Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Friday June 14 2019, @02:18PM   Printer-friendly
from the it-hears-you dept.

Does Alexa illegally record children? Amazon sued for allegedly storing conversations without consent

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.


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This discussion has been archived.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: 2) by aristarchus on Friday June 14 2019, @10:19PM (2 children)

    by aristarchus (2645) on Friday June 14 2019, @10:19PM (#855779) Journal

    aristarchus already knows! Think of the children!

    I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it.

    Philosopher John Stuart Mill [wikiquote.org]

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 15 2019, @02:58AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 15 2019, @02:58AM (#855874)

    I would agree with that quote, but using the definitions of conservative and stupid that John Stuart Mill would have had.
    A conservative used to be someone who preferred the status quo and was resistant to change. This is the sensible position of less intelligent people because their experience is that every time things change it provides another opportunity for some smart wolf to fuck them over.

    The current use of 'conservative' is to mean a right-wing authoritarian sociopath asshole. While this doesn't necessarily invalidate the above quote, it does mean that using it to describe current 'conservatives' is at best disingenuous.

    • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday June 15 2019, @11:28AM

      by aristarchus (2645) on Saturday June 15 2019, @11:28AM (#855959) Journal

      Friendly amendment accepted. Chairman, may we proceed to the motion?