The latest outrage from Amazon
 

Anyone based in the US who uses Amazon devices in their home is now to be made a guinea pig in a new bandwidth sharing experiment called Sidewalk. You have one week to opt out, otherwise you're in by default.

More details from Ars Technica.

Reminds me of "BT Openzone".

Windows 10 update sharing also springs to mind - where your system is turned into an update repository to serve Windows updates to other client machines.

Seems to be the done thing nowadays - but people for the most part willingly gave up their privacy and surrendered control of their systems to a handful of multi billion dollar US based corporations.

The rationale is that if someone has already installed one of these IoT spy devices in their home, that they are by default not at all concerned about their privacy.

My Block port 0 pf firewall rule blocked Win10Pro from updating when I implemented it in the Win10Pro firewall. I've carried that over from ConSeal PC Firewall and my Win98 days:

And the thing is, most persons are just going to continue to wander heedlessly through Big Data's own version of Candid Camera and not give it a second thought.

And people get upset about the NSA.

The NSA doesn't hold a candle to Google and the Zuckerborg.

Took me 10 seconds to disable sidewalk on my Echo devices. I also use NextDNS on my router to block as much as possible.

Frankly, I wouldn't have one of those things in my house.

As an aside, the only valid use I see for Ring doorbells is to provide videos of persons falling down steps for AFV (America's Funniest Videos).

Same here.

Plus 1. I can't understand the mentality of people who use them. Don't they realise that the device has to listen to every word you say in order to hear and recognise the magic word "Alexa"?

When Orwell wrote 1984, a lot of people said it could never happen in real life because people in general wouldn't willingly allow a spy in every house (and you couldn't enforce it unless you already had a spy in every house). But they turned out to be completely wrong. People will do that happily if they're told they're getting something for free.

Well, Nineteen Eighty-Four was published in 1949 - maybe seven decades ago people were smarter, or at the very least more sensitive to who might be eavesdropping.


At least with Amazon Alexa, it's indoor and audio-based - there's a degree of choice over whether to enter a house infected with it. Unlike Amazon Ring, where the door-mounted webcam that can record everyone who even passes by a door. I wonder how many people who claim opposition to CCTV have such a device and have bothered to consider what they are creating.

Well, in order to realize stuff, first you have to--er--think about stuff.

Snark aside, I think persons see the convenience and don't think about the implications. They don't realize that what they say actually leaves their premises and goes to some other place before the convenience happens.

Sounds familiar by now.
I hope the law catches up to this wild-west behavior soon.

I hate that it's unavoidable for most of us in many places to have video and audio of us recorded.

But if only it were so simple...
1) Alexa is in a house you've entered, but the host doesn't tell you and doesn't call Alexa while you're there.
2) Someone you want to keep a relationship with will not part with their Alexa

How do you avoid that? You can try to make you case with person 2), but if they refuse to turn it off while you're in their house, then you face either cutting them off or... conversing in some non-audible way?

Referring to what Hazel pointed out, just try to separate people from their FREE!!!

I expect to hear of a prominent court case of people's words recorded through one of these being used against them, aside from law enforcement who might be able to get approval for use in a criminal case. They've certainly tried and I suspect succeeded somewhere.

For a civil matter, I think lack of your consent would kill the case, at least in Anglophone parts of Canada where our version of English Common Law applies. Not being a lawyer, though, I don't know. And in any case, if you say something with the expectation of privacy and it gets out, the law doesn't matter, the cat's out of the bag. Yes, it's long been possible for someone to record you without you knowing; the difference today isn't just that it's more common, it's that it's hard to avoid being recorded on something.

TKS

Just to be contrary, but the press around Sidewalk is really misstating what it can do.
It will use a low power long range 900MHz radio that uses small data chirps, that are triple encrypted, to send very basic information. The big use will be for the tracking system to help find lost items or pets that have a tracking tag affixed.
The bandwidth it uses is minuscule, less then a text message.

Everyone with an iPhone has a similar system in place already, and Apple will upgrade this with directional scanning to help you pin-point were a beacon is as part of the Find-My network.

Yes, they can both be abused to unwilling track people, but the press seems fixated on Amazon for doing this.

Take a look at this video about why it is not that bad, but you can still be outraged about it. https://youtu.be/OH5VoAOUjeE

I didn't say it was simple, I said there's a degree of choice. You can outright ask people and refuse to enter their homes unless they switch it off* - that's not necessarily a good choice, and the relationship might be a higher priority, but that is a choice you get to make.

It's different from needing to get from A to B and being unsure how many doors along the potential routes may be transmitting video direct to Jeff Bezos and/or anyone else with access.


* That's also assuming it can be switched off - if turning off your own router no longer prevents it from going online, maybe there's a backup power source too... :/

...and a lot of _unique_ information can fit inside that.
Anyhow, none of this is to the point.
The point is yet another opt-out instead of opt-in data harvesting.
It makes all the difference, since the vast majority of all users never touches the settings.

And why should we - once again - trust a tech giant's pinky promise to "Do Good" with our data. This sort of stuff should be prohibited by law.
But, the arstechnica article states that it's currently a thing in the US only, so personally I am not worried that this will ever make its way across the big pond.
But again, it also states that some children's devices are part of the trial. And following kids around IRL is... let's just say, I'd like to see a cartoon of that where Amazon is a middle-aged male offering candy to children... :D

That's, like, no argument at all.

1. Poor Amazon!
2. I have not noticed that. The press is full of articles criticising all of the quasi-monopolistic tech giants.

I agree with you that I do not care for the phrasing of the OP.
But I am not, and neither is the arstechnica article. Not every form of criticism is outrage.

Just because you can be recorded doesn't mean it's legal. Here in the U.S., the legality of these recordings gets really complicated. Depending on the state, there are different definitions of what legal recording even is. In some states, all it takes is for one side of a conversation to agree to the recording. In others, both sides have to agree. I'm old enough to remember that it was once pretty much universal that both sides had to agree and the recording itself HAD to include a beep every 20sec or so to remind everyone that the conversation was being recorded. Now throw Alexa or other devices into the mix. Does the device owner even realize that everything uttered is being transmitted outside their house so that nobody was aware that the conversation was being recorded?

Then there's law enforcement aspect of these devices. They've gotta love 'em. No more skulking around to plant wiretaps in someone's house---the person being investigated has done that work for them. All they need is for a judge to give them the OK to have Amazon, their ISP, or whoever insert a tee into the datastream coming from 123 Maple Street and record it.

If I see one of those in a house we're visiting, there's a darned good chance that I'll ask for it to be turned off. (Or the host will find that it's been stuffed behind some sofa cushions. Finally, a good use for all those decorative pillows that many seem so keen to fill their sofas up with.)

I think that it just depends on who has the biggest stick. Just because "they" are doing it doesn't make it legal at all. Just means that "they" are getting away with it for now. And it takes years for complaints to work their way through the courts. 10 years sometimes.

Yup, and that doesn't meant that's legal either. The courts aren't law abiding organizations anymore. They are political operatives.

And then, some law enforcement agencies have decided that they don't have to obey the courts. Remember when the courts decided that the info collected during the homeland security collection of data in the early 2000's was illegal and had to be deleted, and 2 years later it was found that the FBI ignored them, and kept it anyway, and the courts had to threaten them with contempt?

And...you have no idea what that info could be used for in the future, or where it is being stored, or what hacker is intercepting it. That info could come back to get you 20 years from now when you decide that you want to run for mayor.

I recommend people to have this sort of civil courage.
It can be a polite request, and it should not be an issue (not during an informal get-together anyhow).
But then again, most smartphones are doing the same thing (listening, that is) and asking folks to switch them off is (unfortunately) considered a no-no nowadays. Just like it's considered normal that people talk to "themselves", something we had good fun with one or two decades ago, when people started running around with wireless headsets in their ears.
But I digress.....

Thank you for specifying "in the US". Many don't do it, and I always feel it's important to point out that the situation is very different in other countries.

There’s always this tactic. I don’t know if I’d ever have come up with it myself. I think it wouldn’t be considered polite, though. :)

https://xkcd.com/1807/

This is the only reason I like these things. I don't bother to vote because it doesn't seem to matter who wins, same old stuff every time. However I certainly don't like the idea of a sex offender or whatever other horrible things a person has done not being found out due to privacy issues.

I like my privacy. I however do not like that the legal system is built (at least in the us) for people to get away with stuff. Happens all the time. One technicality on a warrant, full house of evidence "doesn't exist". That is a failed system. Not taking sides but in the case of that Steel dossier or whatever they don't even try to deny the things the former president was accused of. All they care about is how they got it. If they can prove that it was ill gotten it's irrelevant and canceled out as well as near everything that came from it.

I noticed a trend from my computer savvy offspring (all grown up now).

They have a feeling that yes, they're being watched, but if you want to do stuff, it's inevitable. It's a bit like you realise there's no curtains in your bathroom, so anyone looking can see you shower.But you want a shower, so you go ahead.

The alternative is too much of a struggle, and takes persistence. Looking up a dictionary is too much effort when you can google it. So they just put it out of their minds.

I remember asking a friend whether it didn't worry her at all that Apple always knows exactly where she is (she has an iPhone) and she couldn't understand what the problem was.

Too extreme examples. Looking up things can be done comfortably even on a mobile device without using FAAMG at all.
The Problem is that FAAMG (most notably Google I'd say) do everything in their power to create the impression they are the internet.
My coworkers don't remember the difference between an URL bar and a search bar anymore.

So, not very savvy to use Google to end up at a wikipedia article.

Will you believe it? They've now issued a "child-friendly" version of Alexa. It's disguised as a cuddly panda and costs £60. So now there will be an Amazon spy even in the nursery. What a paedophile's delight!

Oh wow, that just calls for evil, sarcastic memes.
What were they thinking? No wait, I know the answer to this - that it will make them even more money, both through direct sales and through the ability to gather more data, earlier in a life, getting a more complete profile, increasing the chances of succesful influencing, creating even "better" customers...

I hate this society. It's one of its largest and usually overlooked sins, that modern marketing strategies are applied to our youngest with gusto, and no law to hold them back.

We could be so much further along with e.g. gender equality if it wasn't for the toy and entertainment industry. Because, why bother with unisex toys when you can double your profit by making everything for either boys or girls.

Well, I'm rambling now, but in my POV that's a very clear line going from "kid Alexa" to exploiting our youngest psyches.

An Internet tap was found in a polling place – it was a "smart thermostat." It had both Bluetooth and an Internet connection. The machines had Bluetooth also. Some of them had wireless modems.

Look very closely at that little black bubble on the dashboard of your car ... the one that's supposed to be used to turn the headlights on automatically. Do you see the lens that is pointed directly at your face? Be careful what you say to yourself in the "privacy" of your car, because your car is listening, and it has an internet connection. A GPS, too. It's constantly transmitting the car's exact location to – someone, somewhere.

You can talk to your refrigerator now. Isn't that cute? But that means that your fridge is listening.

Pick up your smart phone and say out loud that you're going to kill yourself. It might speak up and direct you to a suicide-prevention hotline. Even if it is supposedly "turned off."

You notice that your phone draws boxes around everything that looks like a face. During the night, when your phone is connected to a charger and WiFi, your phone is sending those faces ... somewhere. There's a reason why social websites want you to "tag" pictures. There has been a demonstration where a camera is pointed at the crowd in Times Square. The image is filled with little bubbles next to each person's face: click on any of them to read all about that person.

It simply does not occur to people that this sort of thing might be done.

Frightening! Last year a sex toy was put on sale that called home when it was used. What were they thinking of!! Incidentally, here's a thought-provoking article on the problems of girls called Alexa.

If it can be done, someone will do it - if it can't you can bet someone is working on it:

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...a-new-paradigm

Oh yeah, I heard about that.
But since they were not Amazon, the company had to give in and redact the toys iirc.

Funny, I never gave this enough thought.
And I guess very few people will be naming their child Alexa in the foreseeable future.

Hey, it could be worse. Oops, well, it IS worse.
I stumbled upon this video, "Hidden Radios in Home Devices" Very interesting. Very disturbing as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tIK3Fk-bLA
Enjoy (if you can).

... and on a lighter note https://www.theregister.com/2021/07/05/infinidash/ - start amending your CV now ;)

^ Very interesting. This video tweet explains it perfectly.

As for the video in post #31: an all-too-familiar mixture of well-known facts and truisms combined with outrageous claims and suspicions. Move along, nothing to see here.
PS: and of course he's selling his degoogled(*) devices from a Google-infested site.

(*) take a guess what that means.