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:

[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:

[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:

[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.

No, they won't

[Kargan]

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

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

[HalAtWork]

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

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

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

[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

[schleimkeim]

Give over it bub

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

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.

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: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.

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.

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.

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/