SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Amazon's Alexa is the target of a pair of lawsuits that allege the voice assistant violates laws in nine states by illegally storing recordings of children on devices such as the Echo or Echo Dot. It's the latest development in an ongoing debate around Alexa and privacy. The suits were filed in courts in Seattle and Los Angeles on Tuesday, on the eve of Amazon unveiling the latest generation of Echo Dot Kids Edition smart speaker.
Announcing the new version of the devices on Wednesday morning, the company attempted to defuse privacy concerns — saying it built its premium "FreeTime" games and media service for kids with the input of family groups. Amazon said it adheres to the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). The company added, "None of the Alexa skills included within FreeTime Unlimited have access to or collect personal information from children, and there are multiple ways to delete a child's profile or voice recordings."
However, the suits are about the Alexa assistant and Echo devices more broadly, not just the FreeTime service for kids. The suits name nine states — Florida, California, Illinois, Michigan, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington — that prohibit recording conversations without the consent of children or their parents.
"At no point does Amazon warn unregistered users that it is creating persistent voice recordings of their Alexa interactions, let alone obtain their consent to do so," the lawsuits allege. The suits were filed in California and Washington state by lawyers from Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP and Keller Lenkner LLC.
Also at BGR, MarketWatch, and Seattle Times.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday June 14 2019, @05:17PM (2 children)
Agree, 100%. I want to add, though, that all of it amounts to criminal negligence.
Those children we are worried about today? They are being raised up by those willfully ignorant people. Those willfully ignorant people are TRAINING tomorrow's adults that it is *normal* to submit to 24/7 surveillance by government/corporate/"developer"/garden_variety_nebnose. Today's adults are setting norms, which will carry over into future generations. Babies being born today are unlikely to have any thought, let alone second thoughts, about signing away rights and privileges of privacy. No dystopia springs up overnight - just think on into the future, and imagine when no one remembers what privacy was.
Sally, or Tom, or anyone at all can flip through all the available feeds, until they find a neighbor engaged in some hot passionate sex - then tell their friends about it. When Ricky and Becky get to work the next day, workmates are cheering them for a great performance - and neither one is the least bit embarrassed, because it's normal.
Orwelle got the story skewed a little - we are voluntarily surrendering any right to privacy. Government doesn't have to mandate the tele-screens.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday June 14 2019, @05:42PM
Mah nishtanah, ha-laylah ha-zeh? [wikipedia.org]
The difference is only in the impact, not the situation IMHO.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Friday June 14 2019, @08:55PM
I do not agree. There are thousands of dangers, far too many to give each one due diligence. Judging which ones are the most serious is never easy, even apart from whatever hangups and phobias a person may have. This is yet another case of a powerful organization taking advantage of people who must devote most of their attention to greater dangers than a few mosquito bites. Swatting at mosquitoes is not a practical answer. Drain the swamp, that's how such crap is stopped. This lawsuit is a much better approach to such problems than expecting individual users each to perform detailed audits of arcane and devious systems.
Who bothers reading EULAs? Or the long pages of fine print a lot of establishments insist the customers agree to, before allowing them to use the WiFi? There's a lot of legalese in the world that is a load of bull, an attempt to bully and intimidate people into thinking they have fewer rights of less scope than is actually the case. Or it's a snow job, an attempt to hide objectionable stuff by burying it in fine print. Waste of time to read that. "By continuing to use this website, you agree that...." and "You agree not to use the service for any illegal purpose..." No, I don't agree, and if I want to, I'm going to use the website anyway, knowing that whatever crap they've put in there is unimportant. As long as I remain anonymous, there's little they can do. If they demand personal info, fake it, and move on with your life.