[SlowRobotAhead]

I would NEVER put an Alexa in my home - but has Amazon done anything wrong here?

You agreed to the terms of use, they’re doing expected work to anyone that has any idea how this all works, there seems to be no malicious intent even implied. IDK, if you don’t want someone potentially listening you, don’t put an Echo in your home.

[whatshisface]

>has Amazon done anything wrong here?

There's the contract that was actually signed, which Amazon didn't break, and then there's the contract people think they signed. It's generally considered your fault when you sign a contract with the devil and get tricked, but the devil is still evil. In other words, Amazon is evil in this situation and their customers made a mistake. If it had been made clear to non-technical people that they would get listened to by the listening device, then it would all be on them. However, this comes as a surprise to the average person, because it doesn't take that much work to encourage a false belief in the mind of a non-expert.

[zachr]

Fundamentally for a voice assistant to assist you it needs to listen to you. I don't see how this could possibly be surprising to anyone.

[whatshisface]

The headline in this case is that humans are also involved in the listening, which is technically advantageous but not technically necessary. It is also worth mentioning that the recording gets uploaded out of your house, which is again technically advantageous but not technically necessary.

[mlthoughts2018]

I disagree that it is conceptually possible for most consumers to have an adequate understanding of future implications of this technology such that they can possibly give informed consent for this type of data capture.

There are just too many ways it can eventually be used maliciously, so much so that we can’t even contemplate or imagine them ahead of time. In that case, it should be illegal for a company to capture the consumer-generated private data, much the same as age of consent laws... even if a minor appears to have a self-aware and complete understanding of something they are consenting to, it is just legally defined to be impossible for the minor to actually be capable of granting consent.

The same should be true for collecting user behavior and non-aggregated user activity data, across the board. “Consenting” to it, whether explicitly or through site usage terms or EULAs, is just not a logically possible thing.

[atoav]

I somehow disagree. In a free democratic society every citizen should be able to operate with the assumption that very invasive practice is banned, unless you opt into it with clear intent.

Most people who got an Alexa have probably no idea how it works and whether it is invasive or not and they quite certainly operate it under the assumption that no real human will listen in to the conversations they have in the presence of their electronic assistant.

Unless Amazon made a strong effort to communicate this in the clearest possible way (e.g. by putting a "our employes may listen in to any conversation" front and center on every place they sell it), they are in my opinion at least guilty in a ethical sense here. Legal is a different thing, but you can be operating totally legal, while still beeing ethically wrong.

[SlowRobotAhead]

>In a free democratic society every citizen should be able to operate with the assumption that very invasive practice is banned

The words free society and everything you don’t agree with should be banned seem like opposite things.

The reality is if you put an always on microphone in your home - you should absolutely expect someone could be listening. At not point did they promise you that wouldn't happen.

[bem94]

> they’re doing expected work to anyone that has any idea how this all works

For sure. But lots of people dont't know how this stuff works and should not be expected too.

I wonder how many average consumers of Alexa products would feel differently about their purchase if it said on the box "some people at amazon are likely to listen to what you say". Sure, everyone agrees to the terms of use, but that doesn't seem to count for much in the way of "informed consent" these days. Maybe to the letter, but not the spirit.

[SlowRobotAhead]

>But lots of people don't know how this stuff works and should not be expected too.

How does caveat emptor not apply here? If you put an internet connected microphone in your home - it seems very reasonable to assume someone could listen in on that.

[wybiral]

I don't see it as a wrong or right, more so a matter of informing the public. Everyone suspects that those devices are listening to them but it's usually brushed off as tin-foil hat stuff. Stories like this are just making people aware of the reality of these technologies. You decide if it's acceptable or not.

[zachr]

Any time Alexa is lit up, it may be listening to you. Any time Alexa is not lit up, your conversations can't be overheard. The tin foil hat aspect comes in when people say it's listening ALL THE TIME, which it isn't.

None of my VERY non-technical family think that their assistant devices aren't transmitting recordings of their voices to some remote server somewhere, because it's obvious enough. Even my 71 year old grandfather understands this.

[wybiral]

Yeah, but do they know that other human beings are listening to it?

[stunt]

You will be surprised how many customers don't expect it to happen. You only know it because you have an idea of how the whole system works. Almost every user just agrees to terms of use without reading it.