices you buy specifically in many cases. Shopkeepers will be recording you as you walk past their shops. When you fill up your car- BP will be scanning your license plate. The government will be tracking you as you drive down the street. In your car your insurance company will have a required mic and video.

In your own home you may not be able to buy a toaster without internet requirements and your mandatory cable box or internet modem

Everyone is going to be spying on you. It won't just be your Dot. You're not going to have a choice.

What needs to be done is privacy regulations put in place BEFORE this happens, not afterwards. No company should be able to share any data about you without your expressed permission. Nor can a company offer any sort of carrot or stick incentives for sharing data. A company should not be allowed to discriminate in any way between users who chose to share data and those who don't/

My transcript

[Anonymous Coward]

"Alexa, order a case of Red Bull"
"Alexa, order a tub of lube"
"Alexa, play my porn library"

Use mycroft.ai

[HalAtWork]

Previously mentioned on Slashdot, Mycroft.ai can be built on a Raspberry Pi and perhaps other clones, and voice processing can be done locally. If I wanted something like this I'd probably use that.

Re:Use mycroft.ai

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? What would you get out of a shitty Siri clone that's barely being used by anybody and is lacking in basic abilities?

Alexa can't even open up Pandora, much less work well. It's basically unused and undeveloped. Like FreedomBox, it shows a complete lack of creativity (like a popular commercial product, but open source!) and is impossible to execute properly given the constraints of Open Source development.

Re:Use mycroft.ai

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not true. You can do hotword processing locally, but both actual speech recognition and natural language parsing need capabilities far beyond a Raspberry Pi.

Microft.ai uses Google Speech API for speech. They don't need a server for NLP, but that's because their NLP is significantly behind state of the art.

Re:Use mycroft.ai

[Actually, I do RTFA]

I had ASR that worked perfectly on a desktop a decade ago. The new Pis have that much power, so they should be able to handle it locally.

Re:Use mycroft.ai

[HalAtWork]

I wouldn't get much out of any of these things honestly so comparing them is kinda moot, I qualified it by saying "if I wanted something like this"

Re:Use mycroft.ai

[HalAtWork]

That's why you can use a local server to host the speech processing parts.

Dont buy

[AHuxley]

Devices with microphones that cant be turned off.
Devices with microphones that connect to networks and want recordings.
IoT from .coms that want recordings.

Re: Dont buy

[Hatfelt]

...devices with microphones and network connectivity.

Re:Dont buy

[kamapuaa]

I'm typing this on a laptop with a microphone and internet access. I also have a phone by my desk with a microphone and internet access. My TV, with a microphone and internet access, is downstairs. I guess there's also my wife's tablet, with a microphone and internet access, downstairs. Does an XBox One have a mic in it?

Give over it bub. We're in the 21st century, there's stuff with microphones has internet access. In another decade or two the list will probably be ten times as long. Throwing our electronics in the fire is a futile Luddite approach to the issue of potential police over-surveillance.

Re:Dont buy

[AHuxley]

As a consumer a person still have the right to consider who they are buying from and what they are buying.
Software can be added to show or block mic or cam access.
That returns total control back to the user who owns the hardware.
In the 21st century some great software can be installed that can show OS and software access to hardware like a mic or cam in real time.
An informed user can then select to allow or find out more information on why an app needs the mic on all the time.

Re:Dont buy

[Anonymous Coward]

"Don't buy..."

Yeah. Don't sign up for Facebook, we said.

Look where that went.

Good luck with your crusade. The public though? It don't care. It never has. In 5 years you won't be able to leave your house without being in range of microphones and video cameras connected to social media and internet advertiser networks.

It'll happen because the public will accept anything if it's shiny enough.

Re:Dont buy

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. Don't sign up for Facebook, we said.

Look where that went.

Yeah for all the paranoid fear-mongering nothing really happened at all.

Re:Dont buy

[Anonymous Coward]

And if you went back 10 or 15 years the idea of carrying a GPS tracker with a microphone, multiple high resolution cameras and data connection to a cell network around in your pocket wherever you went would have sent the tinfoil hat crowd nuts. Yes potentially sometime in the last decade or sometime in the future maybe the governments of the world have secret backdoors that they could use to enable listening in, tracking or filming people via their smartphones and even track people who aren't carrying a phone by voice analysis of phones they are within range of. Connecting a device to any network you don't own and control is fraught with danger as well but the internet has become pervasive because people accept those risks and the actual demonstrable damage caused is almost non-existant relative to the benefits.

If it helps you get through life to consider yourself a special snowflake then that's fine too.

Re:Dont buy

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget you're probably carrying around a GPS tracker (up from the cell tower triangulation before that) with high resolution camera(s) and it is connected to a public network.

Yes we could fear the governments of the world or hackers or whatever and not have technology, we could live in buried bunkers for fear of nuclear war as well. The tin foil hat crowd takes a while to come around but eventually they do, then they jump on the next technological innovation as the root of all evil.

Re:Dont buy

[Anonymous Coward]

That returns total control back to the user who owns the hardware.

What's the tool to block the remote management features inside AMD and Intel CPUs, various ARM SoCs, network cards, etc?

In the 21st century some great software can be installed that can show OS and software access to hardware like a mic or cam in real time.

Like what? There have been plenty of workarounds to even the hardware LEDs that tell the user if the camera is on. If the software reports nothing do you believe it?

An informed user can then select to allow or find out more information on why an app needs the mic on all the time.

For something like Alexa (the topic of this story) or Google Home that should be pretty obvious already.

Don't use your phone, don't use mine. Don't speak treason, the're tapping the line. Redgum - ASIO (((1984)))

For fuck sake fix that spelling error, it's in everything you post.

Re:Dont buy

[schleimkeim]

Give over it bub

Yeah. Don't have standards and principles. That's not cool in our time and age.

Re:Dont buy

[Anonymous Coward]

"Give over it bub. We're in the 21st century"

The century of the retards and sheeps.

Re:Dont buy

[Anonymous Coward]

If you ignore the fact that these corporations have gained huge power and are influencing society and economy towards a shittier future, yes, nothing has happened.

Re:Dont buy

[viperidaenz]

You mean don't buy a laptop or smartphone?

Re:Dont buy

[mrwireless]

Nonsense.

- The microphones in your laptop and tablets are not always listening. That's different. And on a laptop you can check this using software like Oversight. But most importantly: it's a social norm.
- Scale matters. As a society there is no need to accept that internet connected devices with always listening microphones become a new norm. We have a say in this.

The argument that it's all "not really new, so accept it" is used a lot in tech circles. But that relies on a 1.0 understanding of privacy, where it's a binary thing: you have it or you don't.

The reality is that privacy is "contextual integrity" where it depends on the situation: you share more with your doctor than with your grocer. This also goes for the internet and our devices, and similar nuances must be enforced that way through technology itself and through the new morals we create, share and accept online.

Let's not accept always listening devices.

Re:Dont buy

[sacrilicious]

I'm typing this on a laptop with a microphone and internet access. I also have a phone by my desk with a microphone and internet access. My TV, with a microphone and internet access, is downstairs. I guess there's also my wife's tablet, with a microphone and internet access, downstairs. Does an XBox One have a mic in it?

My laptop runs an OS that gives me control of when the mic is on or off. Ditto my phone. I choose not to have a tv with a microphone, nor does it get internet access. No xbox, and if I did have one, it'd be unplugged when not in use. Your choice of wife is your own.

Give over it bub

YOU get over it, bubba, or corporate shill, whichever you are. Your logic is equivalent to saying "We're all going to be taking a dirtnap some day, so just kill yourself now." If you really believe what you're saying, you are a sad example of a human being, and you should just put your head down on your desk while the rest of us steal your personal data and profit from your uncaring stupidity.

Re:Dont buy

[Fnkmaster]

Sure. But Alexa isn't that. You can turn the mic off any time you want, there's a button for that.

And Amazon has committed publicly and legally to not sharing your audio with third party developers. That isn't going to change.

This story is completely false. Somebody misunderstood something they read or just wrote it as pure clickbait to rile up the privacy crowd.

Re:Dont buy

[Anonymous Coward]

You should run metasploit on a dummy computer and test your "mic isn't always listening" hypothesis. Metasploit isn't even sophisticated. You see the tools that have been getting leaked from the three letter agencies by WikiLeaks and ShadowBrokers lately? Weeping Angel, which turns on different devices' cameras and mics (even non-computer IOT devices) and Cherry Blossom, which turns your router into a port sniffer (Feeds every packet sent across the router to a central server). Plus, there are the NSA tools that the Shadow Brokers released that have been the vector for WannaCry and its many derivatives. These are only a few of the tools that have recently been leaked; how many tools didn't get leaked?

Sure, to have these tools used against you, you have to be under the radar of a three letter agency and (hypothetically) there should be a FISA court or similar warrant against you. Yet it is public information that groups like the NSA do blanket surveillance techniques that high courts have ruled to be just fine to do without a warrant as long as the information is not collected against a specific individual (without a warrant).

Just sayin'.

Re:Dont buy

[Anonymous Coward]

A small drill bit in the middle of said mic or camera will beat any software protection mechanism.

Location data

[Anonymous Coward]

It is laughable that in the same sentence that they claim to have only provided de-identified they include LOCATION data on that list.

Unbelievable.

Yes, and?

[SuperKendall]

This is fullly expected from an always on mic. Just wait and see what developers get from the model with the camera...

From a technical sense it's pretty understandable as context around what people are saying actually is pretty useful. I personally do not. Ind Amazon distributing other people's data for the greater good.

A fool and his privacy are soon pantsed.

[Presence Eternal]

Seriously, this is gesture interfaces all over again. Remember how your kinect was going to turn you into a martial artist? Yeah, no. Alexa doesn't even promise that much. Shut up and save your money.

I know for a fact

[Anonymous Coward]

I know for a fact that a certain major provider of a similar service, for cell phones, kept all the audio and transcription, for use by the science teams to improve transcriptions.

In theory, the data was stripped of source information, but I'm not 100% sure you couldn't work backwards - given a phone number, find the data related to that phone.

Re:I know for a fact

[Anne Thwacks]

If the transcript includes, "Mum, can you call me back on 07555 9998818", I think the cat is out of the bag.

Constant Surveillance

[huh69]

I'll never have one of these in my home. It's bad enough I have smart phones which could have the microphone turned on without my knowledge either by a "legitimate" party or by someone with malicious intent. Either way, it's a constant mental struggle between enjoying neat technology and concerns about having it used against you. These days, it seems like every business entity or government agency feels the need to know what you're thinking or doing at every moment of ever yday... and some folks seem to welcome that.

My friend has one of these...

[__aaclcg7560]

I can't take a fart without the Amazon Dot chirping in response. Pretty annoying.

Re:My friend has one of these...

[__aaclcg7560]

Maybe if you'd stop gorging yourself multiple times a day at all-you-can-eat buffets you wouldn't be farting so much.

I typically don't go to buffets. Skinny people don't like being skinny shamed when I'm nibbling on my only plate and they're on their third or fourth plate.

Re:My friend has one of these...

[Anonymous Coward]

That doesn't even make sense. It shows that the skinny person has a better metabolism than you so is still skinny.... YOU should be ashamed!

Re:My friend has one of these...

[__aaclcg7560]

I've seen your lardass gorging on buffets many times, tubby. You have a reputation for closing down restaurants because your gorge so much.

That's kind of hard to do on a 1,500-calorie per day diet. :P

Re: My friend has one of these...

[Anonymous Coward]

Skinny shamed?? If they eat a lot but remain slim that's because they have a high metabolism which comes from getting off their ass and being active. That is not something to be ashamed of. Not even close. You seem to be in fatass denial.

Re:My friend has one of these...

[__aaclcg7560]

That doesn't even make sense. It shows that the skinny person has a better metabolism than you so is still skinny.... YOU should be ashamed!

Who is the glutton: the fat person with a single plate or a skinny person with three or four plates?

Re: My friend has one of these...

[__aaclcg7560]

That is not something to be ashamed of.

You don't think gorging yourself in public isn't something to be shamed of?

Re:My friend has one of these...

[Anonymous Coward]

The person who is eating more calories than they use?

Re: My friend has one of these...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes I don't think it isn't. You clearly don't either lardo.

Re: My friend has one of these...

[Anonymous Coward]

Who said anything about "gorging"? We don't know the size of the servings or how they ate!

Don't you think hauling around a 350 pound body everywhere is far worse? The energy expended in moving your fat ass everywhere is enough for TWO people; *THAT'S* gorging, and you do it even when BREATHING.

Re:My friend has one of these...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you were only eating 1500 calories you wouldn't be 350 lbs. Nice try, tubby.

Re:My friend has one of these...

[Anonymous Coward]

creimer's "single plate"
Skinny persons three plates

Re:My friend has one of these...

[Anonymous Coward]

creimer on the right eating his single plate of food.

Re: My friend has one of these...

[Anonymous Coward]

The fat person, obviously. Gluttony means you eat more calories than you need. That's how you get fat. The slim person is meeting their needs and then stopping.

That their needs are greater than yours only means they are more active. Hence less lazy. Again, not gluttony. It really helps when you eat because you're genuinely hungry, not eating your emotions because you can't deal with them.

Re: My friend has one of these...

[Anonymous Coward]

Eating a lot when you are thin is socially acceptable, as long as you eat like a normal person.

Re: My friend has one of these...

[Anonymous Coward]

creimer's 'single' plate.
skinny person's 'gorging' plate.

Re:My friend has one of these...

[Anonymous Coward]

One of your farts in an enclosed room can cause permanent tinnitus. Jesus, and YOU talk about other people being ashamed? you BRAG about farting at your friend's place so loud a shitty computer picks it up??

Re: My friend has one of these...

[__aaclcg7560]

creimer's 'single' plate.

That's disgusting!

skinny person's 'gorging' plate.

I eat a bit less than that.

Re:My friend has one of these...

[__aaclcg7560]

creimer's "single plate"

That's digusting!

Skinny persons three plates

That looks good.

Re: My friend has one of these...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's disgusting!

Then why do you eat it then, lardy?

Re:My friend has one of these...

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet you're a tub of lard. No one believes you eat only 1500 calories.

Re: My friend has one of these...

[__aaclcg7560]

Then why do you eat it then, lardy?

I don't, asshole.

Re:My friend has one of these...

[__aaclcg7560]

And yet you're a tub of lard.

I was when I was teenager. After 20 years of bike riding and 10+ years of the gym, I'm not a butterball anymore.

No one believes you eat only 1500 calories.

My diet isn't dependent on what other people believe.

Re: My friend has one of these...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen you eat that shit, chunky.

Re: My friend has one of these...

[Anonymous Coward]

Study after study shows who people who eat less calories lose weight. Even if you just eat Twinkies for all your calories.

Meanwhile, there's also studies that people do a terrible job estimating how much they eat.

Just imagine outside observers. Of course we are going to think you are self-deluded, rather than that you have somehow discovered a way around basic laws of physics or biology.

Re:My friend has one of these...

[Anonymous Coward]

I honestly thought you were pointlessly replying to this troll for the nth day. I mean you have perseverance dude. It's not like this is a one off, you get lardy related grief continuously and bat it off with a smile.
You are the everyman hero. Keep up the good natured troll replies

Re:My friend has one of these...

[Anonymous Coward]

Cool story, creimer.

Re:My friend has one of these...

[Cro Magnon]

Interesting. I'm an experienced farter, but I've never managed to make my farts sound like "Alexa".

Re:My friend has one of these...

[turp182]

That's the new Fart language pack (EN-FRT).

It's listening to your digestive communications, which until recently were like dolphin speak, unknown to us.

But Amazon figured it out.

Re:My friend has one of these...

[Anonymous Coward]

My diet isn't dependent on what other people believe.

And yet, you make the extraordinary claim that you've somehow violated every law of biology, biochemistry, and physics that we know.

As a 5'10, 47 year old male, weighing 350 pounds, your base metabolic rate is somewhere around 2800 calories per day. That means you burn 2800 calories doing *nothing* but breathing and sitting there. That's your caloric "cost of upkeep."

You claim to take in only 1500 calories per day. That means you burn 1300 calories per day that come from someplace other than your food intake, at a MINIMUM - if you workout, walk around, do anything active, you'll burn MORE. Burning a pound of fat requires you to burn about 3500 calories in excess of your BMR - which means that in about 3 days, at your claimed caloric intake, you would lose a pound of fat.

And yet you claim to have been working out at the gym and eating only 1500 calories a day for YEARS, yet you've lost no weight.

This isn't just an extraordinary claim, creimer -- it's a PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE claim. It's literally impossible to eat and exercise as you say you do, and not lose weight. NOT. POSSIBLE. Period, end of story. You are not magically creating energy from thin air to maintain your weight. You do not have magical muscles which reduce your BMR. If you are maintaining your weight, it's likely that your consuming around 3000 calories per day - TWICE what you claim to be eating.

Re:My friend has one of these...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice affiliate link, cunt.

Paying for the Privilege of Being Bugged

[crunchygranola]

I am not letting a corporation install bugging devices in my home, and I am sure as hell not going to pay for the privilege.

Re:Paying for the Privilege of Being Bugged

[thegarbz]

What are you talking about you already have. Or did you type this post on a graphics calculator?

Re:Paying for the Privilege of Being Bugged

[AmiMoJo]

I'm actually surprised that Amazon doesn't give away their hardware... Maybe they are happy with a slower roll out and some extra profit.

Eventually I expect they will be free, because they make so much money for Amazon. Not just extra purchases, but they also get to direct your purchases and control who else gets to make sales. If you say "order some AA batteries", they get to decide which brand of battery and how many and who from.

Re:Paying for the Privilege of Being Bugged

[Frosty Piss]

I am not letting a corporation install bugging devices in my home, and I am sure as hell not going to pay for the privilege.

A good point that has, of course, been brought up many times. Given what we know from Snowden, there can be no question that the Three Letter Agencies are all over this.

Re:Paying for the Privilege of Being Bugged

[Anonymous Coward]

Also they get to sample *other* sound sources---say the TV... they *know* what channel/tv-show/advertisement you're watching... That's very valuable information.

My guess Amazon has better valuation of TV advertisements than the TV stations or advertisers.

Is this legal in "All - Party Consent" states?

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Maryland, USA former home of Linda Tripp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Tripp#Indictment_by_the_state_of_Maryland/. Since it is likely that not all people (friends, guests, etc.) in a given room even know the mic is present, how are these devices or this behavior legal in "All - Party Consent" states https://www.mwl-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/LAWS-ON-RECORDING-CONVERSATIONS-CHART.pdf/?

Re:Is this legal in "All - Party Consent" states?

[OrangeTide]

Are you certain you didn't click through user agreements that waive those rights? The fine print is so small and changes so frequently I doubt anyone here could even answer if the agreements from Amazon cover this.

Re:Is this legal in "All - Party Consent" states?

[taustin]

The same as a security system with audio. If you're in someone else's house, you have no expectation of privacy. At most, they might have to put a sticker by the front door telling you about the recording devices.

How it affects the homeowner's rights, however, is another question. I suspect the contract you agree to when you activate the device covers it, though.

Re:Is this legal in "All - Party Consent" states?

[KiloByte]

You have clicked through the user agreement. Your guests have not. The law reads clear to me: someone is in violation of the recording law. According to how the fine print was written, the guilty party is either Amazon or you.

Re:Is this legal in "All - Party Consent" states?

[OrangeTide]

What if it is my responsibility to inform my guests?

Re:Is this legal in "All - Party Consent" states?

[Anonymous Coward]

They definitely don't need a sticker. Think about the dozens of child & elderly abuse cases you've seen where people take footage of a caretaker straight to the media.

It's legal to record people in any manner in a private setting under your control, but a corporation would have to get your consent if they intended to air it for commercial purposes. That's usually to prevent someone from building a defamation case though. If you defame yourself (eg: caught in a prostitution sting, or media investigation into "selling rotten hotdogs") then you're S.O.L.

Re:Is this legal in "All - Party Consent" states?

[Anonymous Coward]

If there was a guilty party it would obviously be you, just like it would obviously be you if you used a webcam to stream to an online video service.

Re:Is this legal in "All - Party Consent" states?

[taustin]

They definitely don't need a sticker. Think about the dozens of child & elderly abuse cases you've seen where people take footage of a caretaker straight to the media.

That they don't get blowback from it doesn't mean it's legal. Most state are single party consent, so it doesn't matter. Even when it's not, many states have "justification laws" that say you can do something illegal to prevent or stop something more illegal. It's OK to commit a civil offense (recording without permission) to catch a criminal. And in all cases, the criminal won't get any sympathy.

The homeowner who bought such a device with an understanding the recordings won't be sold is a very different situation, though. But like I said, the contract no doubt covers it. It's not "without permission" if you give permission.

Re:Is this legal in "All - Party Consent" states?

[Albanach]

You have clicked through the user agreement. Your guests have not.

Did you force your guests to visit?

The law reads clear to me

Let me guess. You're not a lawyer?

Re:Is this legal in "All - Party Consent" states?

[KiloByte]

You have clicked through the user agreement. Your guests have not.

Did you force your guests to visit?

No, but they have the right to assume their rights won't be violated. Likewise, if there's a concealed spiked pit trapdoor behind your entrance, you have a duty to inform your guests.

The law reads clear to me

Let me guess. You're not a lawyer?

While we keep saying how evil lawyers are and how badly they twist the wording, I don't suspect a judge to be likely to have a different interpretation of a law written in such an obvious way. You need to have consent of every visitor -- usually, merely informing them is enough but you need to at least do that. This is not a public space, thus there's an expectation of privacy.

Re:Is this legal in "All - Party Consent" states?

[Albanach]

I don't suspect a judge to be likely to have a different interpretation of a law written in such an obvious way.

You realize this is an international site? There's a multitude of applicable laws.

This is not a public space, thus there's an expectation of privacy.

Any case law to back up the notion that it's reasonable to have an expectation of privacy in someone else's house?

Expectation of privacy, at least in the US, usually refers to fourth amendment rights against police search. If you visit a friend and confess to a crime, do you think you have an expectation of privacy such that they cannot tell the police?

Re:Is this legal in "All - Party Consent" states?

[KiloByte]

You realize this is an international site? There's a multitude of applicable laws.

This thread (started here) is specifically about Maryland, a state that requires consent of all parties.

If you want to go international, here's the law of Poland, the country I live in: a private person may record a conversation he's a participant of (ie, "one-party consent", Kodeks Karny art 267.3). The recording itself, though, may not be used or distributed freely (Kodeks Cywilny art 23) -- using it in a court case is okay, so is using it privately, but you may not distribute. A company, on the other hand, is required to obtain consent in a clear way, before recording.

Any case law to back up the notion that it's reasonable to have an expectation of privacy in someone else's house?

You have this weird "case law" system where the law doesn't say what it actually does but what a past judge had a whim to say it does. But, the chart the OP linked to does provide a detailed list of interpretations.

In countries that have never been an English colony, precedents don't have any force at all, thus only the law as written matters.

Re:Is this legal in "All - Party Consent" states?

[Albanach]

OK. I'm not a Maryland lawyer. I cannot and don't pretend to give legal advice.

Here's some thoughts. The Maryland statute Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. 10-402 prohibits some forms of 'willful' recording. That might prohibit continuous recording, however that's not what Google/Amazon/Apple do - they record after hearing a wake word. If they mishear a wake word, is that still willful one party recording? Unless the state supreme court has ruled, I'd think there's ambiguity there.

From a quick Google search, Md. courts have held that there has to be a reasonable expectation of privacy. For example speaking loudly enough that others outside can hear might rescind that expectation. So if there's an Amazon Echo sitting on the coffee table, does the speaker still have a reasonable expectation of privacy?

Again, there are very few laws that are clear, given the facts must always be applied to the law and the facts can change subtly or dramatically between cases.

And once more, I'm not a lawyer in Maryland. These are just layperson thoughts with regard to that statute. If someone in Md. is concerned, they should consult a lawyer barred in the state.

Non-affiliate link

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B015TJD0Y4/

Most overblown headline ever

[Anonymous Coward]

This ridiculous article is NOT talking about releasing any private transcripts, nor about releasing audio. Its just talking about allowing developers access to raw text rather than just intent/slot values. Actually, this has been possible to do for third party developers in a hacky way forever with the AMAZON.Literal slot and truly it is no big deal from a privacy perspective.

This only applies to interactions with a skill (app) the developer built! This doesn't mean your audio nor any interactions out of the developer's skill will be available to developers.

Vote this for most misleading headline ever. Privacy implications are de minimis. This is necessary for any more sophisticated and conversational skill development.

Fuck Amazon and Alexa with a rusty meathook.

[Anonymous Coward]

No one NEEDS any of this stuff.

All of it benefits those who own and control it far more than it benefits those who use it.

Most people never bother to stop and think about the choices they make. I suggest you try it, and take control of your own life instead of submitting to the con artists who want to fleece you.

Translation

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

"Amazon May Give Developers Your Private Alexa Transcripts"

Translation: "Amazon Has Already Given Developers Your Private Alexa Transcripts"

Re:Translation

[schleimkeim]

And to every intelligence agency out there.

Re:Translation

[hcs_$reboot]

Translation: "Amazon Has Already Given Developers Your Private Alexa Transcripts"

Considering the huge amount of data, to be humanly processed by people in order to improve programs, I'd be less worried than automatically processed data by Amazon AI itself.

Re:Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

"Your Alexa Transcripts Were Never Private"

Enjoy being sued

[Anonymous Coward]

What if it is my responsibility to inform my guests?

Then enjoy being sued by me when you don't inform me in a timely manner.

Re:Enjoy being sued

[OrangeTide]

Phew! As long as the Amazon Corporation is safe.

PS - I'm willing to settle the damages for $1.

It's not the recording, but what happens to it

[dfm3]

When I watched Star Trek back in the early 90's, I guess I assumed that all of the processing of voice input was happening right there locally in the computer. Heck, even in the late 90's and early 2000's, our desktop computers had text-to-speech software that didn't require an internet connection. So why did developers decide that all of that processing had to happen remotely, with voice recordings being transmitted to some server?

That, and all the damn analytics, is enough to keep me away. I don't mind, for example, being under the watchful eye of the camera system that I set up to record to a computer with no internet connection. I do mind, especially given the poor track record of IOT device security, when my devices transmit that audio and video to another party that I can be guaranteed is analyzing and using the data for advertising, profiling, or other purposes.

Get a box, hook it up...

[Anonymous Coward]

Get a box, hook it up, start mumbling garbage-things at home about clinton/russians/trump/merkel/thatfrenchguy/miscellaneousmuslims/etc. and see how long it takes CNNMSNBCCBSABCNBC to start rebroadcasting it!

No duh

[profssrfink]

Google and Amazon make their money off advertising. Neither have released a consumer product in the last 10 years that DOESN'T make money off advertising (AWS is not consumer). So why are we surprised? its the same crap over and over. Free email, cheap phones, cheap voice assistants, discounted shipping, cheap streaming services, etc. all to mine your data. There are companies that don't sell your data out there that seems to be doing fine selling high quality products. I don't want to name names for fear of offending dire hards and fanboys, but its pretty clear that if someone values privacy and wants mainstream products, they need to focus their attention on other products that don't come from Google. The answer to this problem is not binary. we don't use something and give up all privacy or not use something to keep it. Companies do not have to sell your data to make money. its just easier and cheaper than creating a good product that protects the user and adds value to their lives. Its harder to solve for privacy. Its harder competing with differentiating hardware. Its harder to captivate consumers with things they need to pay for and value as devices. Its easier to give it away, to play to the lowest common denominator.

This is retarded.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, you remember when it happened. You don't remember when it didn't. it certainly did happen when it furthered the plot. But watch through again, and see how often they *didn't* use the computer's universal monitoring when they could have.

And Kirk didn't use a shuttle that one time because the set hadn't been built yet.

Arguing over the inanities of writers' drama seems like someone ordered a 55 gallon drum of nits from Costco.

The fact remains, the ability to automagically dig through personal logs whenever a writer needs to existed, and more importantly, was used. But if we want to go off the reservation, I suggest the following:

Roddenberry be damned, you don't fly around the cosmos with the most powerful armaments the Federation can muster, complete with ranks and courts martial, and get to claim, "But, but, Starfleet isn't military!"

Starfleet is military, no matter what Roddenberry said. And with that in mind, Starfleet personnel are under military jurisdiction. They don't necessarily have the same de facto rights as Joe B'logg the Tribble dealer. So, perhaps it's not as bad as it seems when Riker starts looking at Lieutenant F'app's personal porno log when he goes missing.

Re:This is retarded.

[vux984]

Arguing over the inanities of writers' drama seems like someone ordered a 55 gallon drum of nits from Costco.

I specifically said that it didn't bother me. I completely agree its a TV show.

The fact remains, the ability to auto magically dig through personal logs whenever a writer needs to existed, and more importantly, was used.

But the implications of that capability were never fully explored and integrated. It was a conceit of the setting that they had that this computer capability while somehow it didn't get abused; just like it was a conceit that an individual could own a spaceship that could roll around at the speed of light and they didn't have problems with people suiciding them into inhabited space stations and planets whenever they got depressed.

Who didn't see THAT coming

[p51d007]

Google, Amazon, anyone....meta data is the new "gold" for them to sell.

That's why these devices are 100% unacceptable

[JohnFen]

They're unacceptable at first blush because the companies that produce them get audio recordings. Those companies aren't nearly trustworthy enough for that level of access.

That developers can access the recordings as well makes it a million times worse. As untrustworthy as the companies are, random app developers are even less so.

As long as this data is being sent somewhere else, these devices will not have a place in my home.

Simple solution to this.

[rnturn]

Vote with your feet.

Is Alexa really that necessary given that so many people are never--never--without their smart phone that they could use to do the majority of things that Alexa does? Ditto for Apple's product and Samsung's (if they can ever work out the bugs).

Another summary fail.

[PJ6]

It says it right in the headline. Transcripts, not recordings.

Re:Another summary fail.

[JohnFen]

Tomayto, tomahto