Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by mrpg on Saturday April 21 2018, @07:46PM   Printer-friendly
from the till-alexa-says-"no" dept.

Submitted via IRC for fyngyrz

Amazon this morning is introducing "Alexa Blueprints," a new way for any Alexa owner to create their own customized Alexa skills or responses, without needing to know how to code. The idea is to allow Alexa owners to create their own voice apps, like a trivia game or bedtime stories, or teach Alexa to respond to questions with answers they design – like "Who's the best mom in the world?," for example.

[...] "Alexa Skill Blueprints is an entirely new way for you to teach Alexa personalized skills just for you and your family," explained Steve Rabuchin, Vice President, Amazon Alexa, in a statement about the launch. "You don't need experience building skills or coding to get started—my family created our own jokes skill in a matter of minutes, and it's been a blast to interact with Alexa in a totally new and personal way."

[...] The feature could give Amazon an edge in selling its Echo speakers to consumers, as it's now the only platform offering this level of customization – Apple's HomePod is really designed for music lovers, and doesn't support third-party apps. Google Home also doesn't offer this type of customization.

All three are competing to be the voice assistant people use in their home, but Alexa so far is leading by a wide margin – it still has roughly 70 percent of the smart speaker market.

Source: Amazon's new 'Alexa Blueprints' lets anyone create custom Alexa skills and responses


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by fyngyrz on Saturday April 21 2018, @08:23PM (15 children)

    by fyngyrz (6567) on Saturday April 21 2018, @08:23PM (#670158) Journal

    Could I teach Alexa to clean up after herself and delete all the information that is being spooled from my use to Amazon ?

    If this is your concern, and you have an Echo (or use Alexa through some other device like a Fire), then you're being silly. Amazon specifically sells the system as something that knows your shopping habits and leverages that to help you shop more / better / advertise to you, etc. As well as serve you video, music, info, run your household widgets and so on.

    If you don't want the costs and the downsides (insofar as there actually are any), you don't get the benefits, such as they are. Otherwise it's a trade, and whether you make it or not is entirely up to you.

    If your concern is that the system leverages a microphone and could listen to you, I expect you don't own a cellphone, right? Inasmuch as the potential downsides are exactly the same. Well, except that the cellphone has a camera, can handle your email, texts, online sessions with various service providers, probably goes with you just about everywhere (while keeping track of exactly where it is, by GPS and/or tower proximity)... hmmm, I guess it's not the same set of downsides after all, is it? No, of course not. No one with these concerns would own a cellphone. That would make their head esplode. :)

    This is all quite aside from the fact that many people have watched the Echo using network traffic analysis and have already determined that it isn't listening all the time, other than for its wake-word.

    In the future, that could change – Amazon has some IP that they've registered to that effect. On the day I learn that's happening, and likely no sooner, I'll chuck the thing in the trash because at that point, it will have exceeded the limits of privacy I consider as constituting a "line in the sand." Until then, for my household, the many actual benefits outweigh the (strident, unfounded) rumors of the downsides. And besides, by then I expect there will be a LAN-based STT component for Mycroft [mycroft.ai], and I can have my cake without any concerns for my privacy in eating it, future or otherwise.

    I know it seems really cool to some to bitch and moan on Teh Intertubez about stuff that hasn't actually come to pass, but really, it just makes the complainant look a bit wild-eyed. :)

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=2, Total=3
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2) by archfeld on Saturday April 21 2018, @08:51PM

    by archfeld (4650) <treboreel@live.com> on Saturday April 21 2018, @08:51PM (#670163) Journal

    I don't actually have any smart devices with the exception of my TV. I was just being rhetorical. I don't even use a smart phone. I do have a kindle Ereader, and I share an Amazon prime sub with my 2 brothers, extensively using amazon video and kindle unlimited for books so they are getting a fair chunk of info on me that way. I watch the Tick and read about 50 books a month, but between myself and my 2 brothers the profile they build up is pretty confused, We live in 2 states at 3 different addresses. I switch between Arizona and California on a routine based on where I am working. When in Arizona I look after my parents who are both partially disabled and need extra attention in the off season, when their neighborhood is a ghost town. It is odd traveling opposite the snow birds, and being in Yuma during the hot times rather than fleeing.

    --
    For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
  • (Score: 2, Troll) by frojack on Saturday April 21 2018, @09:08PM (1 child)

    by frojack (1554) on Saturday April 21 2018, @09:08PM (#670169) Journal

    Many actual benefits ¡!!!!¡

    My, such first world problems you must have!
    Such helpless societal dead weight children you must be rearing.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by fyngyrz on Sunday April 22 2018, @12:25AM

      by fyngyrz (6567) on Sunday April 22 2018, @12:25AM (#670200) Journal

      You know, as a person unaware of the benefits we see, you could ask what I'm referring to. Instead of just throwing out aggressive remarks.

      Your call.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Saturday April 21 2018, @09:33PM (1 child)

    by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Saturday April 21 2018, @09:33PM (#670172) Homepage Journal

    I applied to work a Civil Service engineering job at the Air Force Cyber Command in 2008.

    They had a few recruiting videos on their site. One of them depicted two officers locking their cell phones in a steel box that was just beside the door to a secure area.

    The video explained that cell phones aren't permitted in secure areas because they have a maintenance mode that enables the carriers to remotely activate the mic - without the user's knowledge or permission.

    I only got one response to my application, about a year later. One of the jobs I applied for was in North Dakota. They turned me down with no explanation.

    --
    Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by archfeld on Sunday April 22 2018, @02:15AM

      by archfeld (4650) <treboreel@live.com> on Sunday April 22 2018, @02:15AM (#670222) Journal

      I work at the Yuma proving ground in of all places Yuma :) They have the same policy regarding phones and ALL wireless devices in quite a few areas. It is smart and shows a remarkable understanding of the technology for the management and military in general. I can get an on-base phone for when I work in a remote site because as a civilian I am not allowed to move myself about. I generally check in at security get a ride to where I am working and when I am done I call for a pickup, or ride with one of the 'locals' to the cafeteria for lunch or to the security for debrief and exit.

      --
      For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 21 2018, @10:08PM (8 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 21 2018, @10:08PM (#670175)

    I know it seems really cool to some to bitch and moan on Teh Intertubez about stuff that hasn't actually come to pass, but really, it just makes the complainant look a bit wild-eyed. :)

    Just like we shouldn't bother stopping the NSA's unconstitutional mass surveillance because they haven't used it to overthrow democracy quite yet. Just keep letting these corporations and governments obtain more and more power over you and build up their surveillance networks, and become dependent upon these devices. That seems smart.

    Thankfully, some people, such as Richard Stallman, can actually think in the long-term. But there aren't enough of them.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Sunday April 22 2018, @12:49AM (7 children)

      by fyngyrz (6567) on Sunday April 22 2018, @12:49AM (#670209) Journal

      Just like we shouldn't bother stopping the NSA's unconstitutional mass surveillance

      No. Not like that.

      First of all, the NSA is acting unconstitutionally. Amazon is engaging in a transaction with a customer, and in my case, an informed one. My choice to do that is a matter of personal liberty; not an abuse of same.

      Secondly, Amazon's not doing "surveillance." At this point in time, they're getting what info I give them when I intentionally provide input to the device. If they start doing "surveillance", that will be entirely another matter, and I can opt right the heck out by unplugging the device. I can't "opt out" of government surveillance.

      Third, and most important, Amazon can't do anything much to me that I can't get around. The government wields enormous power, and from time to time does so in a most violent and home-wrecking manner, in, as you noted, violation of the constitution, not to mention even the most basic concepts of informed personal choice.

      So, no. Not like the NSA even a little bit. It would be worth your time to think a lot more carefully about the rhetoric you're pushing here. There are legitimate issues, mostly potential legitimate issues that could arise in the future. But "like the NSA" is not one of them.

      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 22 2018, @01:06AM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 22 2018, @01:06AM (#670210)

        No. Not like that.

        Yes. Like that. You see, people use the same sorts of excuses that you use for Amazon when it comes to the NSA's mass surveillance. 'Oh, but they haven't substantially abused their powers yet! Stop being so paranoid!' Well, by the time you've let companies and governments build gigantic surveillance apparatuses, you have already lost. In the case of companies, by giving them money, you also fund their other efforts, such as the creation of more proprietary software which violates users' freedoms and abuses them.

        The Constitution has nothing to do with this because the purpose of the analogy was to demonstrate that it is foolish to allow them time to set up their surveillance infrastructure. Don't wait until companies inevitably abuse you; deny their proprietary software from the very beginning.

        Secondly, Amazon's not doing "surveillance." At this point in time, they're getting what info I give them when I intentionally provide input to the device. If they start doing "surveillance", that will be entirely another matter, and I can opt right the heck out by unplugging the device. I can't "opt out" of government surveillance.

        For now. That we know of. But they have everything in place to do the surveillance. For that reason, you've already lost.

        And keep in mind that aiding and abetting these companies does not affect you alone. Facebook, for example, builds shadow profiles about people who don't even allow themselves to be used by that disservice. If people buy these products in massive numbers, it will become impossible to avoid the surveillance even if you don't own any of them, except perhaps by becoming a hermit. Don't contribute to that toxic future.

        Third, and most important, Amazon can't do anything much to me that I can't get around. The government wields enormous power, and from time to time does so in a most violent and home-wrecking manner, in, as you noted, violation of the constitution, not to mention even the most basic concepts of informed personal choice.

        Governments and corporations are joined at the hip, even if they feud at times. If a corporation has your data, chances are the government will get it too. Just another reason not to allow these ticking time bomb devices into your personal life.

        By the way, I fully agree with Richard Stallman that we shouldn't be carrying around cellphones. For one thing, the phones are loaded with proprietary software and are therefore inherently abusive. Then there are all the other problems that you already listed above.

        • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Sunday April 22 2018, @05:15PM (2 children)

          by fyngyrz (6567) on Sunday April 22 2018, @05:15PM (#670403) Journal

          Well, by the time you've let companies and governments build gigantic surveillance apparatuses, you have already lost.

          These devices are not "gigantic surveillance apparatuses", they are cheap-as-dirt, can-throw-in-trash-on-any-whim devices. And as for "lost", no. These devices are enabling at this point in time. No loss. Should that change, throw away. At that point, Amazon and the government have nothing from this vector. So there's little (more likely no) risk here.

          In the case of companies, by giving them money, you also fund their other efforts, such as the creation of more proprietary software which violates users' freedoms and abuses them.

          This is not an idea I subscribe to. At all. Proprietary software, in and of itself, is fine. Software that presents a problem for a user – and let's be clear, there are many reasons why both open/free and proprietary software can do that – can typically be abandoned, particularly when we're talking about software that connects a consumer to Amazon. In any case, Amazon's not offering any software I have to have. Not a single thing. So they can cook up whatever they want, I don't worry at all about it until or unless it affects me negatively, at which point I'll avoid it. They're a business, they can't make me use their stuff.

          The Constitution has nothing to do with this because the purpose of the analogy was to demonstrate that it is foolish to allow them time to set up their surveillance infrastructure.

          Well, then, the analogy failed. These devices are not a "surveillance infrastructure" of any note, first, because they are trivially and completely able to be defeated both individually and in general, and also trivially avoided if present outside one's home (say nothing interesting, they can send nothing interesting), and second, because they actually can't do what you're implying they can do: No onboard STT, and no 100%-on network communications to send the data. If either of those things changes, we'll know right away, and then (trivial, easy) action can and should be taken to dispose of the device. There's no valid analogy to be had here.

          For now.

          That's right. And as I have said repeatedly, right now is what matters for deciding how to treat the device right now.

          That we know of.

          Again, we do know: these devices are easily monitored, and they are being monitored. They have one, and only one, means to talk to Amazon (or anyone else) and that is via their network connection. That's very easy to keep an eye on, and further, the devices themselves are pretty weak hardware; they can't do onboard STT so they can't triage, and they have very little memory to store without triage. So far, they listen (meaning, for more than the wake word, and send what they hear along to Amazon) only when the blue ring is lit; communicate only if they hear the wake word, or think they do (they're fairly lousy at that, one of the things that tells you they'd be even worse at general STT), and they send very little information when they are actually operating as the user intends.

          And keep in mind that aiding and abetting these companies does not affect you alone.

          Amazon's a store. I'm happy to aid and abet them, as they are busily aiding and abetting us. They sell us stuff we want to buy, for less cost than we can get it here, they get it to us faster than we can get it here, and they offer a broad range of things we are interested in. They're a pretty decent media provider as well. From a customer perspective, I think fairly highly of them. And to the point, our lives are significantly enhanced by them, and all you have to offer in this discussion is that they might someday misuse the relationship via the device in a way I can trivially defeat; that's not of sufficient weight to tip the scales even slightly in your argument's favor.

          If people buy these products in massive numbers, it will become impossible to avoid the surveillance even if you don't own any of them, except perhaps by becoming a hermit.

          Do you spend a lot of time in other people's homes, etc.? We don't. If we did, we certainly wouldn't be misbehaving, inasmuch as that is an "out in public" circumstance, just as walking around town is. People, cops, whoever can watch you when you're out of your home. There's nothing new about it being rational to behave well in public and in another person's home. It's not about being a hermit; it's about not being a jerk.

          If a corporation has your data

          If they want to give the government info about how often we turn our lights on and off, ask for the weather, etc., hair on 'em. These devices have no critical information at all.

          Just another reason not to allow these ticking time bomb devices into your personal life.

          Hyperbole.

          By the way, I fully agree with Richard Stallman

          You're sitting in front of a computer that is connected to the network. I suspect Stallman does this from time to time as well. You have no place to stand as your platform is "this hardware could be used against us." None at all. The legitimate concern is when the hardware is being used against us. If we succumb to what-if fears of technological misuse, we're going to do some serious damage to progress for no actual concrete reason. I think that would be one of the worst outcomes imaginable.

          For one thing, the phones are loaded with proprietary software and are therefore inherently abusive.

          Proprietary software != abusive.

          Abusive software == abusive.

          Fact: I developed, and sold, very powerful proprietary software for many years. It did what it was supposed to do, it did it well, and it did it at a very low price/performance ratio. It didn't do anything underhanded or abusive. There was no "abuse" involved. I wrote it, it was mine to sell if I chose to. It was the consumer's option to buy it or not. Any relationship of money for product that occurred was based on an exchange of value.

          I still develop proprietary signal processing software; it's free, but otherwise it's the same: it does what it is supposed to do, it does it well, it doesn't do anything it's not supposed to do or do anything not immediately obvious I don't reveal in excruciating detail in the extensive, also free, documentation, and the consumer gets great value from it. I'm happy to do it. I am under no obligation whatsoever to release my source code. That's not abuse. That's a service.

          The entire meme of proprietary software being bad only arises as an abject failure of critical thinking. Software is only bad if it is bad. There's no other valid case to be made. Proprietary has nothing to do with abuse, or lack thereof. You can have open software that is abusive, and you can have proprietary software that is abusive; you can have open and proprietary software that isn't abusive. The problem, when there is one, is the abuse. Not the open/closed nature of the software.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 22 2018, @06:19PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 22 2018, @06:19PM (#670420)

            the thing is while I agree with you on most points, I also recognize that they are as cheap as dirt and can be set up many places and always be listening and always subject to government legal interference, despite the fact that all of these other innocuous services were not rolled out with legal enforcement in mind.

            so i don't want them around me. and i can't stop other people from using them--like the solar powered trackers in urban recycling bins and street lights and in malls and throughout stores and...

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 22 2018, @11:44PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 22 2018, @11:44PM (#670525)

            These devices are not "gigantic surveillance apparatuses", they are cheap-as-dirt, can-throw-in-trash-on-any-whim devices. And as for "lost", no. These devices are enabling at this point in time. No loss. Should that change, throw away.

            It is difficult for the vast majority of people to throw away all these little devices they let into their personal lives and become dependent upon. Maybe it is easy for you, but I'm thinking in general and in the long-term. You might quickly rid yourself of the devices when any further abuses become known, but most people will not do that, and so the harm remains.

            That's right. And as I have said repeatedly, right now is what matters for deciding how to treat the device right now.

            I guess there's nothing to be done if you just disregard societal impacts out of hand and only think in the short-term.

            There's nothing new about it being rational to behave well in public and in another person's home. It's not about being a hermit; it's about not being a jerk.

            This does not make sense. A mass surveillance society is dangerous to everyone, and you are short-sighted to just dismiss the topic so quickly. I don't see what this has to do with "being a jerk". It seems you don't take the dangers of mass surveillance (corporate or governmental, since they are both related) seriously at all.

            If they want to give the government info about how often we turn our lights on and off, ask for the weather, etc., hair on 'em. These devices have no critical information at all.

            They are ultimately listening devices, so there is no reason they would be limited to just that if they were to turn more abusive. Not only that, but companies and governments spend massive amounts of money trying to figure out how to use seemingly innocuous data to identify, profit from, and abuse people, and it's entirely possible they could think of things that you would never fathom.

            You're sitting in front of a computer that is connected to the network. I suspect Stallman does this from time to time as well. You have no place to stand as your platform is "this hardware could be used against us." None at all. The legitimate concern is when the hardware is being used against us. If we succumb to what-if fears of technological misuse, we're going to do some serious damage to progress for no actual concrete reason. I think that would be one of the worst outcomes imaginable.

            I do have a place to stand, because I only use devices that fully respect my freedoms (of which there are several), thereby minimizing the dangers to some small extent. There is only so much a single individual can do when the entire system is unjust and compromised, so this is better than handing everything over on a golden platter, and it does not require one to become a hermit. However, even were that not the case, that would not make any of my arguments wrong. It is possible for people living within a system to recognize the injustice perpetuated by the system, and their arguments stand on their own merits. I believe we need to fix the system so that all devices respect users' freedoms and do not abuse them.

            Your argument strongly reminds me of the 'love it or leave it' argument, where you tell dissidents to leave if they are unsatisfied with the state of things. No positive change could occur if people followed that advice.

            If you truly want progress, then advocate for the fix: Free Software, and devices fully controlled by users instead of corporations.

            Proprietary software != abusive.

            it's clear we have a difference of values here. To me, denying users their freedoms [gnu.org] is, in and of itself, inherently abusive, and trivially opens the door up for further abuses in the future.

            The entire meme of proprietary software being bad only arises as an abject failure of critical thinking.

            Nope. It arises from the idea that users have certain freedoms that should not be denied to them.

            You can have open software that is abusive

            I'm a proponent of Free Software, not open source. Proponents of "open source" usually make no mention of ethics, and therefore do not question the fundamental underpinnings of our current unjust system. This may be why the corporate media loves that term so much, because it doesn't rock the boat.

            In any case, that is true. However, it is far less likely that Free Software will abuse users, and any abusive anti-features could be removed by anyone if it did. Not only that, but the software would still grant users their freedoms, so it would have to be a different kind of abuse (such as privacy violations) than denying those to users. With proprietary software, you have to stop using the software entirely if it is abusive (besides denying users their freedoms), which is often difficult because it attempts (either intentionally or not) to make users dependent upon it, which means that the injustices continue for a long while.

            I do not think that proprietary software is justified even if you can make more money developing it.

      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by vux984 on Sunday April 22 2018, @03:03AM (2 children)

        by vux984 (5045) on Sunday April 22 2018, @03:03AM (#670228)

        One area of weakness with your argument is your assumption of separation between government and amazon.

        You say its ok, because you are 'informed', and Amazon only collects what you input; but you don't really know what that is. You don't really know when its listening, or what it sends back, from day to day. Are you really sure there's not going to be any surprises? And even if you took it apart, disassembled the code, and verified it was good and you fully understood everything it does... 5 minutes after you plug it back into the internet, its updated itself and you don't really know what does again.

        You say its ok, because amazon 'doesn't do surveillance' -- and then I remember secret government rooms installed at the telcos. Maybe amazon doesn't do surveillance, maybe the government just uses them as infrastructure. It's happened before.

        You say its ok, because there is nothing amazon can really do with the information, they don't wield that much power over you anyway, not like the government. Of course, they could hand it over to the government, or they could lift their skirts and let the government just have a peek.

        Is it really that smart to trust amazon to have your best interests at heart? You clearly don't think the government should be able to surveil you -- what makes you so sure your relationship with amazon doesn't have them in the loop. It wouldn't be the first time something like that has happened.

        Your right: it's very different from government surveillance, unless its exactly the same thing.

        • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Sunday April 22 2018, @04:14PM (1 child)

          by fyngyrz (6567) on Sunday April 22 2018, @04:14PM (#670383) Journal

          One area of weakness with your argument is your assumption of separation between government and amazon.

          That is not correct. I will explain:

          You say its ok, because you are 'informed', and Amazon only collects what you input; but you don't really know what that is. You don't really know when its listening, or what it sends back, from day to day.

          Yes. I do know when it's listening and when it communicating with Amazon. So do many others, because we've taken the time and energy to monitor its network activity. It's important to understand the limitations of the hardware. First of all, the only means it has to talk to Amazon is via the network, and it is definitely not sending anything except when it is spoken to. Aside from the fact that it has no general STT facilities onboard (no one's got that in any kind of reasonable form as yet), these devices have very little storage in which to place any usable amount of audio without some form of triage, which it can't do, because again, no onboard general STT.

          5 minutes after you plug it back into the internet, its updated itself and you don't really know what does again.

          Should it be changed into an active surveillance device (which would require either 100%-on communications or onboard reliable STT, neither of which are present at this time, the former being easily spotted, the latter a breakthrough that would rock the world), then it's time to dump it. Until then, it's not time to dump it, and it's very handy around the house, so I'll stick with that. Perfectly willing to dump it if it starts black hat surveillance. But not because someday it might.

          You say its ok, because there is nothing amazon can really do with the information, they don't wield that much power over you anyway, not like the government. Of course, they could hand it over to the government, or they could lift their skirts and let the government just have a peek.

          So, let's say they hand over what info they have. They go ahead tell the government how many times we turn our lights on or off, how often I ask for the time, weather, day, date, set timers and alarms, which music we play, how often we reorder cat food and litter... yeah, not feeling threatened at all. You see, the relationship we have with Amazon through this device doesn't pass information of any real value. For that to happen, the device would have to a great deal more sophisticated, active, and this kind of change would be very, very obvious.

          Is it really that smart to trust amazon to have your best interests at heart?

          Trust but verify. There are many people, including myself, that keep a careful eye on the network traffic from these devices using tools like, but not limited to, Wireshark. Unless someone finds is evidence – and let's be 100% clear, there is no such evidence being reported at this time – that the device is stepping over acceptable bounds of privacy, then yes, it's smart to enable Amazon to improve the quality of our lives.

          Your[sic] right: it's very different from government surveillance, unless its exactly the same thing.

          And since it isn't exactly (or even slightly) the same thing, it is, in fact, different.

          Now that we've disposed of all that, you know the device you're typing your Soylent messages on is just as able to "talk to the government" as Amazon's devices, right? Phone, computer, tablet... the difference being that such devices tend to have a lot more critical information on-board. Perhaps you're not paranoid enough. :)

          • (Score: 2) by vux984 on Sunday April 22 2018, @08:08PM

            by vux984 (5045) on Sunday April 22 2018, @08:08PM (#670461)

            "these devices have very little storage in which to place any usable amount of audio without some form of triage"

            Ok, on the technical front, I disagree:

            mono voice quality for voip/phone calls is as low as 10kbps. 8 hours of conversation ...
            10kbps * 3600 seconds/hour * 8hour = 288000 kb (kilobit) = 36000 kB (kilobyte) =~ 35MB. iFixit says an echo has 256MB ram and 4GB storage.
            Even a higher bandwidth voice codec, requiring 60-100kbps would fit pretty easily.

            "and let's be 100% clear, there is no such evidence being reported at this time – that the device is stepping over acceptable bounds of privacy"

            I don't disagree with you. However, I think the device is amply -capable- of being misused, and if the device were subverted by warrant or malware or software bug it seems to have the capability to do a lot more than you give it credit for.

            " They go ahead tell the government how many times we turn our lights on or off, how often I ask for the time, weather, day, date, set timers and alarms, which music we play, how often we reorder cat food and litter... yeah, not feeling threatened at all."

            It's interesting how innocuous meta data can reveal things you aren't aware of though. Your taste in music can suggest your political affiliation, your age, your race, perhaps even your sexual orientation. Your patterns of activity can reveal your employment status, your work schedule, when you go on vacation. That you are a night owl or early riser or insomniac. Perhaps long term we can make assessments of mental health, how often you get sick, and for how long, how often you skip work, and so forth based on patterns, and changes in those patterns. Perhaps we'll feed that into your 'social score' (a la China) and credit score, and consider it when selling you health insurance. Even if its only 'weakly correlating'.

            "Now that we've disposed of all that, you know the device you're typing your Soylent messages on is just as able to "talk to the government" as Amazon's devices, right? Phone, computer, tablet... "

            Yeah, you aren't wrong, and i am bothered about that. The computer provides incredible and necessary utility. As does the phone. I admire Stallman's dedication to control over his computing experience, and while I am not nearly so extreme; I do actively choose to limit what devices i use and what they can do with an eye to that control. A computer and smart phone enable me to work & earn income, and provide entertainment and information, navigation, and communication. These are a huge net benefit to me. An echo... lets me set timers, turn on the lights, and reorder cat food. (And i can already do all of those things without much effort.)

            Perhaps you're not paranoid enough. :)

            It's about attack surface. I can't put up with the inconvenience of not having a phone or computer. But just because i've given up some ground there, doesn't mean im willing to install an amazon mic and camera in every room in my house.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 23 2018, @12:26PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 23 2018, @12:26PM (#670704)

    If this is your concern, and you have an Echo

    If I had an Echo [wikipedia.org] I probably would be rich. ;-)