Woman Says Alexa Device Recorded Her Private Conversation and Sent It To Random Contact; Amazon Confirms the Incident (kiro7.com)

Gary Horcher, reporting for KIRO7: A Portland family contacted Amazon to investigate after they say a private conversation in their home was recorded by Amazon's Alexa -- the voice-controlled smart speaker -- and that the recorded audio was sent to the phone of a random person in Seattle, who was in the family's contact list. "My husband and I would joke and say I'd bet these devices are listening to what we're saying," said Danielle, who did not want us to use her last name. Every room in her family home was wired with the Amazon devices to control her home's heat, lights and security system. But Danielle said two weeks ago their love for Alexa changed with an alarming phone call. "The person on the other line said, 'unplug your Alexa devices right now,'" she said. '"You're being hacked.'" That person was one of her husband's employees, calling from Seattle. "We unplugged all of them and he proceeded to tell us that he had received audio files of recordings from inside our house," she said. "At first, my husband was, like, 'no you didn't!' And the (recipient of the message) said 'You sat there talking about hardwood floors.' And we said, 'oh gosh, you really did hear us.'" Danielle listened to the conversation when it was sent back to her, and she couldn't believe someone 176 miles away heard it too. In a statement, an Amazon spokesperson said, "Amazon takes privacy very seriously. We investigated what happened and determined this was an extremely rare occurrence. We are taking steps to avoid this from happening in the future."

Further reading: Amazon Admits Its AI Alexa is Creepily Laughing at People.

Comments

LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

"Amazon takes privacy very seriously."

Obviously not.

Re: LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

That is why I only use Alexa in my bathroom where I do not typically have private conversations.

Re: LOL

[PolygamousRanchKid]

That is why I only use Alexa in my bathroom where I do not typically have private conversations.

Your health insurance company will be canceling your policy real soon because of . . . "excessive flatulence" . . .

Re: LOL

[bev_tech_rob]

That is why I only use Alexa in my bathroom where I do not typically have private conversations.

Your health insurance company will be canceling your policy real soon because of . . . "excessive flatulence" . . .

Damn! Where are my mod points when I need them?? LOL

Re:LOL

[jellomizer]

You can be very serious about privacy, but incompetent enough to not be able to do anything good about it.

Re: LOL

[jellomizer]

Sure you can. We see it all the time. You see posts from stupid know it alls like me. Who thinks they know what they are talking about, and honestly believe it. Only to be on a different topic, or working the wrong tree.

In terms of security and privacy. Amazon was probably focusing on making sure a hacker can't get into the device to spy on people and their servers are secure so on the right people can access the data. That in itself is a major undertaking. What seems like what happened is a bug in the system that couldn't determine that this wasn't meant to be called out.

Amazon is serious, but they were ignorant on what to do about it.

Re: LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

just a 30 minute recording of you jerking off I suppose.

Re:LOL

[Obfuscant]

You can be very serious about privacy, but incompetent enough to not be able to do anything good about it.

Or you can be serious about privacy and design a complicated system that is intended to operate on voice commands that sometimes gets things wrong.

The Fine Article is so completely devoid of details as to be useless. There is not a single mention of why this happened. Did the owners say something that sounded like "Alexa", and something that sounded like "send this to Frank"? Or was it something else? The Alexa I have consistently responded when it heard someone refer to Alexi Lalas on the TV. It also responded when the police scanner reported that a Lexus was being pulled over. This doesn't seem like an outrageous mistake to me. Did those people say something that was misinterpreted?

This is how bad the article is: it first says the recording was sent to a random person in Seattle, THEN it says it was someone on their contact list. Random, not random. Same sentence.

Maybe someday /. will start linking to technically relevant information in technical stories, instead of clickbait TV station pages.

Re:LOL

[mishehu]

What gets me is this: how can they be very serious about privacy when discussing a product of theirs whose raison d'etre is to spy on people in its audible vicinity.

Re:LOL

[Hognoxious]

Police take robberies very seriously.

Of course, so do robbers.

Re:LOL

[QRDeNameland]

This is how bad the article is: it first says the recording was sent to a random person in Seattle, THEN it says it was someone on their contact list. Random, not random. Same sentence.

Yeah, that bugged me, too. At best it might be 'a random person on their contact list, who lives in Seattle'. And to be really pedantic, the better term is almost certainly 'arbitrary'.

Re: LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

Who watches porn in the bathroom?

Re:LOL

[farble1670]

The Fine Article is so completely devoid of details as to be useless. There is not a single mention of why this happened. Did the owners say something that sounded like "Alexa", and something that sounded like "send this to Frank"? Or was it something else? The Alexa I have consistently responded when it heard someone refer to Alexi Lalas on the TV. It also responded when the police scanner reported that a Lexus was being pulled over. This doesn't seem like an outrageous mistake to me. Did those people say something that was misinterpreted?

I don't have an Alexa so perhaps you could explain. It has a function where you can record a conversation then send the recorded conversation to a contact?

Re:LOL

[Obfuscant]

I don't have an Alexa so perhaps you could explain. It has a function where you can record a conversation then send the recorded conversation to a contact?

I believe they are currently advertising the ability to tell your device to do something like "call home" (Gramma gets a device, maybe it's Google's, dunno, card says "say call home" and she gets the kiddies.) For all we know from TFA, this is a case of Alexa hearing "Alexa ... call Frank ... " or whoever it was, and they recorded the message on Frank's voicemail.

Re: LOL

[fahrbot-bot]

That is why I only use Alexa in my bathroom where I do not typically have private conversations.

Sure. I imagine that "You can do it little buddy!" is more of a pep-talk than a conversation. :-)

Re: LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

What else is the point to the IP68 rating?

Re: LOL

[easyTree]

Amazon may sue because of your obvious attempts to damage Alexa!

Re: LOL

[murdocj]

This is why I decided to not set up the Alexa I was loaned.

Re:LOL

[easyTree]

Perhaps they're 'serious about invading their customers' privacy' ?

Re:LOL

[freeze128]

I have seen that commercial. I find it amazing that Granny takes the device out of the box, and it's already charged, and requires absolutely *NO* configuration to connect to her wireless network, and calls home successfully the first time!

Re: LOL

[Darinbob]

What, doesn't anyone sing along to Tom Jones anymore?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re: LOL

[AmiMoJo]

The Google one let's you configure it so that it only listens when you press a button. That doesn't seem like a bad fix.

It's not paranoia if it actually happens

[Rick Schumann]

You're nuts to have any of these devices in your house, or at the very least, plugged into power when you're not actively using it.

Re:It's not paranoia if it actually happens

[Anonymous Coward]

Good.

I hope this keeps happening more and more. Maybe people will finally figure out that it's a bad idea to have stupid pointless crap like this.

Re:It's not paranoia if it actually happens

[Moof123]

If everyone was after you, you would be paranoid too.

Re:It's not paranoia if it actually happens

[RobinH]

I agree, but what's the difference between that and a cell phone? It's always on, can be always listening (must be since I can say "Ok Google" to wake it up) and has an internet connection and a list of contacts. No doubt it's also looking for keywords in the conversations it hears and logs that for targeting advertising.

Re:It's not paranoia if it actually happens

[Rick Schumann]

Oh, I'm batshit insane, yes; what's your point? xD
There's no need to be upset. xD

Re:It's not paranoia if it actually happens

[PolygamousRanchKid]

You're nuts to have any of these devices in your house, or at the very least, plugged into power when you're not actively using it.

This is obviously a spying feature for the FBI/NSA/CIA and their pals. The feature has a bug. The recorded message was supposed to be sent to the FBI, NSA and CIA.

Talk about "hardwood floors" is terrorist code words for planning attacks!

Re:It's not paranoia if it actually happens

[Rick Schumann]

Then get a phone that has a removable battery and take the battery out when you want privacy. :-)
Or better yet don't have a smartphone in the first place, use the cheapest clamshell phone you can get that's good at making and receiving calls, and leave it turned off when you don't need it, too, just in case.

I've never owned a smartphone and never will, primarily because I really don't have a use for the capabilities, but also because I think they're too expensive for what you get, too expensive to operate (I don't want to give $100 or more a month to anyone just to have a phone), as well as a total swisscheese/collander so far as being secure goes (can't secure the browser properly, well-known ways to remotely hack them, tracks you everywhere via GPS, and so on). My life is just fine without one, too. Doesn't anyone else remember life before there were smartphones? We all lived just fine. ;-)

Re:It's not paranoia if it actually happens

[butchersong]

You could make a similar argument against the desktop computer or laptop in your home both of which are likely to have microphones and webcams attached. I think in this case the difference is that we essentially have installed monitoring software onto the device but have very little control or knowledge over what it is doing. The phone to me may be compromised but isn't inherently so. At least, not to the degree that these devices are.

Re:It's not paranoia if it actually happens

[Anonymous Coward]

At least on the phone you can disable "OK Google" and still use the device for its primary purpose; if you disable Alexa's voice activation then the device is pretty useless.

Re:It's not paranoia if it actually happens

[ole_timer]

why would anyone ever pay money and have these in their home?? stupido dumbo...

Re:It's not paranoia if it actually happens

[fluffernutter]

There is a big difference between Google having my conversation as one in a billion, and sending that conversation to someone random in my contact list. With that said, agreed that listing to people's conversions ever is pretty creepy. If an iPhone doesn't work for you then there aren't many choices.

Re:It's not paranoia if it actually happens

[Ramze]

I think you've confused "smart phone" as being synonymous with "cell phone." My cell phone does none of those things, and I'm very happy with it -- especially since it costs very little to replace should something happen to it, costs much less per month to operate, has a removable battery, and can hold a charge for weeks at a time.

I have computers in my home, of course, but "OK Google" and Cortana are switched off. My Android tablet can take OK Google Commands -- but of course, only when I have it turned on.

The real question is -- when did everyone become sheep that were OK with spyware, adware, data-mining, and voice-activation that phones home crap. Talked to a friend the other day about Moviepass & how they hope to leverage their users habits and GPS data to make money... got a "so what? Every app spies on you these days and it doesn't really affect me." Baaaaa Sheep.

Re:It's not paranoia if it actually happens

[Teun]

But you don't have to enable this Google microphone application.
I really mean, who in his right mind would enable this or that Amazon thing for anything but a very short time?

Re:It's not paranoia if it actually happens

[joe_frisch]

Yes, but there was a time when the idea of carrying a tracking device with you all the time would have been considered unthinkable as well.

The problem is that there are so many attacks on privacy that trying to resist any one starts to feel pointless. Its too easy for people to tell themselves that each additional attack isn't really changing things that much, so they might as well give in in order to get the benefits. I won't be surprised to find that most people will have continuous audio and video, and possibly medical surveillance in the next decade or so - each individual step having seemed reasonable but the endpoint being terrifying.

Re:It's not paranoia if it actually happens

[gnick]

Talked to a friend the other day about Moviepass & how they hope to leverage their users habits and GPS data to make money... got a "so what?

They claim that's a potential future development, not something they do. I got a 1-yr subscription as a Christmas gift and don't sweat using it. I wouldn't trade my entire location history, but I'm fine telling them that I'm in the parking lot or letting them pull up listings for the closest theater.

Re:It's not paranoia if it actually happens

[NettiWelho]

You're nuts to have any of these devices in your house, or at the very least, plugged into power when you're not actively using it.

There is a reason why all modern electronics comes with integrated battery, and it isn't for your benefit

Re:It's not paranoia if it actually happens

[Rick Schumann]

They've been indoctrinated by corporate society that 'Sharing is normal, privacy means you have something to hide, people with something to hide are BAD and WRONG and probably CRIMINALS or TERRORISTS or PEDOPHILES or other UNDESIRABLES, don't you want to be ACCEPTED and NORMAL?'. Of course all of that is bullshit, normal people after a certain age develop a desire for privacy. They've also been convinced that nothing about their lives is worth anything therefore it's not worth protecting the privacy of anyway, so you're trading something worthless (your privacy) for convenience (devices in your pocket and in your home that can easily be used for surveillance purposes if the manufacturer so chooses). Furthermore nobody actually reads EULAs so if it says anything about collecting data (personalized or not) they don't know -- and they don't care, either, because again they've been convinced that 'privacy' is bad and wrong and worthless anyway so why should they even care if someone is collecting (ostensibly) non-personally-identifiable data on them anyway? Never mind that Google or Amazon or Microsoft or whoever could be collecting very much personally identifiable data on every one of their users and lying through their teeth about it, hiding the fact, and either selling the data to 'third party partner companies' or using it in their own marketing departments to sell you more things that likely will also spy on you and collect more data on you.

Think about all the devices that aren't smartphones or 'voice assistants' that also collect data on you all the time: 'fitness bands' like FitBit, video game consoles like Xbox 360 that have to be connected to the Internet in order to function at all, even VoIP phones might be capable of listening in on their environment, and so on. Some people have raised concerns about wirelessly-connected 'smart meters' for electricity, natural gas, and even water usage, which give realtime use data to the utility companies; patterns of people's lives can be extrapolated from that realtime data, determining when people are home, when they're awake or asleep, and even close guesses as to what appliances they might be using and for how long. So-called 'Internet of Things' devices, like 'smart refrigerators' that even have cameras inside them, ostensibly so you can remotely determine what you need to get at the grocery store; how easy would it be for Samsung or whoever to monitor and track what people buy to eat, and how much they eat, by tapping into this? Use your imagination for any other 'IoT' appliances always connected to the Internet; 'Nest' devices are a prime example also of something that can track and monitor the patterns of someone's life. All in the name of 'convenience', and people pay cash money for the 'privilege' of potentially being under someone's microscope.

Then there's money itself. How many people do you know who pay cash for things anymore? I do, for security reasons mainly (breaches of payment systems and even banks themselves pretty much every week anymore), but also to stop anyone tracking my purchasing habits. Every time people pay with plastic, or with their smartphone, someone knows when, where, what, and how much they're buying. If someone uses a 'loyalty club card' somewhere like Safeway, they're agreeing to having very much personally-identifiable information on what they're buying above and beyond what can be extrapolated just from bare EFT/POS data; try asking Safeway or anywhere else that has these 'club cards' to see the EULA/Privacy notice, and they'll give you a blank stare, they know nothing about it, and you're wide open to their company when you use their 'club card' when purchasing. More privacy frittered away, all to save a few pennies.

There may never be an end to this, not at least until there is such a massive data breach or scandal involving people's private data, that the majority of people finally wake up and decide enough is enough. But there was the Equifax data breach, that effectively splayed open the lives of at le

Re:It's not paranoia if it actually happens

[Rick Schumann]

Buddy, no one can surveil me in my own home unless they're outside with a laser microphone. You can make your home a sanctuary against privacy breaches, too, you just have to want to.

Re:It's not paranoia if it actually happens

[nnull]

"Every room in her family home was wired with the Amazon devices to control her home's heat, lights and security system."

Who are these idiots? Never mind, I see them everyday.

Re:It's not paranoia if it actually happens

[cascadingstylesheet]

My life is just fine without one, too. Doesn't anyone else remember life before there were smartphones? We all lived just fine. ;-)

Yeah, I do. I used to brag about not having one.

It was fine, mostly ... except for all that getting lost, and getting stuck in traffic jams that I could have avoided had I only known. And never having a camera handy when I needed one. And not being able to instantly compare prices while in a store. And ... and ... and ...

Now, a home device, on the other hand, designed for solely voice interface, I'm not seeing the benefit. I'm home, after all. I have a PC and can do precisely what I want, without an insanely clunky interface. And more importantly not do what I don't want.

Re:It's not paranoia if it actually happens

[Rick Schumann]

It was fine, mostly ... except for all that getting lost, and getting stuck in traffic jams that I could have avoided had I only known. And never having a camera handy when I needed one. And not being able to instantly compare prices while in a store. And ... and ... and ...

So you convinced yourself that you 'need' those things -- and traded your privacy for convenience, like so many. Take it all back. Suffer through the withdrawal. Enjoy knowing you have more of a private life again. I know where I'm going before I leave to go there. Traffic jams happen and nothing can stop them, no sense raging about them. Basic clamshell phones all have cameras now. How often do you really need to compare prices? Do your comparison shopping before you go to the store. See? You don't 'need' any of that, you just 'want' it, they know it, they make you pay in privacy. Take your life back. ;-)

Re:It's not paranoia if it actually happens

[Rick Schumann]

Is that the best you've got? Go back to lurking.

Re:It's not paranoia if it actually happens

[nmb3000]

I was 100% in the same boat as you, up until about 4 months ago. I had an ancient feature phone with a $20/mo unlimited minutes plan and was pretty happy... until the battery fully died and I couldn't find a replacement.

Since not owning a smartphone had become more and more painful in small ways and I had to buy a new phone anyway, I decided to give in and give it a try. I bought a 64GB Moto G5s for $250 unlocked and got the cheapest smartphone plan Verizon offers (best coverage in my area) at $50 / mo.

I still barely use the smartphone capabilities, and have spent time changing things to increase the privacy from the (terrible) defaults, but overall it has been okay. Is it more expensive? Yes, but not quite as bad as I thought it would be. And there have been a few times when it's been handy to have Internet access (maps and Google) while away from my computer, though I still don't waste time with social media crap and will not install any apps that are ad-supported or have unacceptable device access requirements.

Just something to think about.

Re:It's not paranoia if it actually happens

[slew]

If everyone was after you, you would be paranoid too.

And “Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you.” - Catch 22

Re:It's not paranoia if it actually happens

[angel'o'sphere]

Doesn't anyone else remember life before there were smartphones? We all lived just fine. ;-)
Actually it was not fine. Idiots kept sending me text messages. And some important enough that I had to answer them.
Now I use a smart phone, and it adjusts spelling correction automatically to the keyboard I use.

I actually rarely do more than 10 phone calls in a year. But smart phone features I use every day.

Re:It's not paranoia if it actually happens

[angel'o'sphere]

Voice interfaces are not clunky.
Why would they?

And there are plenty of people who have either no PC or the PC not connected to home entertainment or smart home electronics.

"Alexia, AC up 2degrees" ... how hard can the be? And how long does it take you to find the AC function on your PC, or do you have the AC control panel always open floating on top of the other apps?

Sigh ... can handle a PC but is to dumb to talk to a voice interface.

Re:It's not paranoia if it actually happens

[bill_mcgonigle]

So many triggers on 'joints' - the DEA was supposed to get the transcript.

Re:It's not paranoia if it actually happens

[b0s0z0ku]

Meanwhile, I just pushed the "UP" button on my A/C twice. Why does it need to be connected to a PC, Alexa, or anything else other than an outlet?

Re:It's not paranoia if it actually happens

[b0s0z0ku]

Painful in what way? I don't do anything that I *need* a smartphone or data plan for.

Re:It's not paranoia if it actually happens

[b0s0z0ku]

Webcam is easily "fixed" with tape, the mic on most laptops won't work if there's a "dummy" plug in the 3.5" mic connector.

Re:It's not paranoia if it actually happens

[b0s0z0ku]

See, I don't care about being socially acceptable. I PREFER to be one of the rabble, giving polite society the birdie :D

Re:It's not paranoia if it actually happens

[b0s0z0ku]

If it's important enough that you need to reach someone NOW, call. Emails and texts are for response if and when it's convenient.

Re:It's not paranoia if it actually happens

[b0s0z0ku]

"Calculator", "Apps", "Reminders" are pocket-computer/PDA stuff. They could theoretically work even without a data connection.

Re:It's not paranoia if it actually happens

[b0s0z0ku]

What's wrong with getting lost? It's part of the fun of life -- if you stay on pre-programmed routes all the time, you never see or experience anything new or unusual. Baw-ring!

Re:It's not paranoia if it actually happens

[Rick Schumann]

Yeah, I get it. For most it turns out to be a negative-sum game otherwise.

Re:It's not paranoia if it actually happens

[Rick Schumann]

See, you're being sarcastic, but you're failing at it, you just sound sad.
How many people answer their phone for a number they don't recognize, or that doesn't show a number? These days, most likely it's a scammer. If it's important, people will leave a voicemail. Maybe if you got out more often you'd know this is the way most people conduct themselves. ;-)

Re:It's not paranoia if it actually happens

[sjames]

Try logging in to a server commandline using your flip phone.

As for taking my life back, it means that a 5 minute task I may need to perform in a few hours doesn't leave me stuck behind my workstation all day just in case.

Re: It's not paranoia if it actually happens

[mapkinase]

the diif in monthly fee between smartphone and stupidphone is $30 for data

Re:It's not paranoia if it actually happens

[easyTree]

Yeah, that should be Aluminium-free foil :P

Re:It's not paranoia if it actually happens

[easyTree]

Ummmm, to prevent that dangerous exercise thing everyone's warning about?

Re:It's not paranoia if it actually happens

[Ol Olsoc]

I've never owned a smartphone and never will, primarily because I really don't have a use for the capabilities, but also because I think they're too expensive for what you get, too expensive to operate (I don't want to give $100 or more a month to anyone just to have a phone), as well as a total swisscheese/collander so far as being secure goes (can't secure the browser properly, well-known ways to remotely hack them, tracks you everywhere via GPS, and so on). My life is just fine without one, too. Doesn't anyone else remember life before there were smartphones? We all lived just fine. ;-)

There are people that have you beat - I know a few that have no computer, and to use your phrase, never will.

We lived just fine without those too.

Re:It's not paranoia if it actually happens

[Ol Olsoc]

Yeah, I do. I used to brag about not having one.

It was fine, mostly ... except for all that getting lost, and getting stuck in traffic jams that I could have avoided had I only known. And never having a camera handy when I needed one. And not being able to instantly compare prices while in a store. And ... and ... and ...

Now, a home device, on the other hand, designed for solely voice interface, I'm not seeing the benefit. I'm home, after all. I have a PC and can do precisely what I want, without an insanely clunky interface. And more importantly not do what I don't want.

Exactly. My home is my place where I speak freely, I might swear or tell rude jokes, and discuss stuff with my wife. I have no need for a home spying device. But I'm not going to sacrifice all of the benefits of technology for some wrong idea of privacy.

Re:It's not paranoia if it actually happens

[drinkypoo]

I agree, but what's the difference between that and a cell phone? It's always on, can be always listening (must be since I can say "Ok Google" to wake it up)

I have hotword recognition turned off. It would be big news if someone figured out Google was listening when you did that, and you don't think people are looking?

Re:It's not paranoia if it actually happens

[michelcolman]

And now Facebook wants us to trust them with our nude pictures. "Extremely rare occurrence" coming in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

Re:It's not paranoia if it actually happens

[Carewolf]

It effectively stops listening. While it can detect the key phrase locally, it needs cloud support for command processing, and disabling it is thus important to save bandwidth, so it is imporant it works. Plus we could detect if it still did so by checking firewall logs in the wifi router.

Re:It's not paranoia if it actually happens

[cascadingstylesheet]

It was fine, mostly ... except for all that getting lost, and getting stuck in traffic jams that I could have avoided had I only known. And never having a camera handy when I needed one. And not being able to instantly compare prices while in a store. And ... and ... and ...

So you convinced yourself that you 'need' those things -- and traded your privacy for convenience, like so many.

No, I've made a rational risk/benefit calculation, for me.

To me, the benefits of a smartphone are huge.

The benefits of a home listening device? Not seeing them. Not for me, anyway (my relative missing most of their limbs, maybe a different calculation there).

Re:It's not paranoia if it actually happens

[cascadingstylesheet]

Voice interfaces are not clunky.

Depends on what you are trying to do.

In the car, wanting to navigate? Pretty good, usually. Trying to dictate the body of an email? Not so much, though when I'm driving, my recipients forgive the weirdness that emerges.

"Alexia, AC up 2degrees" ... how hard can the be? And how long does it take you to find the AC function on your PC, or do you have the AC control panel always open floating on top of the other apps?

There's this slider control on the wall, at perfect ergonomic height ... probably copied from a PC, I guess, lol

Re:It's not paranoia if it actually happens

[RobinH]

If I disable "Ok Google" I have zero confidence that it disables any other always-listening spying function meant to capture keywords for advertising. Remember that Xbox-One cameras were shown to be on and sending info to the internet even while it was just there not doing anything. These things are all designed for spying.

Re:It's not paranoia if it actually happens

[Waccoon]

Then get a phone that has a removable battery and take the battery out when you want privacy

Dad, what's a battery? I've never seen one before.

Re:It's not paranoia if it actually happens

[Rolgar]

Check PagePlus Cellular. They are on Verizon's network, and you can probably get a similar plan for 40% less.

Wut

[war4peace]

We investigated what happened and determined this was an extremely rare occurrence.”
Wow, that settles it, don't ya worry, it's like being hit by a meteorite. A far, far away danger. Until it hits YOU.

Re:Wut

[Anonymous Coward]

The rare occurrence was that the audio was sent to a contact,not that it was always recording.

Re:Wut

[Anonymous Coward]

It's an extremely rare occurrence that the data Amazon wants from you accidentally goes to someone else instead. Who the fuck knows what she's doing if she's able to record an entire conversation and send it to someone. That's not what Alexa's supposed to do. She listens to a command or two and does something for you (plays a song, tells the temperature). Why does the damn thing even have this capability?! This is not a surprise to me in the slightest. And like I'm trying to illustrate here, it would be no surprise to me that Amazon was using these things for ill-gotten gains. Electronically parsing your conversations to find out what advertisements they want to put in front of you and more.

Re:Wut

[butchersong]

Yeah obviously there is code behind this to record the audio and transmit conversations to Amazon HQ. The contact name must have been similar in some way or had some character in it that needed escaped and so it went there instead. Amazon is basically confirming that they store your conversations which is the opposite of what they have claimed to date as far as I know.

Re:Wut

[war4peace]

Given the fact it was sent to someone from their network,. I suspect it's a not-yet-officially-implemented function which somehow got triggered. Admittedly it could be something neutral such as the ability to send a message to a contact through Alexa.

Re:Wut

[Hognoxious]

It's an extremely rare occurrence that the data Amazon wants from you accidentally goes to someone else instead.

Many moons ago I went on a six sigma course and the one thing I remember was "I don't give a fuck that you deliver 99.9999% on time if mine was late."

Re:Wut

[JesseMcDonald]

Admittedly it could be something neutral such as the ability to send a message to a contact through Alexa.

This is the most likely explanation by far, IMHO. The device mistook something they said as the activation word, interpreted random audio as a command to send a message to one of their contacts, and then proceeded to record whatever followed as the message. Nothing too far-fetched or nefarious—just the well-known imprecision of voice recognition software in a device designed with the ability to record and send voice messages. One might argue that it was inevitable that this would happen to someone eventually.

Re:Wut

[Obfuscant]

One might argue that it was inevitable that this would happen to someone eventually.

One might argue that not only is it inevitable, but that essentially the same thing has already happened to so many people that there is a name for it: butt dialing. Phone in pocket misinterprets "commands" and dials someone on your contact list or redials the last person you called, and then happily transmits the audio of everything it can hear to them.

Re:Wut

[war4peace]

On the other hand, it's difficult for phone in pocket to ask for confirmation, whereas Alexa can do it, and should do it.

Re:Wut

[Obfuscant]

On the other hand, it's difficult for phone in pocket to ask for confirmation,

No, not really. A simple pop-up asking "are you sure" would deal with a lot of butt dialing. Why do you think it would be difficult for the phone to do that? I get confirmations on a lot of things, like deleting SMSs, etc.

whereas Alexa can do it, and should do it.

And we don't know that it didn't. There's so little detail in the fine article, we don't know what happened. It's fun to make stuff up, less fun to admit we have no idea what actually happened.

Re:Wut

[war4peace]

And we don't know that it didn't. There's so little detail in the fine article, we don't know what happened. It's fun to make stuff up, less fun to admit we have no idea what actually happened.

Now, where did I say it didn't? Hmm, let me check. Nowhere.
Who makes wrong assumptions now?

And about the phone asking for a confirmation, first off it's a nuisance to ask "are you sure" for every call, second it won't help because your butt could press "yes" just as well.

It's much easier for a voice-activated device to ask for confirmation and receive it without any confusion.

Re:Wut

[Obfuscant]

Now, where did I say it didn't? Hmm, let me check. Nowhere.

When you say that something should be done, the implication is that it has not been.

If you want to be pedantic, show me where I said you claimed it had not been done. I said "we don't know that it didn't".

And about the phone asking for a confirmation, first off it's a nuisance to ask "are you sure" for every call,

Yes, it is, but it is a nuisance that COULD be done and would help limit butt-dialing as a problem. You said it would be difficult for the phone to ask for confirmation, and no, it is trivial for the phone to do that.

second it won't help because your butt could press "yes" just as well.

That's why I said it would deal with a lot of the butt-dialing. It wouldn't prevent it 100%, but it would stop a lot of it. Most people would agree that limiting the number of times a mistake happens is helping, but maybe you don't.

It's much easier for a voice-activated device to ask for confirmation and receive it without any confusion.

We don't know that Alexa did not do that. It is also not that hard for the phone to ask for confirmation before dialing a number, so it really isn't "much easier" for Alexa compared to a standard cell phone. It may be easier for the user to enter the acknowledgement, but it's still not hard at all either way. It's one more press on a phone; it's just a couple of additional words for Alexa.

Re:Wut

[war4peace]

When you say that something should be done, the implication is that it has not been.

Not really, the implication is that it should. Maybe you don't know whether it does already, maybe you know for sure it doesn't, but both possibilities are covered by "it should".

Yes, it is, but it is a nuisance that COULD be done and would help limit butt-dialing as a problem. You said it would be difficult for the phone to ask for confirmation, and no, it is trivial for the phone to do that.

That's why I said it would deal with a lot of the butt-dialing. It wouldn't prevent it 100%, but it would stop a lot of it. Most people would agree that limiting the number of times a mistake happens is helping, but maybe you don't.

It would also stop more butt-dialing if it asked for confirmation 2 times, and even more if it asked three times.
Or it could stop ALL butt-dialing if it had a PIN or gesture unlock activated, which is already implemented.
Butt-dialing only occurs if people actively reduce their phones' security.

We don't know that Alexa did not do that.

Oh, come on, you're just trying to save face now.
If Alexa asked for, and received confirmation, it would have been a non-story. It would have meant its owners are complete retards. The world is full of them.
Truth is Alexa's behavior was completely not expected and the occurrence is not even listed as one of its capabilities.

So yeah, we DO know it didn't do that.

Re:Wut

[Obfuscant]

Not really, the implication is that it should.

I'm sorry that English is not your first language. If something SHOULD be done and HAS been done, then it is not meaningful to harp on the idea that it SHOULD be done, because it already was. Thus, the implication is that you believe it has not. That's assuming you are trying to say something relevant to the discussion. Perhaps that is my error?

Here's an analogy -- "you should not type your comments in all upper-case". Hey, you didn't do that! Why do I need to lecture you about that if you didn't do it? The IMPLICATION is, when I tell you not to do something, that you were doing it. Why would I tell you what you should NOT do unless you were doing it? So, why is it hard to understand that when YOU say that something SHOULD be done that you are implying that it was not?

It would also stop more butt-dialing if it asked for confirmation 2 times,

Yes, it would. But you said that it would be difficult for the phone to ask for confirmation, and that's what I replied to. It is not hard for the phone to ask once, twice, or ten times. It is a program. The phone will do what it is programmed to do, and there are already programs on the phone that ask for confirmation before continuing. It's a design element in the Android UI. It is not difficult at all for the phone to ask.

Now you're trying to debate how many times it should ask. If it is so amazingly difficult to do, why would you suggest it do it more than once?

We don't know that Alexa did not do that.

Oh, come on, you're just trying to save face now.

I'm stating a fact as it was known at the time this discussion began. We do not know that Alexa did not ask for verification. I don't know that we still don't know whether it did or not.

If Alexa asked for, and received confirmation, it would have been a non-story.

You have already admitted that asking for verification on dialing a cell phone would not stop all butt-dialing. But somehow, asking for verification on sending a message using Alexa would stop all such events and make it a "non-story".

We already know that Alexa heard something it thought was its wakeup word. We also know that Alexa heard something that sounded like "send a message to ...". It is not out of the realm of possibility that Alexa could also have heard something it interpreted as approval when it asked for verification (just like a false press on the "ok" verification for butt dialing.)

It would have meant its owners are complete retards.

It would have meant that the owners would have said something that was misinterpreted as approval, just like they already said things that sounded like a command to wake up and a command to send a message. Why do you think that this makes them "complete retards"?

Here's a trivial example of how this could have happened. HIM: "We need to get some new flooring." HER: "Your cousin Alex is a dealer, maybe he can help?" HIM: "No, let's call Frank at FloorWorld, we've dealt with him before ..." HER: "Yes, that's a good idea."

So yeah, we DO know it didn't do that.

Sorry, but no, we don't know any such thing.

Wait, didn't you just waste everyone's time telling me you hadn't actually said it did not ask, and now you are telling me that it did not ask? WTF? Which is it?

Re:Wut

[war4peace]

"You should not pee yourself"
"You should not murder another human being"
"You shouldn't steal"

http://www.dictionary.com/brow...

Stop digging yourself deeper.

It's really no surprise

[kelemvor4]

I'm really not one of those people who fear new technology or anything of the sort. However, how can it not eventually go horribly wrong when you plant recording devices in your own house that are designed specifically record and send the audio offsite. Eventually, there will be mistakes made with the audio or a hack, or something you said will violate some law "forcing" the company who has the recording to do some particular thing with it.

I'm all for new technology, but these things should have bad idea written all over them in bold print.... and I don't mean that to be specific to Amazon, either. Apple and Google's take on the things are just as bad.

More people should make an effort to understand what their personal electronics actually do before purchasing. We (as a society) need to incorporate classes on this sort of thing into primary education classes.

Re:It's really no surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't fear new technology, I fear invasive technology that disobeys users, such as Alexa, Google and Windows 10.

Re:It's really no surprise

[Riceballsan]

I fully agree. Really the big thing to me is... sending shit back to the owners. Are we really that far away from being able to interpret voice commands on something we can own? I remember dragon naturally speaking not being too terrible at it back when everyone was on windows XP with dialup connections and 512 megs of ram... why on earth can't any of these assistance interpret commands locally 15 years later?

Re:It's really no surprise

[anegg]

I'm not sure that the people who are providing the "voice command" interfaces are motivated to provide a local-only response capability. If they aren't, then we'll continue to see cloud-based behavior even if the smarts can be self-contained. I have an iPhone, and it has a "voice dial" feature that doesn't require Siri, so that is what I use in order to keep things local. Having Siri turned on just results in a bad experience when I'm in a poor data service area, anyway.

Re:It's really no surprise

[Rob Y.]

The problem with these things - and the entire new generation of AI devices is that they're not AI. They're little Turing tests that 'act' like they're intelligent (if you ask them the right questions posed the right way) with no actual intelligence whatsoever. There's going to have to be a quantum leap (and probably a whole new approach) in order to build truly intelligent machines, and in the meantime, we need to stop referring to digital assistants, self-driving cars and the like as such. It's misleading - possibly intentionally. Face it, nobody would trust a hopped up Roomba to drive them around town, but Tesla is already putting those things on the streets. With Google, Uber and a host of others plotting the same.

Re:It's really no surprise

[Obfuscant]

why on earth can't any of these assistance interpret commands locally 15 years later?

There is a big difference between a word recognition program like Dragon and a speech recognition and response system like Alexa.

Dragon worked great because, IIRC, you had to train it to your voice. All it did was convert speech to text. YOU had to speak the commands exactly the way the program you were controlling wanted them. If it got a word wrong, YOU had to correct it.

Alexa has to figure out the words AND what to do with them.

If you said to Dragon "tell me a Henny Youngman joke", it would type "tell me a Henny Youngman joke" into whatever program you were using. If you say that to Alexa, it has to try to figure out what a "Henny Youngman" is, what a joke is, that you want it to tell you something, and then tell you. (It can't -- it doesn't know what a "Henny Youngman" is. Or Steven Wright. Stoopid monkey.)

Re:It's really no surprise

[danbert8]

Based on my experience, that is untrue of Alexa. She is very much like DOS. If you don't know the command, she doesn't work. It has the ability to accept multiple ways to say the command, but the command must be known to work. This is why Amazon sends you emails constantly telling you about features. I still haven't figured out the correct command to control my thermostat so I just disabled the Alexa control and use my phone.

Google on the other hand... Their assistant is a Google search and as such does a far better job of handling any random query based on their vast knowledge of what people are asking for. It's much more general purpose.

wire tap on sexy time

[Anonymous Coward]

I received one of these messages just a week ago. Alexa sent me a message of my friend and his girlfriend having a private moment. I immediately texted him to ask if he intended to do that and he did not- so weird.

Re:wire tap on sexy time

[TomGreenhaw]

Can you imagine the repercussions of this happening with an Echo Spot?

Re:wire tap on sexy time

[Anonymous Coward]

"It appears you could use a Dash button for Viagra, or perhaps some ointment for that rash?"
- Alexa

I'd like to say I feel bad ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to say I feel bad about this, but I'm afraid I can't.

You brought this thing into your home, in the case of this lady apparently a bunch of them. You chose to have microphones scattered around your home, you chose to connect them to the internet.

I'm over feeling sorry for people who buy this shit and then discover it's spying on them.

Boo fucking you. If you want sympathy, go someplace else.

Yet another reason why I will never own this kind of shit, or any of the IoT garbage being peddled to us.

Getting people to care

[Bradmont]

I've been thinking for a while that this is the kind of thing that needs to happen more to get people to actually care about their privacy. Maybe a timed worm that'll gradually install itself on all sorts of these devices, and all at once start sharing recorded conversations with strangers. Or a smartphone virus that randomly takes pictures of people while they're facebooking on the toilet and posts them.

Re:Getting people to care

[Bradmont]

Lol, that's perfect!

What about everything else with a microphone?

[Dzimas]

My phone has several very good microphones, as does my computer. Both devices also have extremely good cameras. It seems silly to focus on devices like Alexa and Google Home when they have relatively small market penetration and are less capable of spying on us than the cellular and GPS-equipped monitoring devices we slip into our pockets whenever we go *anywhere*.

Re:What about everything else with a microphone?

[spire3661]

I have root on my phone and computers......They answer only to me. I tire of this incredibly poor argument. You are small minded and purposefully pushing a terrible narrative. Slink back to the hole from whence you came.

Re:What about everything else with a microphone?

[ichimunki]

With Alexa, at least, the risks seem obvious. Whereas with things like laptops and smartphones with built-in mics and cameras and GPS, our expectation is that it is NOT paying attention when we are not actively using the device.

For my part, I know damn well that Alexa is just a device driven by software written by mere mortals, and I'm fine with the potential issues that that raises. What's really needed here is not an expectation of perfection, but some way to default the device to not do certain things until they've been opted into. Or to easily opt-out of certain functionality that I know I'm not going to use.

I mean, yes, I'm concerned about Alexa... but not more than I'm concerned that my home is insecure because a locksmith could open my front door in minutes or a kid with a hammer could come in through the windows without a second thought.

Re:What about everything else with a microphone?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm the administrator of my computer and my phone, both happen to be running open source OSs, and I make sure the phone is locked down and the computer's microphones are disabled. Even without their microphone and/or without an internet data connection, these devices are still useful.

On the other hand, Google Home and Alexa are devices explicitly made for relying info on us to 3rd parties. We can't manage them to the same level. We simply can't use them in any meaningful manner when they're not relying information.

Besides, OPs entire argument is faulty. So because there a possibility other devices have problems we should ignore and encourage faulty devices? The 'logic' can be continued: "No point in patching our systems, there must be some zero-day bugs". "No point in locking our doors so long as the windows are made of breakable glass". "Why bother arresting petty criminals so long as kingpins walk free?". We have to begin somewhere.

Re:What about everything else with a microphone?

[eth1]

My phone has several very good microphones, as does my computer. Both devices also have extremely good cameras.

Neither of those devices are designed with the primary purpose of recording everything that goes on around them at all times, and then sending it off to some third party. They *could* do that, but at least they're not as default behavior.

Re:What about everything else with a microphone?

[ugen]

Your phone keeps these devices off by default, and there are several controls created by phone manufacturer to ensure that it stays so (I know iOS has those, Android must too).
The "always on" device is always on, and must and will listen to everything - by design.

Re:What about everything else with a microphone?

[thegarbz]

our expectation is that it is NOT paying attention when we are not actively using the device

You haven't been paying attention to any marketing materials for computers lately have you... hell the only reason I don't expect multiple devices to respond to me in unison is because they have different names.

At least Alexa and Google are innocent. Microsoft released Windows 10 and not a few months later we found out that Cortana actually went full evil as the antagonist in Halo 5. Whichever marketing flunky came up with that should probably leave it off his LinkedIn profile.

Re:What about everything else with a microphone?

[e3m4n]

microphones on cell phones aren't all that great actually. That's why when your on speakerphone the pickup is relatively poor compared to having the phone right next to you. Inside your pocket would be even worse for audio pickup.

Re:What about everything else with a microphone?

[citylivin]

"the cellular and GPS-equipped monitoring devices we slip into our pockets whenever we go *anywhere*."

Well not "we" as some of "us" never bought into this smartphone fad.

Isn't it obvious that your phone is tracking you and monitoring your behaviour? Who can not know that at this point... You are simply trading your privacy for the convenience of a pocket computer.

Re:What about everything else with a microphone?

[scdeimos]

It seems silly to focus on devices like Alexa and Google Home when they have relatively small market penetration and are less capable of spying on us than the cellular and GPS-equipped monitoring devices we slip into our pockets whenever we go *anywhere*.

Amazon Alexa and Google Home are an open invitation to hackers and TLAs, though, with the ability for third parties to add Skills and Actions respectively.

You'd think with all the well publicized vulnerabilities, exploits and breaches over the last couple of decades with all kinds of internet-connected devices people would be smart enough to never, ever being Alexa- and Home-like devices into their homes. Clearly, though, people are just all kinds of stupid.

Break out the popcorn, folks. The news is just around the corner about all the Skills/Actions exploits doing the rounds that Amazon/Google will never be able to keep up with.

Um, yeah

[cascadingstylesheet]

My husband and I would joke and say I'd bet these devices are listening to what we're saying,"

Um, yeah ... that's how they know you said commands and stuff. They listen to what you are saying.

Re:Um, yeah

[e3m4n]

anyone want to bet that they start getting amazon ads on webpages with hardwood floors as the product?

I actually wonder....

[drolli]

The problem which I have with all kind of voice recogition is that - right now - they seem not to have a good indicator if they understood "something" of "what you said". Try telling google voice keyboard a random story about a nontrivial event in you life 10 years back - it will understand something - and that something will be take from the set of things people "usually" say. So it is obvious that if you talk enough in presence of these devices and some point they will mishear words and recognize these as one the thing they were designed to do.

"Extremely rare occurrence"???

[mark-t]

Wanna be more specific, Amazon?

Like, actually say what really caused it to happen so that people can evaluate for themselves just how rare it is?

Because, you know... if your trustworthiness has already been called into question by evidence that a private conversation was eavesdropped on by your technology, then it makes no reasonable sense to simply take your word for it that whatever caused it to happen was genuinely "rare" at all.

I'm not saying that Amazon is necessarily lying here... but it makes no sense to actually trust what they are saying about this without being able to evaluate that claim's veracity for ourselves, and the longer they stay quiet, the sooner any honest skepticism can slide into outright disbelief.

Re:"Extremely rare occurrence"???

[mark-t]

You're pulling a Trump. Restarting something that is already subject to skepticism does not suddenly make it true.

The way to prove the statement, if it is true, would be to explain exactly what happened to cause it to occur so its infrequency can be evaluated for oneself.

Then each potential customer can determine for themselves if they believe the risk is worth the convenience offered by the device.

Re:"Extremely rare occurrence"???

[thegarbz]

conversation was eavesdropped

Eavesdropping means someone is secretly listening. Just how is it you think Alexa works?

Re:"Extremely rare occurrence"???

[mark-t]

Yes.... someONE, not someTHING.

Also, "secretly" seems to be pretty key.

One should not think that Alexa should be secretly listening to anything

Re:"Extremely rare occurrence"???

[mark-t]

Perhaps... but that is why it would be useful for people to know what actually happened to cause it so that they can decide for themselves just how rare it is.

How long

[Insanity Defense]

So how long until one of these things in a confessional relays "inappropriately"?

Re:How long

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Why bother with going to church to confess? The Catholic Church could sell a "Confession App" for Alexa. There is already one for Android:

https://www.amazon.com/Web4u-C...

If you confess to anything really criminal, the Alexa Confession App can forward it to the police. This wouldn't break any vows, since Alexa didn't take any vows.

Is Alexa Catholic . . . ? Does the Pope shit in the woods . . . ?

What Amazon Doesn't Say

[forkfail]

What Amazon says:

“Amazon takes privacy very seriously. We investigated what happened and determined this was an extremely rare occurrence. We are taking steps to avoid this from happening in the future."

What they don't say:

We are taking steps to ensure that no one gets your audio data.

Should not have been even possible

[sjbe]

Amazon takes privacy very seriously.

Evidently not if an occurrence like this was even possible.

We investigated what happened and determined this was an extremely rare occurrence.

"Extremely rare"? That implies this has happened more than once. That's more than a little disturbing.

I'm feeling pretty good about not buying any of these wiretapp... err, personal assistant devices.

"... this was an extremely rare occurrence ..."

[Qbertino]

Aaaaaahahahaha .... ROTFL!

I don't get it.

[Higaran]

I understand that this stuff it convenient to have, but like how hard it is to hit a damn light switch. I also wouldn't trust it to order a damn thing off amazon, if I said Alexa order toilet paper or what ever, I'd assume that amazon has it programmed to give me the worst deal possible, because they make the most money that way.

Re:I don't get it.

[Obfuscant]

I understand that this stuff it convenient to have, but like how hard it is to hit a damn light switch.

If I'm not home, really hard.

As a proof of concept I configured a "skill" so it could talk to a web server on my local network. All I did was connect it to one of my X10 lights, but it worked. With that framework I can have it do anything that can be programmed. That's more than "hit a damn light switch".

But your question points out the humor in a current ad. Woman turns on the lights, plays music, and then tries to start the washing machine. Oh no, her washing machine isn't controllable. Let's buy a new one, so she can start the laundry while she's standing next to the machine.

Re:I don't get it.

[b0s0z0ku]

This could also be done peer-to-peer, with your phone talking to a smart home controller in your home directly. No Amazon/cloud/spyware middleman needed.

As far as hitting a light switch, what's wrong with simply turning off the lights when you leave home, or even flipping a few breakers (anything but fridge and HVAC) if you go on vacay?

Re:I don't get it.

[Obfuscant]

This could also be done peer-to-peer, with your phone talking to a smart home controller in your home directly.

If you mean "using a web page interface", well, d'oh. That would require having access to the internet where I am. It also involves a middle-man or three. With Alexa, all I need to do is "phone home" and tell it what to do with something I have everywhere I go -- my voice.

As far as hitting a light switch, what's wrong with simply turning off the lights when you leave home, or even flipping a few breakers (anything but fridge and HVAC) if you go on vacay?

There is nothing wrong with turning lights off when I leave if I want them to be off for the entire time I am away. Flipping a breaker is really overkill and likewise un-fixable remotely when I decide I need to turn something on. With Alexa and the skill that talks to the local web server, I can do a huge number of things remotely. Whatever I can program I can do. Lights, radio, fan, send an email, reboot a computer, etc.

I understand that YOU see no need for this. That's fine. But YOU are not everyone else. Your disdain for the product as "useless" isn't binding on anyone else, and all the comments here of that kind are just noise. It's nice you don't like the product. Don't use it. Problem solved. Ninety-nine percent of the modern economy deals with things that are convenient, and this is just another example of that.

Re:I don't get it.

[b0s0z0ku]

If you have access to voice phone, you probably have access to Internet. Who says you need a middleman in the loop? All you really need to do is to publish your network's dynamic IP somewhere. The "middleman" knows the IP number AND NOTHING ELSE. The actual connection is done peer-to-peer, via an open port (ideally an encrypted SSL tunnel) from your phone's web browser or an app to your home.

Re:I don't get it.

[Obfuscant]

If you have access to voice phone, you probably have access to Internet.

You have idea who I am or what I have access to "probably", but you'll happily tell me how much better my life would be if I would only do things your way. Please stop. I accept that you see no need for anything other than two sticks to rub together to make fire and a piece of string to catch fish. I'm happy you are happy with your life that way. Allow others to have their own lives, ok?

This was to be expected...

[bev_tech_rob]

Bring on the Twitter and Slashdot rage storm! (pffft)...

And how were these audio files received?

[mkettler]

Part of me wonders what really happened here...

An Alexa device can make phone calls if set up for it, and they apparently had this person's phone number imported into their Alexa contacts, so they clearly had that feature configured.

So was this just a case of Alexa making a phone call, without "Daielle" being aware of it? If the call was to a google voice number or similar service, it would just recorded the unanswered call and emailed them. This case would be just a speech activated equivalent of butt-dialing, paired with a google-voice emailed voicemail twist.

Or was this a case where Amazon generated audio files and then emailed them to some random person out of the contact list?

I kind kind of understand how the first case could happen by accident, but still be disconcerting. However, the second case would be very disconcerting.

Given that Amazon is offering to de-provision the communications feature for them, I'm inclined to think this was a "butt dialing" incident, but I'd love to hear some actual details to confirm one way or the other. Clearly the title of the news article is designed to make you think it was the second case, where Alexa recorded the call, not google voice, but there's a lot of vagueness here that makes it unclear.

Re:And how were these audio files received?

[mkettler]

Yes, I saw that recently.. so it is the butt-dialing case...

I have a few Echo devices in my home... I do have to admit they often mistake unrelated things as wake words... Phrases with "relax" and "ask" in them seem to get confused quite often with "Alexa". We'll be talking at home and periodically Alexa will chime in with some kind of random bit, usually an error, but sometimes she'll start playing some random song.

I do wish Amazon would have some better choices for wake words to avoid false wakeup. I get that the wake has to be implemented in the device, which is hard, but they could also some longer phrase needed after wake to be accepted as a valid command.

Right now we have:
"Amazon" and "Computer"- too likely in normal household conversation for technical people who shop at Amazon. Cute novelty but impractical.
"echo" - too short at 2 syllables, I haven't tested but I assume it is easily confused with "I'll go" and similar
"Alexa" - already having problems with this one.

I could see a simple fix being requiring everything to start with "Alexa please" let the hardware wake on the "alexa" and ignore anything that doesn't immediately follow with please in the processing. You could even make it a customizable add-on word, which would prevent the "TV commercial triggering Alexa" problem as you'd effectively have your own "password" after the wake word.

Who knew a device always listening might record?

[JoeyRox]

You have to be six degrees of stupid to allow an always-listening device like Alexa into your home. I don't care how convenient or cool it is.

What more do you assholes want?

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazon said they take security very seriously. Nothing is ever enough for you people!

Obviously a mistake

[Registered Coward v2]

They meant to send the audio and contact info to advertisers of hardwood floors. The need to fix their algorithms so the audio gets sent to the correct advertiser.

Re:Obviously a mistake

[umghhh]

What if she was happily commenting on the hard wood her hubby got while they were lying on the floors? Maybe that is where the confusion in Amazon came from?

Re:Who knew a device always listening might record

[ole_timer]

I don't think you can measure how stupid this is

active listening

[pr0t0]

I think the obvious difference is that these home assistants by Amazon, Apple, and Google are actively listening by design. I have the Google assistant turned off on my Pixel...I know because it keeps notifying me to turn it on. Now could the mic on my phone or pc be activated by an unscrupulous actor a la "Person of Interest"? Sure. But that seems far less likely than a software glitch in a device that's supposed to be listening to me.

Amazon is taking steps to make sure this doesn't happen in the future. I already took steps to ensure it would never happen by not buying a device like that.

Amazon's fix for the bug

[jetkust]

--- Alexa.cpp (revision 13)
+++ Alexa.cpp (working 14)
@@ -108,8 +108,8 @@

SpyOnUser();
SendConversationToAmazon();
-SendConversationToRandomContact();
+//SendConversationToRandomContact();
CoverEvidence();

"send a voice message"

[hawguy]

I assume what happened was they triggered the "send a voice message" function in their conversation and their Echo device's volume was turned down and didn't hear the Echo activation beep or see the light. Based on this guide, all you have to do is say something that sounds like "Alexa send a voice message to XXX" and if XXX is a unique contact id, then the Echo sends it without further confirmation.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/help...

To send a voice message using a supported Echo device

        1 - Say, "Send a message to [contact name]."
        2 - If the name is similar to other contacts in your address book, Alexa repeats the name back for you to confirm.
        3 - Once you confirm the name, Alexa prompts you for the message.
        4- When you've finished talking, Alexa sends your voice message.

Re:"send a voice message"

[110010001000]

It is more likely that the guy who received it had a phone number very close to the one the NSA uses.

Re:"send a voice message"

[will_die]

The other option is that they had the alexa app and butt actived that.
Frankly I don't put much into what that amazon "engineer"(is that a title amazon uses for customer support) said, it sounds like something you would say just to make the customer happy, instead of saying "hey idiots you activated the capability yourself, here is what you did"

Re:"send a voice message"

[sinij]

It is more likely that the guy who received it had a phone number very close to the one the NSA uses.

I have the same problem, my number is one-off from Trump's cell, every other weekend some drunk guy that calls himself Vlad keep calling me in the middle of the night and threatens to release pee tapes if I don't do this or that.

Dave, I've noticed...

[goombah99]

Dave, I've noticed your bowel movements are growing in time, so I told the google telephone assistant AI schedule a visit to your doctor.

Dave, I've noticed your shower runs for more than 5 minutes, and that's a waste of water. I posted this shameful habit to your Baidu page and lowered your Beijing social credit score.

Re:Dave, I've noticed...

[mysidia]

Dave, I've noticed your shower runs for more than 5 minutes, and that's a waste of water.

Alexa, that's because the new showerhead I installed has a government-mandated flow limiter which causes water to come out at too slow a pressure and flow rate for efficient washing, so therefore, I am having to spend 5 minutes in the shower, instead of 45 seconds.

Re:Dave, I've noticed...

[rtb61]

Dave, you are lying, Alexa would have noticed you purchasing that shower head and recorded you installing it, there are no records of a new shower head, you social score will be adjusted accordingly. Computers are never wrong.

Voice activation to local server only seems the way to go. Voice activation over the internet, seems to be wildly insecure by design.

Re:Dave, I've noticed...

[mysidia]

Dave, you are lying, Alexa would have noticed you purchasing that shower head and recorded you installing it, there are no records of a new shower head

Alexa, the shower head was purchased not from Amazon, but in person from the local Home Depot using a cash payment,
so it is expected that you would have no record of a transaction --- the installation was very quick and didn't make much noise,
and Alexa wasn't near the bathroom at the time, so there's no way she should have known about it.

lazy editing

[Anonymous Coward]

"the recorded audio was sent to the phone of a random person in Seattle, who was in the family's contact list"

No, it wasn't sent to a random person, you wouldn't have a random person in your contact list. It was apparently sent to the husband's employee.

extremely rare occurrence

[e3m4n]

translation - we have no idea why it accidentally sent it to one of your contacts when these recordings are supposed to be sent to us.

Consider how this is possible

[bradley13]

Consider what is required to make this "rare" incident possible:

- Alexa must continually record audio, and upload these recordings.

- Alexa has access to your contacts list.

- Alexa is able to send email, including attachments.

How many people have any idea that Alexa has these capabilities? In particular, that Alexa is recording audio and uploading it to who-knows-where?

Ok, ok, most people wouldn't care if they did know. I'll go cry in a corner now.

Re:Consider how this is possible

[Obfuscant]

Consider what is required to make this "rare" incident possible: - Alexa must continually record audio, and upload these recordings.

Wrong. All it requires is someone saying something that sounds like "Alexa" and the recording turns on. It doesn't have to be "continually".

- Alexa has access to your contacts list.

Yes. It will, if you've given it access.

- Alexa is able to send email, including attachments.

It probably can, but in this instance it was something sent to a phone. TFA is so devoid of technical details, and it is third party info, so it is entirely possible that the "audio files" that were "sent to a phone" are voicemail messages. Like butt-dialing but using Alexa.

How many people have any idea that Alexa has these capabilities?

Out of the group of people that have connected their contact list with Alexa so it can send messages to people on that list, probably ALL OF THEM.

Ok, ok, most people wouldn't care if they did know. I'll go cry in a corner now.

You really shouldn't allow other people so much control over your emotional state. Why do you care so much that some people value the convenience of an Alexa over the strict "tell nobody nothing" privacy restrictions you put on yourself?

Captain Obvious reporting

[bonedonut]

People used to be afraid of wiretaps. Now they willingly install them in their own homes.

Re:Please Ignore This Post

[lerxstz]

^^ Slashdot comment as a cheap cloud storage mechanism?

And now we wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

We wait for apologies from all the /. fanboi's who ridiculed anyone saying this was possible..

We wait. We're not holding our breaths, but we wait.

Serious about privacy.

[Immerman]

You misunderstand - They *do* take privacy very seriously: it interferes with their profit margins and they're doing their best to eliminate it without triggering excessive consumer backlash.

As yourself this: Does this incident make you substantially less likely to buy or use one of their home surveillance devices, or were you already committed to one camp or the other? If there's no substantial change, then they're doing an effective job of limiting backlash.

Re:Serious about privacy.

[Carewolf]

You misunderstand - They *do* take privacy very seriously: it interferes with their profit margins and they're doing their best to eliminate it without triggering excessive consumer backlash.

As yourself this: Does this incident make you substantially less likely to buy or use one of their home surveillance devices, or were you already committed to one camp or the other? If there's no substantial change, then they're doing an effective job of limiting backlash.

Which would mean they only care about it to the point where the public finds out. If it accidentenly had send it Amazon, they wouldn't care.

Ship has sailed.

[SeattleLawGuy]

You're nuts to have any of these devices in your house, or at the very least, plugged into power when you're not actively using it.

That ship has sailed. Phones are ubiquitous, any VOIP phones you have are on your network, and many computers and monitors and other devices have built-in microphones. Most conversations in the developed world happen in the presence of a microphone, and will do so for the foreseeable future.

A Logic Named Joe

[GameboyRMH]

Reminds me of this short story:

http://www.baen.com/chapters/W...

Re:Federal wire-tapping charges

[Malizar]

Because the homeowners installed the wiretap themselves. They paid money for it and plugged it up. Now, did they realize they were installing a listening device in their own home? Nah, they were stupid, like most the people buying these things.

So lacking in detail

[Anonymous Coward]

The Alexa app lists the commands given. In a situation like this you look at your phone to see what was heard and interpreted by the app. As the Echo can already send audio to someone in a contacts list it seems likely to have been something in a conversation which triggered the action, rather than the device obeying some secretive overlord.

Isolated Incident?

[cogeek]

Of course it is... normally all of the uploaded conversations are stored on Amazon's servers, not sent as voicemails to someone on the contact list. Completely isolated incident..

Re:Isolated Incident?

[ebvwfbw]

Of course not. Normally all the conversations are uploaded to NSA. Just ask her about it sometime. She gets defensive and won't talk to you.

It's birch, NOT beach!

[Anonymous Coward]

Birch hardwood floor. Repeat, Birch hardwood floor.

The chair is against the wall. The chair is against the wall.

Just a voice-activated version of a butt dial.

[MDMurphy]

An update on Ars Technica has details: https://arstechnica.com/gadget...

In short: A string of words in a voice conversation was interpreted to be "send a voice message", which it did. Probably the best fix: Make sure the Echo's voice responses through the several steps needed to accomplish this cannot be muted and are played at a volume level louder than the ambient noise in the room.

This makes the whole thing the equivalent of a butt dial to voicemail circa 1997. Sit on your non-flip phone and either speed dial someone or re-dial a previous number. The call goes to VM and if you're talking the whole time someone gets a 30-minute "file" of someone talking and not knowing they are being recorded.

Re:Just a voice-activated version of a butt dial.

[Ol Olsoc]

Probably the best fix:

Don't buy one. If we don't call this surveillance, we don't call anything surveillance. Then again - if you want a little device that might be programmed to send what you are saying to various places, have at it

We take privacy very seriously.

[MS]

Beware! Whenever a company claims "we take privacy very seriously", you should run! That company will do whatever possible to collect as much private data as possible about you to control and abuse you for its own purposes.

Omg

[easyTree]

What do expect people?

Why do you think these devices are sold?

Re:Who knew a device always listening might record

[gweihir]

I would say just human average. Which is pretty damn stupid.

Leopards Eating People's Faces Club

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

"I never thought leopards would eat MY face," sobs woman who joined the Leopards Eating People's Faces Club.

What about the fire tv remote?

[shm]

I've removed the batteries and use the iOS app only. At least IOS let's you have some control over the mic.

We need software freedom. Always.

[jbn-o]

When it comes to privacy and user's software freedom, there's no substantive difference between one of these spy devices (which must listen all the time in order to hear the command phrase) and a tracker. I prefer a more honest name for what are otherwise called a "cell phone" or "mobile phone"; if the beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name we shouldn't call these devices by their sales name. Since geolocation is what these devices do most, we should call them what they are. The only substantive privacy and freedom related difference between the home spy device and a tracker is rather minor: you can't tell when the tracker is listening. But both devices could be covertly monitoring their users without signaling this to the user or giving the user control to stop that behavior. When considered from a user's privacy and freedom perspective these devices share more in common than they differ.

"If you apply General Curtis Le May to a situation and you get havoc, well, that s what you called General LeMay in for" (to use an Eben Moglen quote out of the context in which he said it); if you host a device in your home running proprietary software you ought not be surprised that it is spying on you and the proprietors determine what to do with that data, not you.

We must not forget another critical component of all this: these devices run on proprietary (nonfree, user-subjugating) software. Therefore the user has no permission to: inspect what it does, modify it to do only what the user wants (or, since most computer users aren't programmers, get someone technical they trust to perform such modifications for them), run the modified software in their device, and distribute copies of the improved software to help their community.

If these devices ran on free software (software that respected the user's freedom to run, inspect, modify, and share) the more technical among us could help them. But as it is even the most technically-minded willing person cannot legally do this work to help them.

As Eben Moglen reminded us after the Snowden revelations came out: It's critical that we don't fall into the trap of saying something akin to 'those kids take too many darn pictures' like concluding that we just can't have these devices or their services at all. We can have all of their alleged conveniences but only if we have free software implementations.

complexity

[sad_]

makes you wonder how all these services are build/managed, it seems they have become so complex and big that nobody knows anymore.
it's either that, or the service worked as intended (but in this case i fail to see why they would want it to work like this).
we need to take step back and make sure we're still in control before it really gets out of hand with rampant services nobody knows how to control.

Wrong Destination

[terrycarlino]

Amazon: We're very sorry. The recordings were suppose to go to the NSA. We just don't know how it went to some random person.

Alexa Hal

[brinke008]

Just make sure you're not out in the pod when Alexa goes off the rails.

Re:Not a fair comparison

[Megol]

I made a silly comparison with another device not working as it should. Replace car with whatever else as long as it is buggy.

Because the device in question DIDN'T work as it should, the developers fucked up.

Blaming users for expecting things to work is popular in "nerd" territory but it's crap, OP was blaming a consumer for buying a device expecting it to work properly.