[aleksei]

> What is it that users don’t realize?

You answered yourself in an exemplary fashion, but I'll state it explicitly (and simply). People don't think about it. I'd like to imagine anyone who realises the implications of owning such a device would refuse to own one, although I know I'm mistaken.

I don't mean that people should know better (although ofc they should), but new technology is all too easily likened to any household appliance nowadays. Alexa is a utility, for better and worse.

It's my opinion that we should very much attempt to educate the non-professional about the realities of these spy-machines, in much the same way we don't teach people about dishwashers.

As for the article: I find it morbidly curious that I could tell Alexa who is murdering me. A benign 1984 for now I suppose.

[melling]

“the implications of owning such a device would refuse to own one, although I know I'm mistaken.”

You are mistaken. I use my Alexa everyday. I suppose if someone creates a better version that doesn’t phone home, I’ll switch. In the meantime, I really enjoy having this type of device.

By the way, last year I blogged about the need for HN users to constantly complain about Alexa’s privacy.

https://h4labs.wordpress.com/2017/09/27/groundhog-day-amazon...

If you could take that energy and build an open source replacement, that would be more worthwhile.

[Kiro]

You are mistaken. The utility of Alexa/Google Home is worth any privacy intrusion for me. I simply don't care. Convince me otherwise.

[icelancer]

Though the person is being a slight jerk with the last sentence in this comment, there's no reason to mass-downvote someone just because they don't value their privacy as much as anyone else. The poster is not telling people they should not value privacy, only that the poster does not in exchange for utility.

[danso]

Even without that last sentence, the comment is not helpful. We’re not told what the user sees as the benefits of Alexa, and we don’t know what he sees as the privacy trade offs. It’s possible he uses Alexa for some lifesaving utility that far outweighs even if Amazon were illegally violating his privacy. Or maybe he’s ignorant tot he specifics of what Echo and Amazon do/don’t collect. And anyone who replies is forced to play the annoying game of read-my-mind/how-dare-you-assume-that’s-what-I-meant.

[nhauz]

It is a useful comment in an echo chamber like HN's. And seeing the downvotes it has received, it's double useful.

[oAlbe]

I think they have been massively downvoted because they were being a jerk, not because they (don't) value their privacy.

[ThePhysicist]

That’s interesting. Can you elaborate a bit? Are you not worried because you think the information is not sensitive or do you think the risk of it being abused, lost or stolen is negligible? I’m really curious to know (and while I have a different opinion I think yours is legitimate as well).

[Kiro]

All of the above. I don't think it's sensitive and I think the risk is negligible but even if it happened I still think it's worth it. Like I said in my sibling comment I'm against mass-surveillance in general because then you have no choice but here I'm actively deciding to expose myself because I find the utility worth it.

[mcny]

I agree.

We talk about the "identity theft" problem here quite a bit. One time someone wrote about how there is no such thing as identity theft. If someone persuaded a bank to give them money by pretending it was me, the thief didn't steal anything from me. The bank gave the thief money and should try to recover it themselves. I'm not a part of that equation.

I think it is stupid to establish any kind of causality based on the things I search online or the things I do on the computer. The problem isn't that Amazon is recording my activity. The problem is that somehow we allow this to be admissible in a court of law. My shower thoughts don't make me a criminal. I'm innocent until proven guilty. Searching for nitroglycerine or whatever is not the same as the proverbial trout in cow milk that prosecutors claim to be. What's next? Private diaries as evidence that I killed someone?

Edit: spelling

[blattimwind]

> What's next? Private diaries as evidence that I killed someone?

Well if your diary contains perpetrator's knowledge then obviously yes? Even if not, it may count as circumstantial evidence.

[mcny]

I anal but in my not so humble opinion it can at best establish motive not that I did it.

I've been hearing recently about how the forensic "science" we allow in the court room isn't all that scientific either. I think our law enforcement and our prosecutors are just too lazy. I'd not mind so much if they let criminals free but it seems they will try to frame someone who is plausible and let "science", "evidence", and "experts" do the talking which is not good.

I think we should provide proper incentives for our prosecutors. We clearly can't lean on their moral compass.

[oAlbe]

What kind of utility do you derive from Alexa/Google Home that is so vital to you?

I'm genuinely curious because your comment made me think I might be entirely missing the point of those devices.

[raarts]

https://jacquesmattheij.com/if-you-have-nothing-to-hide/

[Kiro]

Yes, I agree but for me personally I don't care even if that dystopia happened. It's still worth it for me, again, personally. I'm against mass-surveillance because then it affects everyone, whether you agree on it or not but in this case I'm actively buying this thing and expose myself to it.

[rcMgD2BwE72F]

>Yes, I agree but for me personally I don't care

That is contradictory.

[jeremyjh]

It is not. The difference is choice. Mass surveillance does not offer you a choice about participating, or ties that choice to some everyday activity. Putting an Echo in your home is a choice.

[usrusr]

Choice can be a very weak consolation. Just like how not driving isn't really a viable choice in many regions (although nobody is technically being forced to drive), if choice makes surveillance acceptable, that choice could easily be eroded to the point of being merely a theoretical option. "You want to live without surveillance? Your choice, because we respect that choice so much we have set up special surveillance free zones in Pennsylvania"

[chmod775]

What he probably meant to say: "I do care, but only because of others who may need/want privacy."

[betterunix2]

What will you do if a friend who does care and does not want the privacy intrusion comes over to visit? Do you at least give people the courtesy to inform them and ask their permission to have recordings of their voice sent to a third party service?

If enough of these devices are installed, having every utterance recorded will become a fact of life. You might not care, but when people believe they are being recorded they become less willing to challenge authority. That might be something society is willing to accept, but according to your individualistic view, society will not be asked -- it would only take a minority of people installing these devices to create a world of widespread surveillance, and the majority of people would never have been asked for their consent.

[asdfasgasdgasdg]

> What will you do if a friend who does care and does not want the privacy intrusion comes over to visit?

If a friend has really idiosyncratic and unusual preferences, they should be good enough to announce those when they visit. Of course a normal host would be willing to unplug their Google Home or Amazon Echo.

[societaleffects]

Counter argument: It’s not just you. When your privacy is invaded, that data can be used to damage all of us. Just as we saw happen during Brexit and the 2016 US election, where data collected on individuals was used to microtarget propaganda.

See Cory Doctorow on how privacy invasion socializes risk.

https://locusmag.com/2018/07/cory-doctorow-zucks-empire-of-o...

[neuralRiot]

Obviously you weighted the risks/ benefits and made your choice, and that's perfect. The problem with these type of devices is people who are totally oblivious to the workings of it and the implication and that will click "i agree" without even read anything. Personally i prefer control over pseudo-convenience on anything.

[briandear]

Luckily for those of us that do care about privacy, we have HonePod. Not quite as comprehensively creepy as Alexa, but of similar utility and definitely better when it comes to audio quality.

[pmontra]

How are they useful? I watch their commercials on TV and frankly I don't understand why I should use one even if all processing would happen inside the device.

[sslayer]

Statitstics and non-biased double blind emphereal fictitious studies show that those who don't care about privacy, usually have not fully developed privacy awareness intelligence due to social constrictions nominally developed during the abstraction formance and concretion phase of the multi-hemispherical expansion of the brain. Often, this leads to higher overall social acceptance, integration, and adjustment- with loss of self awareness and self identity,giving over completely to the social hive mind indications and constructs, usually producing characteristics similiar to, but not nearly as developed as, the common bee, with hyponitic driven intelligence and pre-defined scripted actions produced from the social feedback loop of the group. Privacy is then regards as a trivial concept, as the social feedback never identifies individual self actions, rather group activity motions to accomplish group goals, not individual self goals. Integration of personal self into the hive is almost impossible because to be part of the hive one must sacrifice the self and individualism , conversely, the hive cannot exist as a individual only a selfless group of commonality- it cannot bee otherwise.(please forgive the pun)