Slashdot Mirror
South Park's Season Premier Sets Off Everyone's Amazon Echo (maxim.com)
SonicSpike writes: It's hard to believe that Trey Parker and Matt Stone didn't know exactly what they were doing with Wednesday night's season premiere of South Park. This episode marked the beginning of the show's 21st season and as usual, South Park took on current issues like tiki torch-wielding white supremacists and... home digital assistants. The latter meant lots of gags in which Cartman and other characters addressed Amazon Echo's Alexa and Google Home as well. And that ended up being a problem for viewers who own those devices. (Editor's note: example 1, 2) South Park writers absolutely knew their lines would do this and probably had a hilarious time coming up with funny commands for the home assistants.
Who actually uses these invasive pieces of technological garbage?
It's a clip from the show that has nothing to do with the story. Are the editors still as retarded as they've always been?
Here's a very populated swarms hash.
efc0b058374d2d8f0867958d01ce5cb404e65f37
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ah3W5CVJrac
For the first time ever I want one of these.
Also WooHoo, new SouthPark.
First law of people: People are generally stupid.
They should introduce a new character named Alexa, a young girl who fights for small businesses. Then Cartman can ask her for fishsticks and NAMBLA paraphernalia.
I have my Echo right next to my TV and it didn't activate a singe time during South Park. However, every damn Amazon commercial seems to activate my Echo.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
Makes me wish Beavis and Butthead were still around. But then I'll watch anything that doesn't have Charlie Sheen in it.
Alexa, say "mark has no sense of humor".
Have you read my blog lately?
Largest-scale practical joke?
In debates about Christianity, there are two groups: those looking for answers, and those looking to just ask questions.
if i had the means, i'd set off your alexa intentionally after reading that.
Sorry if you are stupid enough to allow some company to basically put a hot-mic in your home, well I don't feel sorry about any problems you encounter as a result of that.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Mark, you are a pure trifecta! 100% idiot, asshole, and faggot, all in one. For the benefit of humanity, please kill yourself now and any offspring you may have inadvertently produced during your time polluting the gene pool.
Read the law again. It contains phrases like 'Intentionally access..' and 'knowingly access...' So, prove that they intentionally accessed YOUR computer (which would of course require you to demonstrate that they a) knew you had such a device, b) would have the device in position to respond, and c) knew that you would be watching the show. Ain't gonna fly.
On the other hand, there is this thing called 'free speech'. I don't think 'some idiotic device may hear you and do something stupid' will ever be seen as a valid excuse to restrict speech.
1. Amazon does this all the time when they advertise the product.
2. This is obviously protected speech when lacking malicious intent.
3. The kind of person who watches South Park is going to appreciate the joke.
4. Burger King pulled this kind of thing, in poor faith, with Google Home. Everyone hated it. It got sabotaged, but I don't think any legal action followed.
Ah yes.... name-calling. The classic resort of a person who doesn't actually have any real argument.
Perhaps you don't remember that Burger King got in a whole mess of trouble just last Spring when they did something along the same lines... hijacking people's voice-activated home devices in pretty much the exact same way.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I recall a dude who set up his house with all kinds of automation. His friend showed up and he's like "I'll let you in" "Oh don't worry. SIRI, OPEN THE DOOR!" and the front door unlocks. Doesn't even do voice print recognition; just stand outside, shout loudly, and the front door unlocks.
Things become less a crime and more your own fault when they don't cause any substantial harm and are inflicted with little to no effort or reasonable consideration. A reasonable person doesn't walk up to your house and open your door, or reach into your pocket and fish out your phone to pull up a YouTube video; but he might yell "Siri, what is a billion times a billion" and run from the cacophony of phones trying to answer.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Alexa: "How did South Park prank you?"
I don't recall Burger King getting in any trouble for that ad. Please describe this 'whole mess'. In fact, the only result of that ad that I could find was that it won grand prize a some advertising convention.
Is if it did all processing locally, and was isolated from everything else.
Connect to my thermostat? Fine. Turn on a light? OK. Connect to my bank account? Not so much.
Send everything I say that it thinks includes a 'trigger word' to an off-site server for voice recognition processing and data mining? FUCK NO.
What the hell is wrong with people?
These devices are great big security holes. Think of the fun to be had.
Getting the script right is very easy if you have a device to practice on.
Now sneak up to your neighbours home, place a speaker against the window and play it loudly.
Alexa, send an email to my boss.
*pause* Yes. *pause*
I quit. You will never see me and the millions dollar again.
Alex end email
*long pause*
Yes send it.
So sending untargeted phishing emails is totally legal then? Because I don't know that the recipient has a bank account, or even a computer to read the email - I just send it on the off chance that they do. Very much like South Park did here.
We got a Dot for our elementary-school aged son for his room.
He:
- Controls the Hue lights in his room with it (got the cheapo last-gen starter kit, works great as a night light, too)
This is probably the most legitimately useful feature, as he's in a loft bed and can't reach his table lamp from his bed, so it's easy to turn it off and on
- Sets reminders for school stuff
- Sets alarms for various things
- Plays music
We also got the LittleBits cloud kit that integrates with Alexa, so he likes to play with that.
He thinks it's cool, I don't personally see the need for one as I just use my phone for most of those things.
Unlike in the cases of Cortana and Siri, you can change Alexa's Name to a number of pre-defined alternative names (currently 4, pettition amazon for more).
While I concur with people saying that this technology has security implications and is best avoided, I sugest changing the wake voice command (name) of your smart speaker as a way to lower this type of pranks.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/help...
*** Suerte a todos y Feliz dia!
Hopefully they round up all the co-conspirators, like the accomplice who turned on the TV to give the criminals access, and placed the vulnerable device within the audio range of the TV.
If you know of any co-conspirators who participated in this criminal offense, please, contact the police as soon as possible.
Read the law again. It contains phrases like 'Intentionally access..' and 'knowingly access...' So, prove that they intentionally accessed YOUR computer (which would of course require you to demonstrate that they a) knew you had such a device, b) would have the device in position to respond, and c) knew that you would be watching the show. Ain't gonna fly.
Under that legal theory, if I were to scan a range of IP addresses using a script that will brick certain common home routers, I would not have committed a crime. You would have to prove that I intentionally accessed YOUR computer (don't know who you are), that you had such a device (didn't know it until the hack worked), and that you had that device connected to the net (again, didn't know in advance).
And YOU are the one who "put it in a place where it would respond", so I'm even less guilty.
They also received one heck of a lot of negative backlash about it, including a reprimand from Google.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
This is, perhaps, what was meant by "getting in a whole lot of trouble." I would have thought that Amazon accepting orders for a dollhouse based on audio in news reports of a girl accidentally buying a dollhouse through Alexa might have resulted in more trouble, but no, getting someone's Google Home device to say "two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce cheese on a sesame seed bun" is too egregious to ignore.
Perhaps you are unaware that there are different laws for different offenses? Phishing is not illegal under the laws that prohibit unauthorized use of a computer, because phishing is not per se unauthorized use of a computer. There are, of course, laws against phishing. These laws prohibit actions that would cause a person to reveal private information fraudulently. South Park did no such thing, so those laws don't apply either.
including a reprimand from Google.
Free advertising. As long as Google spelled Burger King's name right, it was all just free advertising. And what an odd definition of "trouble" you have. If Google doesn't like what you do, you're in trouble young man! A ten minute time-out for you and your teddy bear.
What's really funny is the reaction of some idiot quoted in the NYT article about it. He's unhappy that advertisers are listening to every word in your living room. He ignores the fact that it is Google that was listening, not Burger King, and they don't listen to every word.
I know its episode 1, but i asked my wife after, was any of that funny to you?
...to trick people into bringing up a log out screen. Someone recorded video of people reacting to it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gui_I9qrh0g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTQlHJcrbPU
Is to prompt the end-user to choose a name for it. It's your device, I shouldn't have to call it "Google" or "Alexa" or whatever. To truly make a device personal, I should be required to name it.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Oh, a reprimand from Google! Well I'll bet that just had them shaking in their boots.
As for the 'heck of a lot of negative backlash' - hah. According to their 2nd quarter report (ended June 30, the quarter in which the ad ran), comparable sales were up 3.9% over last year. Some backlash.
I'll bet a whole lot more people found that ad, and especially all the whining about it, funny than had a problem with it.
I want to be able to speak into one, that's why I carry a Smartphone everywhere. It also serves as my VR device. It is trivial to make it do AR.
Completely wrong. As soon as you connect to my device you are knowingly accessing it. I don't know why you think the fact that you don't know it is my device matters in the slightest.
Also, I didn't quote the whole law because I thought people would be smart enough to look it up themselves it they cared. In addition to knowingly access, you also have to either knowingly cause damage or extract information. None of that happened.
You know, if you bought a device which is so blindingly insecure as to listen to arbitrary commands from a TV show, you need to realize you deserve to be pranked, because pranking is going to be better than someone doing actual malicious damage.
If I could stand outside your house with a megaphone and should "OK Google, unlock the front door" then you should really own that bit of stupidity, which probably isn't that far fetched.
But that's what people are doing with this connected home and an always on digital assistant. Not to mention you're likely uploading everything you say to the internet, which when law enforcement gets around to demanding you'll be pretty screwed.
The privacy and security implications of these things are enormous. But you're the on who bought a device which accepts commands from anybody in earshot -- instead of whining about who can do what with your personal property, stop and ask yourself why your personal property is willing to do it in the first place.
Maybe the unsuspecting public needs to be a little less unsuspecting and stop buying technology they don't fully grasp the implications of?
The implications of this technology is that until they make it have some degree of security, this is a real security threat. Blaming the people who show you this security threat is idiotic.
But at the end of the day, you've installed something which will run commands from anybody withing earshot. Like it or not, that's your real problem.
It is much better for someone to play a joke on the public, and make them realize the dangers inherent in the devices they own, than to wait until a hacker does it and steals their identity or uses their home network to serve kiddie porn.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Completely wrong. As soon as you connect to my device you are knowingly accessing it.
As I pointed out, I knew none of the things you listed as a requirement. I don't know who you are, so I cannot know I was connecting to YOUR computer (I wasn't), and I don't know that you have that device. I was pointing out the failure of your description, not necessarily of what the law actually says.
I don't know why you think the fact that you don't know it is my device matters in the slightest.
I don't know why YOU think I know it is your device matters, but that's what you said.
Also, I didn't quote the whole law because I thought people would be smart enough to look it up themselves it they cared.
I didn't see you quote any of "the law", and there are so many of them that being specific in a citation is required for that citation to have any value at all.
*beep boop*...Tell the N$A I said hello. It probably works.
unfortunately the first amendment proves you wrong! The government is unable to control what a person says and thus they are unable to make it illegal to talk around one of these always on listening devices. This takes precedence over your assumed abuses of the CFAA. To be honest,it is not a security issue that either google or amazon need to address as this it the advertised function of said computing devices. You are the person who chose to have such a device in your house with out considering the unintended consequences of having such a device. By owning such a device you actually imply your consent for other people to use the device in your own house, any thoughts otherwise would also require you to place a disclaimer at the limit of your property noting that you have recording devices active as you may be guilty of recording someone with out their knowledge or consent.
See, it sounds just as dumb when you argue it from the other side. You have an always on mic in your house, it is your responsibility to secure your device. go back to your front porch and yelling at kids to get off your lawn
I always see both sides of these things. Dammit.
Right now, I'm thinking "Who was the person who made the decision to pipe the output of their TV shows into the command inputs of their Amazon dunsel?" I think it was you. Before you bought the device, you knew you were going to have to keep it away from anything that makes noises without being on your side. So how the fuck did that thing end up near your TV? You must have made the decision to put it there.
OTOH, you could say the same about little Bobby Tables. Injection is all just about finding a way someone mistakenly didn't sanitize inputs. So you fucked up. If it were an SQL database, we'd blame you but also the attacker.
It would actually be pretty fucking funny for Stone and Parker to get prosecuted for this. But let's be serious: if there's a jury of human beings, then they will not be convicted. Someone is going to realize that the victim bears too much of the blame for mere pranksters to face a criminal sentence. What was the cost? Zip. Therefore: "Not guilty," they'll say.
And that's fine. It's illegal but also totally ok. The law is wrong and when used against good people, we'll ignore it. When used against our enemies, we'll enjoy enforcing it. That's what America is all about.
When you configure siri on your iDoohickey, you actually have to go through a training process. After that, it (usually) only responds to your voice. That being said, I've occasionally had Siri activate by some odd ambient sound, but it's generally been pretty reliable.
I sure as hell wouldn't rely on that for any kind of genuine security though.
There have been some suggestions that Southpark is making fun of anyone who bought an echo. And maybe they are, Southpark will make fun of anything. But I think the real weak link here is Amazon, or anyone who puts out a such a device with such an easy exploit path. XKCD already had a comic about messing with these ( https://xkcd.com/1807/ ). Clearly these need to have an option to rename the personality anything you choose, like your wireless network. Not that people wouldn't leave it at the default, but then you could at least call the user out for being lazy.
Oh, wait.
https://www.cnet.com/how-to/am...
Sorry. Carry on.
-- "Oh. This guy again."
Siri, open the pod bay doors.
If you cannot manage to approximate 3.5 times 1/3 well enough to do for a recipe, then I suggest you would probably not be allowed to cook unsupervised.
I mean, at worse you could add 1/3 of a table spoon three and a half times..
O perhaps with out that 3 times 1/3 must be, you know, 1, and then another half of 1/3, so is a sixth (or put another way, irrelevant in cooking).
But no, instead you need to use a cloud based voice recognition and interpretation system located somewhere else in the world to work that out?
We really are in the shit..
He was pointing out just how wrong your original post was. Thanks for backing him up.
Okay Slashdot,
Now cue the morons who will no doubt claim this is somehow hacking the gullible people's devices, like that Burger King commercial that started with "Ok, Google".
One day, maybe, the unwashed masses will figure out that if you can talk to your phone, so can anyone else.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
I can't stress enough how much the parent poster's point matters: you're choosing to install a spy in your home/office.
People make the same choice when they take a tracker (aka "cell phone", "mobile phone") with them when they use the toilet or leave it next to their bed. Would it be okay if someone trailed you with a mic on a boom and hung it over the stall as you used the toilet or had sex in your bed? Ask people that and they'd probably object on the grounds of a loss of privacy. Yet if that mic (which is connected to the Internet, operated with proprietary software, and doesn't have an indicator light) also let you browse the web, check your email, and play games this becomes okay? Then the concept of privacy was never the issue.
We've learned most people apparently don't need voice control to order stuff from Internet-based distributors including amazon.com. You should not trade away your privacy, ever, and the low price some place on their privacy indicates they need more education.
Digital Citizen
Technician Aub would be right at home.
before cellphones, there was RR: Real Reality aka Life. It just is. And AR? Drugs cover that.
Apoc -- How dare you criticize an uber-man who not only still works on his own automobile, but also bakes. Shit man -- I wanna turn transgender just to date such a chap.
Besides that -- maybe he likes the idea of Alexa listening to him boning a chick or fapping off a wank.
Fringe benefits, Apoc, for the exhibitionists. Fringe benefits indeed.
Marcus
Obviously.... that is why the applicability of the CFAA is largely centered around having an *intent* to access a computer without authorization. If you happened to do so simply by speaking, without any intent to cause such access, and especially if no harm was actually done, then you obviously wouldn't be considered guilty. However, that's not the case here. The writers of the script knew exactly what they were doing, and anticipated its effects quite precisely. No harm was done, but the access was still deliberate, and unauthorized.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Setting up Siri:
Enable Siri on your iPhone before you begin.
Navigate to Settings > General > Siri – slide the little button to ‘On’ if it isn’t already.
Check the settings below are correct. Choose your language, your voice feedback preferences and your contact book profile (so that Siri knows who you are and can begin creating ‘relationships’ such as ‘wife’ or ‘brother’ with other contacts in your address book).
Allow ‘Hey Siri’ if you wish to activate Siri without pressing the Home button.
I don't have a significant other, you insensitive clod! And speaking of lonely, it brings me joy knowing that at least Amazon is listening to me fart loudly in bed.
Human Rights, Article 12: Freedom from Interference with Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence
south park is old an passee :(
MAXIM articles do not belong here.
south park is 20+ yrs old and now owns ComedyCentral
further stupid articles like this further demonstrate how much this editor, "while not eating" consumes cock for Cocaine.
Slashdot, F*cking eye sockets for truth and intelligence 24 min a day.. 2 days a week.
Would work better if you could record your own, like "*DEMON*, I COMMAND YOU!" with my own choice from the Greater Seal of Solomon or the Cthulhu Mythos.
As long as the real one didn't show up, instead, of course. Azathoth shows up, and it looks like a small nuke went off, killing me and a few thousand neighbors.
That's hilarious - genius on the writers' part.
Meanwhile in the amazon cloud some data center tech described it as "like a thousand echoes called out at once, and were suddenly silenced!"
You configured the range of IP'S to scan. That's intent and knowledge. Why are you intentionally being stupid?