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.

Comments

Genius

[Anonymous Coward]

Who actually uses these invasive pieces of technological garbage?

Re:Genius

[OffTheLip]

Southpark fans

Re:Genius

[JohnFen]

The people South Park is ridiculing, of course.

Re:Genius

[0100010001010011]

I have, multiple. What exactly do you want to know about having them?

I had a tinfoil hat friend in HS that told me the NSA was *always* listening (this was back in the 90s). If I was planning a coup I wouldn't be doing it from my living room anyway.

Some plywood, 2x4s, spray foam insulation and chicken wire should be enough to build a quiet room in your garage that is off RF and thermal radar.

Hell looking around my shop right now I have more than enough for an average terrorist attack. Some ESP8266 devboards for triggering, motor oil, diesel. All Alexa's heard (Hi NSA) was "Computer, Turn on dust collector" and "Computer, play classic rock."

Re:Genius

[xantonin]

I have one which is very useful in the garage for playing music and other commands. I can pause the music or skip tracks without having to touch anything. When your hands are covered in oil and grease it is very helpful.

The same in the kitchen if I'm cooking and my hands are covered in flour or grease again (I swear it's not the same grease) - it's useful to ask things like "how many teaspoons make a tablespoon" without having to take out my phone. I can even set a timer for different things I am cooking.

The speaker is also nice because it plays downwards to a cone which radiates the sound equally everywhere. This is nice in the garage since I don't have to "direct" speakers to where I am.

But the thing I use it for the most is when I crawl in bed and have to turn out the light, or I decide I want the fan on, I just ask Alexa to turn it on or off. In fact, I have it interface to an API with my sleep tracking app which does that for me when I activate it for sleep time.

Sure, you don't need any of this, but for the price ($50), it's already paid for itself compared to the cost of buying some of these devices separately. I don't see how any of this makes me an idiot.

Re: Genius

[Anonymous Coward]

See this is the real application for these devices. Mechanics, cooks, people with mobility issues, seniors, etc.

However, they are never sold as such. They've been made as an alternative to thinking, and that is not good in the long run since it reduces our collective memory and deduction skills.

Re:Genius

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be because you have an always-on microphone in your *bedroom*.

Re:Genius

[0100010001010011]

> a continuous listening device in my home

And I've assumed there's been one there since the 90s.

> beyond that is just invasive.

Unless you're off grid you should realize you're being tracked, constantly. Power bill, credit cards, etc. But if you think not getting an Echo saves you somehow, It'd be nice to be that naive.

Re:Genius

[apoc.famine]

Are you a marketing exec for Amazon? Because every single thing about this sounds like the most contrived bullshit to justify sticking a spying device in every room in your house.
 
If you're in the garage covered in grease, fucking focus on what you're doing and stop dicking with the radio. For the better part of a century there was a radio turned to a radio station and it made noises while people were covered in grease. That hasn't changed. If what's on the radio is more important than the reason you're covered in grease, go wash your hands, and sit down and listen to the radio.
 
Three. The answer is three. It's not really hard to remember. And why the hell would you need to know that anyway? If you don't have the correct measuring tools, buy them. If you're modifying the recipe, do that ahead of time, not while you're fucking cooking already. That's a recipe for disaster.
 
Holy shit. A cone of sound? You need directional speakers when you're working on the car? WTF?
 
And in your bedroom. You can't turn off the lights before bed? You can't decide if you want the fan on or off? It's too hard to haul your ass out of bed for 4 seconds to adjust either?
 
I'm sorry, but as the GP said, I can't see how anyone can use these flimsy justifications to make themselves comfortable with placing listening devices in all the rooms of their house. You're actually telling me that when you're having sex or a wank in bed, you're fine with Amazon listening to that because it turns out the light for you and turns off the fan when you get cold?
 
Idiot.

Re:Genius

[hackwrench]

What's your real argument against being spied on? Personally I like the idea of people always listening so they can do stuff for me, but then I'm not paranoid.

Re:Genius

[DogDude]

but for the price ($50)

Oh, that's cute. You really think that's the price? You didn't take into account that you've also given up every scrap of privacy you have, too. Is that worth $0 to you? You don't mind that it's entirely likely (and legal) that somebody somewhere is listening to you and your SO banging? That's worth the horrible inconvenience of pushing a light switch with your finger?

Re:Genius

[hackwrench]

Nope, you are the pathetic one. Human bodies are obsolete and you don't even know it.

Re: Genius

[xevioso]

Well, I'm sure that's an example; the poster probably knows that. But if you are multiplying a recipe by 3.5 and something calls for 1/3 table spoon of cinnamon, it helps to have something handy to do that math other than your brain.

Re:Genius

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the idiot is the closed-minded person who doesn't understand or respect that other people's use cases do not always look like their own. I'm not the OP, but I have these devices too. All of the things he calls out work great. Other things you can do (I use the Google Home devices instead). "Hey Google Play The Key of Awesome A Tribute to Ridiculous Voices from YouTube on Family Room TV". The TV turns on and the built in Chromecast starts playing the video from Youtube. Works from NetFlix too. I'm not sure why you think others are idiots. Maybe try the mirror?

Re:Genius

[WheezyJoe]

the thing I use it for the most is when I crawl in bed and have to turn out the light

You mean like... the Clapper???

"Alexa, tell me I'm an idiot!"

Re:Genius

[nospam007]

"Right- because washing your hands is SOOOO hard. "

Indeed, it's hard I'm a surgeon and it's nice during an operation to ask: 'Alexa which of these bloody blobs is the heart again'.

Re:Genius

[hey!]

p>Sure, you don't need any of this, but for the price ($50), it's already paid for itself...

Set a guard over my mouth, oh Lord; keep watch over the door of my lips.

Re:Genius

[UnknownSoldier]

> I don't see how any of this makes me an idiot.

Using it as utilitarian tool you aren't.

But with respect to privacy you are. You blindly trust a company (Amazon) isn't:

- tracking,
- data-mining, and
- profiting

off the data you willing and freely give it. Only a complete idiot trusts a company will somehow a) keep their data safe, and b) not sell it.

IF these home automation tools can be disabled from connecting to the internet and still function then that would be OK.

But don't come crying back to us when your home appliance gets "hacked" when people like you don't see the problem with hooking every shitty device up to the internet.

Re:Genius

[hey!]

You know, if you could say, "it feels cool to use," I'd be OK with that. It's the downsides.

I'm not even talking about the hacking concerns. The reason companies are so hot to sell these things is that they view them as consumer behavior tracking and modification devices.

Re: Genius

[hey!]

I take your point, but if your recipe called for 1/3 of a tablespoon of cinnamon, I'd call that a dodgy recipe.

Re: Genius

[fahrbot-bot]

But if you are multiplying a recipe by 3.5 and something calls for 1/3 table spoon of cinnamon, it helps to have something handy to do that math other than your brain.

On the other hand, learning to do the math helps you in the long run. Simply asking Siri / Alexa for the answer doesn't.

Re:Genius

[aaarrrgggh]

Alexa, start the car.

Re:Genius

[CanHasDIY]

You didn't pay attention to a god-damned thing Ed Snowden told us, did you?

A certain amount of paranoia is healthy - helps keep you from being an unsuspecting victim.

Re: Genius

[CanHasDIY]

It's called GoJo, dumbass.

Or Fast Orange, if you prefer.

Re:Genius

[lexman098]

If you're in the garage covered in grease, fucking focus on what you're doing and stop dicking with the radio. For the better part of a century there was a radio turned to a radio station and it made noises while people were covered in grease. That hasn't changed. If what's on the radio is more important than the reason you're covered in grease, go wash your hands, and sit down and listen to the radio.

So people aren't allowed to stream music and work on their car now? FM radio sucks, and sometimes you want to move to the next track. Who the fuck sits down to just listen to the radio? This isn't 1950.

Three. The answer is three. It's not really hard to remember. And why the hell would you need to know that anyway? If you don't have the correct measuring tools, buy them. If you're modifying the recipe, do that ahead of time, not while you're fucking cooking already. That's a recipe for disaster.

Yeah it wouldn't be hard to remember that one conversion. There's lots of conversions though, and that was probably just an example. Also, maybe not everyone is a super efficient expert cook. Some people have fun trying to wing it.

Holy shit. A cone of sound? You need directional speakers when you're working on the car? WTF?

He specifically said he did *not* want directional speakers so the sound doesn't change when he walks around the garage. I didn't take that as an end-of-the-world kind of thing either, just a nice perk.

And in your bedroom. You can't turn off the lights before bed? You can't decide if you want the fan on or off? It's too hard to haul your ass out of bed for 4 seconds to adjust either?

The lights thing is a bit of stretch, but maybe he wasn't too hot when he went to bed and it got hotter later? Of course he *could* get out of bed half asleep, but no one *wants* to do that.

Go take your meds.

Re:Genius

[TheDayOfMe]

Interestingly, the number of teaspoons to tablespoons is different in in different countries and era of the cookbook.
The standard Australian tablespoon is 20ml, 4 teaspoons, but that we get mostly chinese made stuff now tablespoons are now mostly 15ml. The standard tablespoon in India used by 25ml.
Just a sample: Beware of the Tablespoon

Re:Genius

[hackwrench]

Perfectly fine, but then I'm not self conscious.

Re:Genius

[hackwrench]

Paranoid and suspecting are not synonyms.

Re: Genius

[swillden]

It's called GoJo, dumbass.

Or Fast Orange, if you prefer.

I like Fast Orange, the gritty kind.

Still takes a minute or so to get them clean enough that you'd want to touch something you don't want to get greasy. If you have to do this more than a couple of times per hour, being able to do it by voice is very nice.

Re:Genius

[swillden]

You're actually telling me that when you're having sex or a wank in bed, you're fine with Amazon listening to that

Amazon doesn't listen to that, a fact which is easily verified by watching network traffic.

Re: Genius

[lucasnate1]

Frankly, as someone who fucked in public several times, I am much more worried about these programs eavesdropping on my political discussions or the design meetings in my workplace. I think that the sex example is really not the most problematic one in this case.

Re:Genius

[dissy]

You're actually telling me that when you're having sex or a wank in bed, you're fine with Amazon listening to that

Amazon doesn't listen to that, a fact which is easily verified by watching network traffic.

You watch network traffic while wanking?

Far be it from me to kink shame, but I don't even recall ever seeing rule 34 about that one. Job well done!

Re: Genius

[PopeRatzo]

Frankly, as someone who fucked in public several times

You shouldn't have any problem, as long as you don't name the sheep, "Alexa".

Re:Genius

[LinuxIsGarbage]

Interestingly, the number of teaspoons to tablespoons is different in in different countries and era of the cookbook.

The standard Australian tablespoon is 20ml, 4 teaspoons, but that we get mostly chinese made stuff now tablespoons are now mostly 15ml.
The standard tablespoon in India used by 25ml.

Just a sample: Beware of the Tablespoon

Fucking Imperial system. It's as bad as when people talk about how many miles per gallon their car gets. In Canada gas is sold in litres, and distances measured in kilometers.

So I ask them, "Is that Imperial MPG (~4.5l/Gallon) or US MPG (~3.8l/Gallon)?" And they don't even know what fucking gallon they're talking about! And the two gallons have a different number of ounces in them.

Re:Genius

[xantonin]

Are you a marketing exec for Amazon? Because every single thing about this sounds like the most contrived bullshit to justify sticking a spying device in every room in your house.

No, I've just started using it to replace other devices I already had. I used to have a radio in my garage, but the music is shitty. So I used to use my phone with Pandora and a bluetooth speaker. Easy fix to that, plus other functionality.

Same for the kitchen where I used to have a laptop, then a tablet, set up to look up recipes, play music, do conversions, etc.

I do all my own car and motorcycle work. I can still listen to the radio if I want, and I can listen to talk shows, whatever podcasts I feel like.

Three. The answer is three. It's not really hard to remember. And why the hell would you need to know that anyway? If you don't have the correct measuring tools, buy them. If you're modifying the recipe, do that ahead of time, not while you're fucking cooking already. That's a recipe for disaster.

How can you call someone an idiot who simply provides ways something has helped them and been useful, when you're so stupidly stuck on an EXAMPLE of a measurement conversion, and only one kitchen usage example I provided? That sounds like something an idiot would do.

Holy shit. A cone of sound? You need directional speakers when you're working on the car? WTF?

Holy shit, the concept of examples and useful features are lost on you. Is it too great for you to understand? Want me to break it down further? Would "omnidirectional" be too big of a word? If you can't see the practicality of that, then maybe it's just not something for you.

I realize the problem here now. People are too unimaginative for how they can utilize devices with lots of capability. The irony here is that if they were born years before computers were coming out, they'd probably have no idea how they could help people improve their lives and say the same things. "WE DON'T NEED THEM COMPUTERS! Holy shit, you can't use an abacus? You must be an idiot." What an idiotic way of thinking.

And in your bedroom. You can't turn off the lights before bed? You can't decide if you want the fan on or off? It's too hard to haul your ass out of bed for 4 seconds to adjust either?

Nope, too dark. Nope, can't decide because I work late when it's cold, and then it gets hot when the sun comes out and I'm still sleeping. And yes. I admit these things are lazy, this isn't a surprise. Plenty of people do lazy things for this weird concept called "convenience". And before you criticize me, if you drive an automatic car you can just shut up now.

I'm sorry, but as the GP said, I can't see how anyone can use these flimsy justifications to make themselves comfortable with placing listening devices in all the rooms of their house. You're actually telling me that when you're having sex or a wank in bed, you're fine with Amazon listening to that because it turns out the light for you and turns off the fan when you get cold?

What are you, 12 years old and worried your parents will catch you having sex? Who gives a shit. I'll open the windows when I'm having sex if I want.

I do two things in my bedroom: Sleep, and fuck. Only one of those things makes sound, so tell me why I should care if anyone hears? Some people aren't as insecure as you. If I want privacy, I'll do things in a secured environment.

I'm all for privacy, but I think a lot of technological advancements could be made if government didn't abuse privacy and people didn't have to worry like you.

Re:Genius

[xantonin]

Every scrap of privacy? Has Alexa suddenly grew eyes? Can she listen through walls now?

Why are people so worried about being heard fucking? You must make some REALLY weird noises when you have sex.

You have limited privacy everywhere nowadays. If you're not a moron about it, you can enjoy the conveniences in life without sacrificing privacy of things that matter. I don't see why that's a big deal. Realistically, there's no way the data is actively recorded as proven by network traffic, unless the device is suddenly activated and recorded without my knowledge, in which case it would be noticed by the network traffic again. Either way, it's not "every scrap of privacy" and it's just as likely to occur from any listening device anywhere. Probably more likely to occur with your phone. Why are so many "techies" here crying about privacy so much that don't seem to understand technology?

Re:Genius

[xantonin]

I don't have a light on my night stand. Maybe I don't even have a night stand. Either way, you're proposing I buy a device that only does one thing, versus buying a multifunctional device with way more possibilities. That sounds pretty idiotic to me.

Re: Genius

[Killall -9 Bash]

And while your cooking burns, you learn that you should have figured out what the fuck you were doing before doing it.

Re: Genius

[Killall -9 Bash]

Knowing how to interact with digital assistants will probably be a more useful skill in the future then odd fraction multiplication.

And 200 years from now, when no one knows how to build or fix anything, we'll be in the same predicament as the Zeta Reticuli.

Re:Genius

[swillden]

You're actually telling me that when you're having sex or a wank in bed, you're fine with Amazon listening to that

Amazon doesn't listen to that, a fact which is easily verified by watching network traffic.

You watch network traffic while wanking?

Far be it from me to kink shame, but I don't even recall ever seeing rule 34 about that one. Job well done!

Logs, man, logs.

Re:Genius

[Killall -9 Bash]

Most nudists don't live in glass houses. There's a line between not being self-conscious, and being an exhibitionist.

Re:Genius

[xantonin]

Who said I am blind to it?

Tracking: Uhm, tracking what? How often I open Pandora?
Datamining: You mean they aren't doing that already when I buy stuff on Amazon.com?
Profiting: Well, I did buy it off them. I guess you got me there.

Have you forgotten about how much is tracked by your computer and cell phone? Even just your IP address?

The point is that you're making assumptions anyone who buys it is ignorant of the risks and possibilities, which in and of itself is equally ignorant.

Don't act like you know "people like me" simply by a purchase I made which improves my quality of life.

And don't even get me started on "hacked" lol... I agree too much stupid shit is hooked up to the internet, however this thing is not something I'll care about.

Re:Genius

[Killall -9 Bash]

You've totally convinced me. Having a SSN and credit score is the same level of tracking as a constantly on web connected microphone in my home.

Re: Genius

[PianoComp81]

Alexa came with my ecobee 4. I tried it for a week. I turned it off. It came on at random times for no reason, and do they really think I want to speak my grocery list out loud? That's too hard.

Re: Genius

[fox171171]

As long as we are in this tech-based world, knowing what 3.5*(1/3) is won't help your life in any measurable way. Not when your phone/watch/calculator(haha) or computer can tell you with a couple taps.

Knowing how to interact with digital assistants will probably be a more useful skill in the future then odd fraction multiplication.

Not totally disagreeing with your point, but it took me very little time for my little brain to come up with 1 1/6. Using your brain is not a bad thing to do. It works best when used regularly.

Re:Genius

[apoc.famine]

No matter what you think about my above comment, I hope you can appreciate the vast quantity of mods I've gotten on it. At the present time:
 
Insightful: 8
Troll: 3
Flamebait: 2
Overrated: 2
Funny: 1
And 1 Insightful removed due to posting after modding. I've never had anything get this number of mods, so I'm going to call this insightful, trolling flamebait a success, and put it on my resume.

Re:Genius

[apoc.famine]

/var/log/sexytime gets cross-referenced with your network traffic? That's a level of sexually successful neckbeard that I didn't know existed.

Re:Genius

[Waccoon]

So people aren't allowed to stream music and work on their car now?

Back when I was working in a warehouse, iPods were still a thing and phones were not ubiquitous. The biggest problem we had is that iPod people would play with their phones all damn day, constantly changing music every minute, as if they had to choose JUST the perfect song for their mood. Apparently playlists aren't good enough. People would also do it while operating heavy machinery, which resulted in a number of serious safety infractions and accidents. There was almos no point in the day when I didn't see someone fiddling with their iPod while speeding down the narrow hallways in an 8-ton machine. The company let us have radios, but had to outright ban music players. It wasn't about productivity -- management (and myself) were concerned people would get killed.

Being obsessed with checking your electronic gadget every 15 seconds didn't start with phones. It's pretty much human nature not to focus on what you're doing, especially on someone else's dime.

Re:Genius

[thegarbz]

Who actually uses these invasive pieces of technological garbage?

Based on the estimates, 10% of the population of the USA. Based on household size 1/4 of the households in the USA. (equivalent size anyway, these are spread across the world).

Re:Genius

[thegarbz]

You're actually telling me that when you're having sex or a wank in bed, you're fine with Amazon listening to that

I am actually fascinated by the idea that some people find sex and wanking something so incredibly personal that the thought of someone knowing that you do it becomes a deal breaker.

To answer your question: Yes. I don't give a shit if Alexa knows when I'm having sex, or having a wank.

If what's on the radio is more important than the reason you're covered in grease, go wash your hands, and sit down and listen to the radio.

That is an incredibly dumb comment given what you wrote before it. Doing something for the better part of a century is no reason to change it (or do you still ride your horse to work, sit down on your type writer, and send telegrams?) Having something in the background doesn't mean it's more important than the task at hand, except when it does something you don't want. So your suggestion is to drop what you're doing take a huge efficiency hit in your work to change what is going on in the background, or put up with annoying shit affecting your ability to concentrate? As if.

Go back to your farm and leave those of us who don't want to put up with minor inconveniences in life in peace.

Re:Genius

[ShnowDoggie]

You are either just a troll, need more sleep, or you need to go take your meds. Perhaps all three.

Two of these can be a side effects of life. One is because you are being an ass. If your just being an ass then you should think about the value of being an ass.

If you are trying to make a point then perhaps that point can be made without being an ass. Then, maybe, your positive point score would be higher.

Re:Genius

[thegarbz]

You didn't take into account that you've also given up every scrap of privacy you have, too. Is that worth $0 to you?

Yes.

You don't mind that it's entirely likely (and legal) that somebody somewhere is listening to you and your SO banging?

What is it with people and the idea of someone knowing they had sex is bad? Are you some kind of puritan? Personally listening to someone else banging is orders of magnitude worse than the thought of them knowing that we are.

Stop being ashamed of yourself.

Re: Genius

[drinkypoo]

I like Fast Orange, the gritty kind.
Still takes a minute or so to get them clean enough that you'd want to touch something you don't want to get greasy. If you have to do this more than a couple of times per hour, being able to do it by voice is very nice.

GoJo now has a gritty orange soap. I also use fast orange, because it's cheaper than GoJo. Otherwise, who gives a shit? The really toxic shit that they don't sell in California any more did a much better job than either. It looked, felt, and smelled like rubbing your hands with axle grease, except it took the grease off. Wondrous.

However, there's also this marvelous invention called gloves, which you can get on sale at Harbor Freight for little more than soap. It does reduce certain things to an economic decision — is it worth it to me to spend ten cents putting on new gloves to scratch my nose? — but it also helps reduce the risk of skin cancer in your hands.

I'm still not against voice control in certain applications, I just don't want it phoning home.

Re: Genius

[Cinnamon Beige]

I take your point, but if your recipe called for 1/3 of a tablespoon of cinnamon, I'd call that a dodgy recipe.

I've met a few modern recipes like that--they're ones meant for large-batch cooking. If I'm having to multiply one of those by 3.5? I don't want to have to be thinking about that particular math, I've got other problems that are requiring my attention, which hopefully includes "How to use this borrowed industrial kitchen?" and not "How do I pull this off in a home kitchen?"

Re: Genius

[dwye]

Not totally disagreeing with your math or cooking knowledge, but there is no partial tablespoon measure save the teaspoon, so this is 3 and a half teaspoons (there ARE half, one third, and one quarter teaspoons available). Knowing that there are three (3) teaspoons (t) in a tablespoon (T) is almost as basic as knowing that there are five fingers on a hand, despite all those cartoons like South Park.

Re:Genius

[dwye]

Someone needs to put in the appropriate Buckaroo Banzai quote, here (unless there is an xkcd that works, too), but I am terribly afraid that you might actually BE a surgeon.

Re:Genius

[RockDoctor]

People who share houses with South Park fans, and are probably bored to tears by the (implicitly computer-savvy) South Park fans warning them of the intrusiveness of this type of technology. And maybe now, they realise there's a problem.

Re:Genius

[drewlake2000]

You're confusing price with value. The price is $50. It's value is an estimate of the gain you get - the cost you incur (including the price). e.g. you think you get about $1,000 worth of gain. And you value the data it gathers as $100 you're still up on the deal. You can't factor in cost without factoring in the benefit that's dishonest. The two inputs are completely personal you may not get the same value of gain and the value of the cost may be more.

Changed my mind

[Major_Disorder]

For the first time ever I want one of these.
Also WooHoo, new SouthPark.

Proposed New South Park Character

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Proposed New South Park Character

[Thruen]

They did introduce a new character named Alexa... It's the Dots! You don't think they're done, do you? I'm looking forward to a season full of this.

Re:Proposed New South Park Character

[Brockmire]

That wouldn't make her a gay fish, though.

No, it didn't

[acoustix]

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.

Re:No, it didn't

[JohnFen]

Since you've indicated that you have one of these devices, I have an honest question for you (I promise I am not being disparaging here, and won't argue with your response):

What is the appeal of the device? What benefit are you getting from it? I've been utterly baffled by this ever since they came out.

Re:No, it didn't

[bluefoxlucid]

You need the Silver version. It responds to anything remotely-similar to "Alexa."

"Alessa, turn up the thermostat." "Alena, what time is it?" "Aleppo, where did I leave my cat?"

Re:No, it didn't

[Krishnoid]

A few very simple things to ask it:

• play music you purchased via your Amazon account
• the current time
• set timers/alarms
• general-information questions that wikipedia would have the answer to
• current weather/traffic in your area (?)

Not that impressive, but you can think of it as a $50 voice-controlled alarm clock/timer/stereo which may add new features in the future. I consider it an inexpensive one-time purchase that buys me continuous (for now) access to something of a potluck of Amazon's continuously updated cloud services.

Re:No, it didn't

[E-Rock]

Not the GP, but I have one and really like it. The voice recognition is good and pretty much anyone can use it and it's not too far off the price point of a nice wireless speaker. The usage is the best part. I can use it, my wife can use it, my kids can use it. My wife hates technology, so that she can be in the kitchen and call out "Alexa, play the Gypsy Kings" and the Gypsy Kings starts playing makes it worth it.

Re:No, it didn't

[wonkey_monkey]

However, every damn Amazon commercial seems to activate my Echo.

They shouldn't. The system recognises its own commercials and ignores them.

Re:No, it didn't

[Dale512]

I have two young children (6 & 3). I love the simple timer setting that I can do anywhere from our first floor. We set timers to remind us on laundry flips/folds, play timers before chores/bed/etc (and other things). The girls love being able to "call" the grandparents and talk to them. They also play a variety of kids stations on Amazon and Pandora while they play/dance/etc. I absolutely love the shopping list feature. All the little things that where not worth stopping to add to an actual list are now added and remembered. I also set reminder alarms to remind me to bring things or of certain events (remember to bring personal laptop today so I can take it to non-work meeting). We also do all the silly things you'd expect as well, but timers, shopping list, and music are the big uses. Sure I could in theory hack/build something similar given time but time is at a premium at this stage in life. I'm sure the tracking/data mining sucks but with what Amazon/Google already has on me, this is a minor addition.

Re:No, it didn't

[Obfuscant]

They shouldn't. The system recognises its own commercials and ignores them.

So we should notify FTC of Amazon false advertising? You're saying that the things they explicitly show the device doing in their ads the devices have been programmed explicitly not to do in real life. If I buy an Echo for the specific purpose of setting a ten minute time-out timer for Mr. Bear it will ignore that command?

Re:No, it didn't

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why I don't have an Alexa. Hearing my wife call out "Alexa, play the Gypsy Kings" and then the Gypsy Kings don't start playing makes it all worth it.

Re:No, it didn't

[NominalLoss]

I have a Google Home. There is not any one particular thing that makes it valuable, it's the whole experience. Think of it like a universal remote for your life. Lights, thermostat, decent music speaker, security system - it makes a lot of things a little bit better. And to me, that is totally worth the money. My favorite feature is the streaming music player. Sure, there are million different setups you could use to get the same effect but Home gets the job done. It's powerful enough to fill the whole floor of my house with sound, has good sound quality, and it takes up very little space. It also doesn't look like that butt ugly thing Apple just announced. If this thing costed $300 I would say pass, but for a hundred bucks? It is totally worth it.

Re:No, it didn't

[nospam007]

" by E-Rock ( 84950 ) ... My wife hates technology, so that she can be in the kitchen and call out "Alexa, play the Gypsy Kings" and the Gypsy Kings starts playing makes it worth it."

I just asked Alexa and she said, your low UID and your handle indicates that you're one of the Gypsy Kings.

Re:No, it didn't

[vux984]

Not that impressive, but you can think of it as a $50 voice-controlled alarm clock/timer/stereo

/always on microphone hooked up to the internet that you have no real control over.

And *that* is why it is an idiotic device. I can't imagine a how anyone thinks 'voice controlled alarm clock' is worth installing a 'microphone connected to amazon' into your room.

Re:No, it didn't

[swillden]

Also plays audio books from Audible

Alexa plays Audible books? In hindsight that's obvious. Of course it does, since Amazon owns Audible. Now I have to buy an Echo. I already have a Google Home (and like it a lot, even though they nerfed the shopping list, grumble), and I didn't think there was any reason for me to get an Echo instead. But clearly there is.

You just cost me $50. Though I expect I'll be happy I spent it.

Re:No, it didn't

[Ingenium13]

I assure you this is not true. Every single Amazon commercial sets it off, consistently. I have to rush to mute the TV whenever one comes on. It's integrated into my thermostat (Ecobee 4) and I absolutely hate it. You can't disable it without a bright persistent red LED across the top staying on. The commercials have made me never want another Alexa device again. And I'm pissed at Ecobee for not having a non-obnoxious way to disable it.

My Google Home on the other hand is perfect. It never activates from a commercial.

Re:No, it didn't

[wonkey_monkey]

I assure you this is not true. Every single Amazon commercial sets it off, consistently.

Well then I don't know what's wrong with your Echo, because mine never fails to recognise one of its own ads. The light comes on at the sound of "Alexa" - as it does occasionally when someone says something similar on TV - but then soon after goes off again without so much as the "bee-doop" noise it usually makes when dropping a request. It only, and consistently, does this when an Alexa ad comes on the TV.

Re:No, it didn't

[wonkey_monkey]

What? No, none of the above.

I'm saying it specifically ignores the specific sound clips from Echo ads.

If I buy an Echo for the specific purpose of setting a ten minute time-out timer for Mr. Bear it will ignore that command?

Only if, for some reason, you insist on doing so by playing back a sample of the advert.

Re:No, it didn't

[Obfuscant]

What? No, none of the above. I'm saying it specifically ignores the specific sound clips from Echo ads.

Then yes, all of the above, because they are showing uses that explicitly will not work in real life. That's false advertising.

Only if, for some reason, you insist on doing so by playing back a sample of the advert.

The devices have speech recognition but not specific voice recognition. It doesn't matter who says "and a ten minute time-out timer for Mr. Bear", the "ten minute time-out timer" is activated by those words, not by who says them.

Re:No, it didn't

[thegarbz]

Not GP, but I use the Google assistant to keep track of my calendar, shopping lists (automatically syncs with my phone), play music, play netflix, read a weather forecast.

Basically think of it as a voice controlled next step to what you used to do:
1. Manually get up and do individual things, such as type a weather forecast into google or check a newspaper, or go get a remote, or get a pen and paper.

to:
2. Natural progression to have to carry your smartphone everywhere, or if it's not on you have to go get it to achieve the above (really annoying for a shopping list since my phone normally charges on the opposite side of my house to my kitchen).

to:
3. Just say something and it gets done. And unlike my wife saying "what's the weather forecast" will actually result in the weather forecast instead of "get your phone and look it up yourself".

Re:No, it didn't

[wonkey_monkey]

Then yes, all of the above, because they are showing uses that explicitly will not work in real life. That's false advertising.

You're either not getting it or you're being mind-numbingly pedantic. The echo will answer the exact questions that are being asked on the ad; except when they detect a sound clip identical to the ad. This is by design and is exactly how it should be, because no-one wants their Echo responding to an ad.

The devices have speech recognition but not specific voice recognition.

No, the devices don't have speech recognition - with the sole exception of recognising their wake word. When it hears the wake word, it starts recording, then it uploads the recording to Amazon's servers and they do the speech recognition.

If they identify a recording as matching an Amazon ad, they ignore it and tell your device not to respond.

Re:No, it didn't

[Dale512]

We also used to get our own food without grocery stores too. If you want to go be an Amish person then feel free. We used to get along without internet or phones too yet here we are. Using a device that compliments or makes my life easier is not something to feel bad about. I used to keep a written grocery list. It worked. Simply speaking a command to add it to a list is faster and easier than writing it down and I am unlikely to forget the list at home since my phone case also contains my wallet. I got along fine without it for years and could do without it. It is here and available though so no reason not to use it.

Re:No, it didn't

[Wdomburg]

I'm baffled by people who say they can't see the appeal of this kind of device. Are they being deliberately obtuse? Have they simply not thought about it very much? Are they so myopic that they are simply unable to imagine having preferences and likes different than their own?

Re:No, it didn't

[Obfuscant]

The echo will answer the exact questions that are being asked on the ad; except when they detect a sound clip identical to the ad.

The audio will never be identical. The command will be identical. And you admit that the Echo will not answer the question or command from the ad. False advertising -- showing a device doing something that it has been deliberately programmed not to do.

No, the devices don't have speech recognition - with the sole exception of recognising their wake word.

They don't have speaker recognition AT ALL. They have WORD recognition -- what are the words -- but the actual speaker is never identified. That's the relevant part, whether you call that "speech recognition" or something else.

But of course you know when I said that the "devices" have speech recognition that I meant it as the system as a whole -- the devices are quite dumb. And you accuse me of being pedantic.

If they identify a recording as matching an Amazon ad,

And what they pull out of the recording is the COMMAND, which matches an Amazon ad. They do not identify the speaker, so they do not know whether it was spoken by an Amazon ad or a person.

Re:No, it didn't

[Obfuscant]

You can't disable it without a bright persistent red LED across the top staying on.

A small bit of tape will cover that up. Electrical tape is quite good and usually doesn't leave too much residue. That is what I use to cover the LED on my noise cancelling headphones so the waitresses on airplanes don't hassle me about turning off electronic devices. (Now that PEDs are ok, it's redundant, but psychologically pleasing.)

Re:No, it didn't

[wonkey_monkey]

The audio will never be identical. The command will be identical.

They don't only look at the transcribed words of the recording. They check the recording itself first, and if it has a fingerprint (allowing for the fact that it won't be a bit-perfect copy) which matches audio from an Amazon ad, they ignore it.

And you admit that the Echo will not answer the question or command from the ad.

I said that it will not respond to audio - not words, questions, or commands - which matches that of an ad.

And what they pull out of the recording is the COMMAND,

Before pulling out the command, they check the audio clip via a fingerprint against their own stored recordings of their ads.

They do not identify the speaker, so they do not know whether it was spoken by an Amazon ad or a person.

They identify the recording as being a match to the audio of the ad and they ignore it.

The fact that no further audio-realm processing may happen - such as identifying individual speakers - has no bearing on this.

Re:I'm pretty sure that would be considered....

[14erCleaner]

Alexa, say "mark has no sense of humor".

World record?

[swan5566]

Largest-scale practical joke?

Re:World record?

[Nidi62]

Largest-scale practical joke?

Only because their first attempt with the brown note episode in season 3 didn't work.

Re:World record?

[kiviQr]

no there are a number of people that are....

Re:I'm pretty sure that would be considered....

[rogoshen1]

if i had the means, i'd set off your alexa intentionally after reading that.

No sympathy

[DarkOx]

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.

Re:No sympathy

[McLae]

And if you put the hot mic right next to the TV...

Darwin would have laughed his ass off.

Re:No sympathy

[chis101]

Seems like a bit of a harsh judgement of other people... But I'm sure that you would never own a device capable of this, so I guess you are allowed to judge.

I'm sure you don't have a smart TV (many smart TV's support voice command, or have video chat, and 'smart' features almost certainly require an internet connection. Internet+Mic = possible hot-mic).

You certainly don't have a smart phone with Google Now or Siri on it. Especially with wake word enabled! That would just be foolish.

Some people like the convenience of a voice assistant. Some people just like the 'futuristic feel' of commanding a computer to say and do things. No matter what the reasons, you are going to be seeing more of these type of devices, not less. At least Alexa isn't shipping audio off to Amazon until you speak the locally-recognized wake-word, so I'd consider it the exact same privacy risk level as smart TVs and smart phones, except that the average user is more likely to realize that what they say to Alexa is being sent over the internet.

At least Amazon treats the audio recordings at a similar privacy level as they do credit card information. How much do you trust Amazon to protect your privacy vs the manufacturer of your TV?

Re:No sympathy

[JohnFen]

How much do you trust Amazon to protect your privacy vs the manufacturer of your TV?

About the same amount.

Re: No sympathy

[unrtst]

I'm not trying to change your mind, nor that of the GP, but there is *some* security built in.

For starters, it's not a simple hot mic. The audio is only sent anywhere if the keyword is first heard. It does audio recognition only of the keyword(s) locally, and the rest of it is done remotely if that keyword gets picked up. That said, I'd be surprised if a software update or bug couldn't cause it to stream all data, but it's not doing so all day long.

For certain actions (ex. purchases done through it), it can be setup to require an additional pin code, or those actions can be disabled altogether. This limits the potential impact of someone saying stuff to it. They can mess up your shopping list, play music, have it answer dumb questions, etc, but they can't (easily) have it make purchases.

They also have different models of them. For example, if you wanted one that isn't always listening, but you wanted the rest of the features, you could get the "Amazon Tap", which requires you to tap a button before it'll listen. I'm not well versed in the other providers (google home, etc), but amazon has:

* echo : has 7 mics that use beam-forming stuff, and a nice speaker.
* echo dot : just that nice mic array, no speaker. You provide your own speaker, otherwise it's basically the same as the echo.
* tap : it's basically just the speaker part of the echo, and you can tap it to speak to one mic. It's also portable (has battery) and works as a bluetooth speaker (as does the echo).
* echo show : 8 mics, speaker, camera, and a screen so it can show you stuff too, and do video calls.
* echo look : (this one seems weird IMO) mics, camera, led lighting (for camera), speaker, and a mic&camera off button (kinda like the show without a screen).
* alexa voice remote : This can connect to the echo or echo dot. There's a mic in the remote, and some buttons. IMO, it'd be nice if this worked with the tap, so you wouldn't have to stand next to it. It provides a way to have a hardware button control a mic though, so this could provide added security if your echo dot was shielded from external audio.

Some day, voice recognition stuff might provide some more security to the echo/echo dot/echo show/etc, but I don't think that would really change anybodies mind... recording someone elses voice is pretty easy. It would prevent a TV show from triggering every device out there though. So, if you don't want the risk, there are other options... but you probably just don't like any of them.

I just thought people might want to know that they've really covered just about every combo of hardware features that one of these could have.

Re:No sympathy

[chispito]

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.

Why do you not extend that same level of distrust to the phone in your pocket? It also has a camera, GPS, and contains your browsing history.

Re:No sympathy

[JohnFen]

Not the commenter you're asking, but I'll chime in...

Why do you not extend that same level of distrust to the phone in your pocket?

I do.

It also has a camera, GPS, and contains your browsing history.

Indeed! Except for browsing history, anyway.

But it also can't send any of that data out without me specifically allowing it to, which I rarely do.

Re:No sympathy

[NominalLoss]

Shouldn't you be off boring someone with your insightful theories about how the moon landing was faked?

Re:No sympathy

[Obfuscant]

But it also can't send any of that data out without me specifically allowing it to,

Are you sure?

I have had "background data" and "auto update apps" turned off for as long as I've known about that setting, and yet magically some of my apps updated themselves. And just a couple of days ago I found out that Google scans my device on a regular basis and checks with momma to verify that the apps are "safe".

I can write a program with a "please may I send your data off to everyone?" check-box that is completely ignored. Who is to say Google or any other app developer cannot do the same thing?

Re:No sympathy

[DogDude]

Some people like the convenience of a voice assistant.

Some people like meth, too. That doesn't mean that it's a smart decision.

At least Amazon treats the audio recordings at a similar privacy level as they do credit card information.

They sell that information. I buy it to analyze our business' customers' shopping habits. I'm sure I could buy data mined from recordings of people's daily lives, too, if I had a need for it.

Re:No sympathy

[JohnFen]

Are you sure?

Nothing is certain, but I'm over 90% sure. I test my security arrangements regularly.

I have had "background data" and "auto update apps" turned off for as long as I've known about that setting, and yet magically some of my apps updated themselves.

I don't trust the operating system to keep me secure, for pretty obvious reasons.

Who is to say Google or any other app developer cannot do the same thing?

My firewall. Neither the OS nor any app can send data out without me specifically allowing it. Yes, it's technically possible for this to be bypassed, but as I said, I test regularly and, when I'm home, my network logs all internet accesses. I've not caught anything sneaky coming from my phone yet.

Re:No sympathy

[Obfuscant]

Nothing is certain, but I'm over 90% sure. I test my security arrangements regularly.

I'm curious how you do that. I have actually run tcpdump on my phone's data while it has been running on my WiFi, but I cannot do that for other people's WiFi or while using cell data. Since the device can tell when it is connected to a non-snoopable network, I would assume any clandestine data transfers would be done using that network.

My firewall. Neither the OS nor any app can send data out without me specifically allowing it.

So you never use the "phone in your pocket" anywhere but where there is WiFi you control. It's never out in the real world where there is a cell data connection available to it. You also never open a hole to Google to update any apps, or for any other apps to connect for data. That's not what most people think of when they read "phone in my pocket", so you can understand my question.

Re:No sympathy

[Holi]

I hope you don't have a smartphone then.

Re:No sympathy

[JohnFen]

I buy it to analyze our business' customers' shopping habits.

Whoa, wait a minute -- you're criticizing people for selling their privacy while at the same time you're buying the privacy they're selling?

How can I put this delicately... I think you don't exactly have the moral high ground here.

Re:No sympathy

[nospam007]

"Sorry if you are stupid enough to allow some company to basically put a hot-mic in your home, "

If you have a cellphone or a laptop you already have one, with a camera, so why bother?

Re: No sympathy

[nospam007]

"I assume the connection it uses is encrypted? So how do you know it's not sending them everything? "

The same way you know that your cellphone, your TV, your laptop and your xbox doesn't send them anything.
You don't.

Re:No sympathy

[nospam007]

"Some people like the convenience of a voice assistant.

Some people like meth, too. That doesn't mean that it's a smart decision."

But it's big business.
s) Heisenberg

Re:No sympathy

[nospam007]

"But it also can't send any of that data out without me specifically allowing it to, which I rarely do."

It's really cute, that you believe that.

Re:No sympathy

[JohnFen]

I cannot do that for other people's WiFi or while using cell data.

True, I can't run a sniffer on other people's networks. I can on my own, though, and I can when using the cell data from my home (I have an active cell booster that I can extract the usage data from -- I can't decode the actual packets, but I can see when the data link is being used, by what device, and the pattern of data sizes and times).

So you never use the "phone in your pocket" anywhere but where there is WiFi you control...

I'm not sure what that has to do with the firewall...

Of course I use the phone in uncontrolled environments and yes, there is obviously a risk in doing so. That's why I didn't say I'm 100% certain.

However, my level of confidence is high enough the meet my comfort level, and that level of confidence is based on evidence, not blind faith.

Re:No sympathy

[Obfuscant]

I have an active cell booster that I can extract the usage data from -- I can't decode the actual packets, but I can see when the data link is being used, by what device, and the pattern of data sizes and times)

Interesting. Did not know such devices would give such data.

I'm not sure what that has to do with the firewall...

How do you run a firewall on cell data networks? Trusting the firewall you run implies all the data goes through it.

But watching the data amounts, if not the destinations, through the booster would give you some indication of how the phone behaves, privacy-wise, when the app or OS author thinks you are on an un-monitorable cell network, so if you don't see it misbehaving on that network then that is a reasonable indication it isn't misbehaving. Thanks.

Re: No sympathy

[unrtst]

Bullshit, to both you and your AC parent.

We know the echo isn't sending everything, even at the end of the day, because there are enough people out there logging its traffic that we know it's not sending that much data. The hardware has been broken down as well, and it does not have sufficient storage to queue everything for the whole day either. You can tell when it sends a stream by just watching packet counts/sizes.

I'm not claiming it will never happen, or couldn't happen, but it's not happening.

My TV has no internet connectivity. My cellphone has closely monitored data usage, though it's possible it could sneak a stream though cause it's doing so much other stuff and I don't own the next hop except when it's on wifi. Laptop has mic physically disabled, but even if it were plugged in, it'd be easy to determine when in use. Xbox/playstation have no mic's hooked up.

That said, I think it'd be kinda nice if the next version of the echo/google home/etc would have a hardware disable slider for the mics. That way, you could slide it off as you leave home, and back on when you come back. Might be nice reassurance for those with the home automation stuff hooked up who may also have an IoT door lock.

Re:No sympathy

[JohnFen]

Interesting. Did not know such devices would give such data.

They can if you hack them. And, if you don't mind spending more than a little money and violating the law or FCC rules, you can get devices that tell you much more than that (basically, your own functional equivalent of a Stingray).

How do you run a firewall on cell data networks?

The cell data network is handled by Linux the same way that other data interfaces are (it just looks like another network interface), and iptables handles them just fine.

Trusting the firewall you run implies all the data goes through it.

Indeed so, and this is another point of uncertainty. For instance, the cell modem blob communicates without going through the operating system at all, so any traffic that does not originate from the OS side, or if the OS itself is talking directly to the blob instead of going through the network stack, won't be filtered by the firewall.

There's not much that can be done about this aspect. My approach to this is twofold: I install my own "plain vanilla" Android (ensuring that Google binaries aren't in there), and I accept that this is an attack vector.

My approach isn't perfect by any means, but I think it's reasonably hardened. Given that perfect security is impossible, all that anyone can do is harden to the extent that they are comfortable with, and to always treat computers and devices that communicate with the outside worlds as risky, regardless of security measures.

Re:No sympathy

[JohnFen]

I've also omitted the more mundane hardening I do -- period MAC randomization, using a VPN, etc.

Re:No sympathy

[PopeRatzo]

But it also can't send any of that data out without me specifically allowing it to,

Oh, you sweet, summer child...

Re:No sympathy

[Obfuscant]

The cell data network is handled by Linux the same way that other data interfaces are (it just looks like another network interface), and iptables handles them just fine.

But unless you've rooted your phone, you are not running iptables on it. Since the cell network is connecting your phone to the cell network, where are you running iptables? Your cell repeater doesn't give you that control, so ....

Re:No sympathy

[thegarbz]

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.

Yeah what idiots they are. "Hey Siri: What do you think about all those idiots who have an Alexa in their house?"

Re:No sympathy

[drinkypoo]

Why do you not extend that same level of distrust to the phone in your pocket? It also has a camera, GPS, and contains your browsing history.

I run an open-source operating system on my phone, you insensitive clod! It also doesn't really contain my browsing history; the cloud does that!

Re:No sympathy

[dwye]

Who better than a drug dealer to explain why drugs are a bad idea?

My parents used to play bridge with the town mayor, and one year, when there were a lot of dealers arrested, she joked on New Year's Eve that it was a testimony to how safe the town was, that all the big dealers moved here to live and raise their children, and that they probably kept the riff-raff drug dealers away, too.

Re:No sympathy

[DarkOx]

I'm sure you don't have a smart TV

Certainly don't and would never consider connecting something like that to the internet.

You certainly don't have a smart phone with Google Now or Siri on it.

I do but I keep those features disabled! Sure I suppose a malicious software update or something could turn them back on. Life carries some risks, a feature phone could probably be hacked to spy on me to, so there really isn't an viable alternative here.

How much do you trust Amazon to protect your privacy vs the manufacturer of your TV?

I trust both about equally maybe Amazon a little more because discovery of them violating privacy might hurt them a little more.

Re:No sympathy

[DogDude]

We've got the data on a free intro trial. We won't pay to use it ongoing. If we want to, it's only $30/month per merchant account.

Re: No sympathy

[chrissfoot]

Google home has a button on the back which disables the mic already

Re:South Park

[sexconker]

What about the final season of Two and a Half Men?!

Re:I'm pretty sure that would be considered....

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:I'm pretty sure that would be considered....

[bws111]

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.

Re:I'm pretty sure that would be considered....

[bluefoxlucid]

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.

Can someone be useful

[kfh227]

Alexa: "How did South Park prank you?"

Re:I'm pretty sure that would be considered....

[bws111]

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.

The only way I'd have such a device

[Baron_Yam]

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?

Re:The only way I'd have such a device

[JohnFen]

What the hell is wrong with people?

I would never go along with it, but I agree with another commenter here that I don't think it's reasonable to say that people who are OK with all of that have something wrong with them.

That is, in effect, saying that anyone who has different priorities than you are in some way broken or wrong. It's just not true -- they merely have different priorities.

If other people are OK with privacy invasions I am not OK with, that's no skin off of my nose. We each get to choose how we live our lives.

Re:The only way I'd have such a device

[drinkypoo]

If other people are OK with privacy invasions I am not OK with, that's no skin off of my nose. We each get to choose how we live our lives.

It is skin off your nose. Just as people without social media accounts to rifle through are looked down upon by employers, people who resist having an always-on listening device in their home will be seen as paranoid Luddites and regarded with suspicion in the near future.

Re:The only way I'd have such a device

[dwye]

If your employers look down on you because you have no "social media" accounts, you are employed at the wrong place. I just explain that having "social media" is usually just a way for schmucks to accidentally leak secrets, and I prefer not to do so, either mine or theirs. Besides, most of my friends are more paranoid than me, so who would I "talk" with on Facester, anyway?

Actually, I do have friends who aren't particularly paranoid, but I see them in person often enough that I don't need to poke/tweet/chat online. And I find my life a tad dull, anyway. My July 3, 1863 entry would probably have just been "Near Gettysburg, PA. Saw our seminary, nothing special. Shot at a few Southerners, again. No counter-attack. Looks like rain, tomorrow." if I was feeling particularly chatty.

unlike Cortana or Siri you can change Alexa Name

[williamyf]

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...

Re:I'm pretty sure that would be considered....

[Obfuscant]

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.

Re:Usefulness

[JohnFen]

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.

I think this is the source of my bafflement about the appeal of these devices: they don't seem to do anything that isn't already a function that comes with smartphones, so I wasn't (and still don't, really) see the point.

Your son's use case is the first one in this list of responses that addresses something that can't be replicated with a smartphone (unless you give a smartphone to your son).

Re:Hmmm

[mark-t]

1. I didn't know that.... is Amazon alleging that the consumer does not own the device, so they are free to control it on their own as they see fit?

2. Intent is largely irrelevant when the actions are still illegal... you can't go into a bank with a water gun in your hand either and expect that the teller is going to have a sense of humor about it.

3. That's a fair point... but the action is still criminal, and in some jurisdictions could be prosecutable by the state, or the communications commission.

4. What makes BK's stunt "in poor faith" and this one not? Nobody got harmed, but how can people know in advance that they aren't going to be being harmed by the act? That's ultimate why BK's stunt was not well received, after all.

Re:I'm pretty sure that would be considered....

[Obfuscant]

The other result of that ad was that the Wikipedia page for The Whopper Burger was locked down and could no longer be edited.

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.

Re:I'm pretty sure that would be considered....

[bws111]

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.

Re:I'm pretty sure that would be considered....

[Obfuscant]

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.

This was the only funny thing about episode

[evanchik]

I know its episode 1, but i asked my wife after, was any of that funny to you?

Re:This was the only funny thing about episode

[93 Escort Wagon]

I know its episode 1, but i asked my wife after, was any of that funny to you?

Are we still talking about South Park, or were the two of you doing something else?

First step in a voice activated product

[OrangeTide]

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.

Re:First step in a voice activated product

[OrangeTide]

You are correct sir. My house is named "computer" and my car is named "hal".

Re:I'm pretty sure that would be considered....

[bws111]

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.

Re:Speaking

[hackwrench]

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.

Re:I'm pretty sure that would be considered....

[bws111]

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.

Re:Hmmm

[JohnFen]

you can't go into a bank with a water gun in your hand either and expect that the teller is going to have a sense of humor about it.

True, but doing so isn't illegal (unless you're using it to threaten people or as part of the commission of a crime). The bank will just tell you to leave (and if you don't, then you're committing an actual crime of trespassing).

but the action is still criminal, and in some jurisdictions could be prosecutable by the state, or the communications commission.

Maybe. I am very far from convinced that this is an illegal action, but stranger things have happened.

What makes BK's stunt "in poor faith" and this one not?

BK's stunt was not illegal, either.

Re:Hilarious

[hackwrench]

How do I use this? I'm familiar with torrrents.

Re:Hmmm

[Obfuscant]

3. That's a fair point... but the action is still criminal,

Citation required.

4. What makes BK's stunt "in poor faith" and this one not?

What makes either one "bad faith"? (There is no such thing as "poor faith".)

Let's see. I have a device that responds when anyone within hearing says "Ok Google". I made the choice to turn that device on, and I know it does this because it does it in my presence. Can I know that nothing anyone ever says while in the presence of my device will cause harm? Of course not. But I know that it can. My choice to have it or not.

That's ultimate why BK's stunt was not well received, after all.

I think you are projecting. You didn't receive it well, and everyone else must feel the same way. Sorry, I don't. If I had such a device and the only thing it did was read one sentence from a Wikipedia page in response to a TV ad, I would think "what an interesting advertising concept".

What I would NOT have found to be acceptable was Google's decision to tack an ad for a Disney movie onto the end of weather information. Google has no high moral ground to object to Burger King when Google plays such games with their devices.

Re:I'm pretty sure that would be considered....

[spun]

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.

Re:I'm pretty sure that would be considered....

[Obfuscant]

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.

Re:Someone named themselves "Xbox Sign Out"...

[nerdonamotorcycle]

On IRC we used to tell noobs that typing "/sign" followed by your sun sign would get you your horoscope. Amazing how many people fell for it.

Re:I'm pretty sure that would be considered....

[ilsaloving]

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.

Re:Hmmm

[mark-t]

It would be criminal under the category of unauthorized computer trespass. The specific statute would depend on the jurisdiction.

How easy it is to use a computer without authorization has no bearing on whether authorization is required to be following the law unless the circumstances are such that the person who was so trespassing had no reasonable way of realizing that they were not authorized to use that system (eg, a computer console in a library that does not have any signage indicating that it is for staff use only)) In both BK's similar stunt, as well as with this one, they knew full well what they were doing, so any claim that they did not realize they were not authorized would not hold up.

Who is the actual object of derision?

[AdamThor]

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.

Re:I'm pretty sure that would be considered....

[pjwhite]

Siri, open the pod bay doors.

Incompetence

[thesupraman]

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..

Send in the clowns

[Trogre]

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.

Re:Hmmm

[Obfuscant]

It would be criminal under the category of unauthorized computer trespass.

Citation required.

Convenience should not be so important.

[jbn-o]

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.

Re: Genius. Ask Asimov.

[MarkeJohnston]

Technician Aub would be right at home.

You Pedantic Snark

[MarcusOutrageous]

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

Re:Hmmm

[mark-t]

In the USA, it's called the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

What are now called computer viruses were once just pranks too.

Re:I'm pretty sure that would be considered....

[mark-t]

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

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.

Except it's not always listening by default

[Immerial]

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.

Re:Except it's not always listening by default

[thegarbz]

Thanks for describing the steps that nearly all iPhone users go through. It was of great value to this discussion to read your interpretation first hand.

Alexa: pull my finger

[RuffMasterD]

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.

Re:Hmmm

[drinkypoo]

I think you are projecting. You didn't receive it well, and everyone else must feel the same way. Sorry, I don't. If I had such a device and the only thing it did was read one sentence from a Wikipedia page in response to a TV ad, I would think "what an interesting advertising concept".

Yes, I'm going to have to see some polling numbers on that one myself. The danger of self-selection is made obvious by remembering the discussion about it here on Slashdot, where at least as many people thought it served people right for having that crap in their homes as were upset at the king of burgers for triggering their spy machines. But you can tell from my language how I feel about it, so my recollections are unreliable at best.

Re:Hmmm

[bws111]

The CFAA requires that you knowingly and intentionally access a computer without authorization AND obtain information from, commit fraud with, or intentionally damage said computer. So what information was obtained? What fraud was committed? What damage was done?

Re:Hmmm

[mark-t]

What harm is done by any kind of hacking attempt where no *real* malice is intended, and no actual harm is ever actually done? The point of making it illegal is to so that people do not, even inadvertently, cause any harm to anyone by doing so. Allowing people to get away with it when no harm is done makes it only that much more likely that someone will get away with it when they *HAVE* caused harm.

There was a time when, as I mentioned above, what are now called computer viruses were not considered harmful either... originating as pranks, they evolved over time from being funny to being a minor nuisance to being harmful to being against the law.

This is no different.

Re:Hmmm

[bws111]

It is obvious that you want the law to say something other than what it does, but it doesn't. Your "what harm" question is silly. The harm is defined by the law, and it is the things I listed.

Have even heard of the first amendment? There is no exception carved out for 'unless some poorly thought out electronic device may hear it.'

Re:Hmmm

[mark-t]

This isn't any exception to the first ammendment.. this amounts to just one simple thing: a deliberate attempt to control another person's computing resources without the owner's express permission to do so.

The fact that people weren't harmed in this particular is irrelevant... the point is that people *COULD* have been harmed (and in fact, some may have been, but incidents of sufficent obscurity are unlikely to get reported). This is why, in particular, it is illegal to joke about carrying a bomb while in an airport, or yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, no matter how innocuous one's intent may be. Even if people immediately around you realize that you are joking, there can be some who may not realize it is a joke, and take the remark quite seriously. That doesn't impact freedom of speech. Neither does this.

In South Park's case, to the best of my understanding, the Amazon assistants that were affected by this prank evidently added humorous items to the user's own shopping list, which it did not evidently actually follow through and purchase, but what if there had been someone else in the same room who was not watching the episode, but was utilizing the same amazon account that Alexa is tied to while Alexa was doing this. and perhaps not realizing what alexa had done, clicked "Purchase", and ordered a bunch of items they did not want?Of course, they could later go and cancel the order, or remove the unwanted items, but what if they do not realize what has happened until they get a confirmation that the items are being sent? The order, having already been mailed out, they no option to cancel, but at best only to return the unwanted items for a refund.

So what's the problem, you might ask. The problem is that then Amazon would be footing the bill for that stunt because they'll have to pay for the return postage on the items that never would have been sent in the first place if the prank had not been pulled. If this stunt did cause any problems, we will probably hear about it within a few days, Even if it didn't however, the point remains that it could have, and that's why such practices are discouraged by laws which outlaw unauthorized computer access.

You can argue that Amazon should make their devices more secure, and I'd agree with you, but just as certainly as not locking your car door doesn't give a thief any legal permission to take it (although you may have trouble filing a theft insurance claim if it is known that your door was not locked), the failure in these devices to be properly secured to not respond to commands that happen to be emerging from a pre-recorded broadcast should not give those broadcasters any license to freely take control of other people's computing resources without those people's authorization.

Re:unlike Cortana or Siri you can change Alexa Nam

[dwye]

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.

Re:Hmmm

[Obfuscant]

The fact that people weren't harmed in this particular is irrelevant...

Except that the law requires some kind of harm. That makes it relevant. Can you cite the actual law that is being broken? A link is good ... to a law that is relevant.

In South Park's case, to the best of my understanding, the Amazon assistants that were affected by this prank evidently added humorous items to the user's own shopping list, which it did not evidently actually follow through and purchase,

So no harm. And the owners did allow the assistants to listen.

but what if there had been someone else in the same room who was not watching the episode,

What if there had been someone else in the same room with a knife who was stabbing the Echo's owner? We can play all kinds of "what if" games, can't we?

Re:Hmmm

[mark-t]

Your "what if" scenario is not really relevant, as any harm caused in your example would not be directly attributable to the content of the broadcast. While I do not dispute that my scenario is no less hypothetical, the negative consequences that might arise from it would entirely be the consequence of what the creators of South Park chose to put in that episode. Your example could happen regardless of the episode content, or even what program they happened to be watching. My example could only arise by the choice of a program creator deciding to control other people's devices, thinking that it's all okay because they don't really *MEAN* any harm. I'm sure you've heard the old proverb about good intentions and negative consequences at least once.

And for what it's worth, it did apparently bother quite a few people. There reportedly were people who had unplugged their devices after a few minutes because they were getting annoyed with how they were responding to the television during the episode. I would suggest that this is about on par with the state of affairs in the early 1980's for what would eventually be called computer viruses on home computers. Google "Elk cloner" sometime. Extraordinarily primitive by today's standards, but it definitely met all the requirements of what we call a computer virus today. No "real" harm was done then either, but things escalated quickly from there from being funny once to being annoying to hampering productivity to eventually being quite harmful. Fundamentally, it's the reason why laws outlawing unauthorized computer access even exist at all. To suggest it should somehow be immune from penalization only because the creators only meant it as a practical joke is not an excuse. The first home computer virus was just a practical joke too, after all.

Re:Hmmm

[Obfuscant]

the negative consequences that might arise from it would entirely be the consequence of what the creators of South Park chose to put in that episode.

No, it would be the result of someone who didn't care what was on the shopping list telling Alexa to order everything on the list. And not paying attention as Alexa kept saying it was adding things that the person who is actively paying attention to Alexa hadn't requested.

And for what it's worth, it did apparently bother quite a few people.

Ok, so you want me to go look for the "Annoying Other People With Computers Act".

There reportedly were people who had unplugged their devices after a few minutes because they were getting annoyed with how they were responding to the television during the episode.

You mean people making the choice not to allow their personal assistant to be in a position to hear commands from other people? That sounds like taking responsibility for a device that they know will respond to any command from any person within hearing.

The first home computer virus was just a practical joke too, after all.

Uhhh, no. Claiming that any program that does anything you don't want is a "virus" is silly. And if you don't want your voice controlled device to respond to TV sounds, don't put it where it can hear the TV. If you don't want your three year old child to play with a gun, don't leave a gun where he can pick it up. If you don't want your Alexa to respond to voice commands from whatever it can hear, don't let it hear things from sources that aren't authorized. Common sense.

Now, I take it that all this rambling means you don't actually have a link to an actual law that was violated.

Re:Hmmm

[mark-t]

If you don't want your Alexa to respond to voice commands from whatever it can hear, don't let it hear things from sources that aren't authorized.

Definitely, but that would require that Amazon actually provide facilities to their users to allow them to secure them in that way.

But the fact that Amazon hasn't done so yet doesn't mean it should be open season on abusing it in this manner.

Now, I take it that all this rambling means you don't actually have a link to an actual law that was violated.

18 U.S.C. SS 1030(a)(5)(C). Unauthorized computer access and damage or loss due to negligence.

The loss in this case would be to any people who were unable to use their devices as they may have intended during this broadcast, as well as to anyone who may have inadvertently purchased the joke items (effectively, a denial of service attack). Really, in someplace like a living room, especially in a small living space such as an apartment, it's not at all hard to imagine that there might be people in easy earshot that do not have their eyes glued to a television, even while someone else is watching it. A human being can tune out such noise quite easily and still function, computers not so much.

Re:I'm pretty sure that would be considered....

[Brockmire]

You configured the range of IP'S to scan. That's intent and knowledge. Why are you intentionally being stupid?