Still waiting for mine to be shipped and I paid the expedited because I wanted it before Xmas. Hooboy. Also stuck with Coral Pink.
Apparently mine didn't either. Not sure what's up with that.I don't think my order ever went through sadly. That's alright though, I took advantage of the Walmart deal and got four of them for gifts. 🎅
First thing I thought of. The cost to manufacture these things must be less than the revenue they get from using or selling your private information.Shouldn't it creep people out that these companies are willing to throw away this much money just to get these smart devices inside your house?
First thing I thought of. The cost to manufacture these things must be less than the revenue they get from using or selling your private information.
These devices are always listening.I see this thrown around alot, but am genuinely curious as to what private information they are getting from me? I know nothing about this subject and they only thing I can think of is my Wifi password and music tastes, and both of those are whatever.
These devices are always listening.
On topic: Mine still hasn't shipped. Google support told me next week and that I was getting Black instead of Coral.
So there's that, exactly a month since the order was placed.
Even when the voice mute button is toggled? Has there been any tests to see if there is any network activity or something like that when talking with the mute button on? Also always listening to me doesn't sound bad, but if its always listening and or sending data back to Google that is bad.
Can't speak directly to google but the Echo recorded audio that was to be used in a murder case by being in the home on the night of the alleged incident.
According to Amazon, Echo works by constantly listening for the "wake word" -- "Alexa" or "Amazon," by default -- and then records your voice and transfers it to a processor for analysis so that it can fulfill requests or answer questions. The recordings are streamed and stored remotely, and can be reviewed or deleted over time, Amazon said.
That doesn't make sense with the news story you linked though, unless the murderer is constantly saying "Alexa" while doing the deed, there would be no reason to subpoena the communications.So...
I have to give it a "wake word" in order for it to send any data back? That seems perfectly fine. Alexa and Amazon aren't in my normal vocabulary anyways. I'm just having a hard time seeing what the real problem is. I dunno.
That doesn't make sense with the news story you linked though, unless the murderer is constantly saying "Alexa" while doing the deed, there would be no reason to subpoena the communications.
You- I'm saying that Amazon's explanations and the case proceedings don't match.
So since someone present the night of the murder and remembered hearing Alexa stream music. So then the police or whoever asked Amazon for the recordings. Amazon initially refused. Then they came out and told them it only records after the wake word. And the case was dropped. Am I missing something here?The Amazon Echo entered the November 2015 murder case because someone present on the night of Collins' death allegedly recalled hearing music streaming through the device that evening.
Yeah reading it again, it's just a poorly written article that doesn't say conclusively one way or the other. It says they did end up handing over "the data", which is what I was focusing on, but it doesn't say if there actually was data or if it was relevant. There's at least one othe similar case, I'll see if I can find some more details in the morning.I could very well be reading this wrong. So sorry if I'm being a bit stupid, but I read it like this
So since someone present the night of the murder and remembered hearing Alexa stream music. So then the police or whoever asked Amazon for the recordings. Amazon initially refused. Then they came out and told them it only records after the wake word. And the case was dropped. Am I missing something here?
Edit: Also I didn't link that story, I just quoted it and responded to it.
Any info on you is useful. If it overhears you talking about cycling to work, it can sell that info to companies that sell bike equipment and target internet ads to you. Data companies even go so far as to build psychological profiles of people so they know what kinds of ads or propaganda might be most effective on you. That's exactly what Cambridge Analytica was doing during the election.I see this thrown around alot, but am genuinely curious as to what private information they are getting from me? I know nothing about this subject and they only thing I can think of is my Wifi password and music tastes, and both of those are whatever.
Any info on you is useful. If it overhears you talking about cycling to work, it can sell that info to companies that sell bike equipment and target internet ads to you. Data companies even go so far as to build psychological profiles of people so they know what kinds of ads or propaganda might be most effective on you. That's exactly what Cambridge Analytica was doing during the election.
the case got dropped for insufficient evidence. that makes it pretty clear how relevant any data they handed over was.Yeah reading it again, it's just a poorly written article that doesn't say conclusively one way or the other. It says they did end up handing over "the data", which is what I was focusing on, but it doesn't say if there actually was data or if it was relevant. There's at least one othe similar case, I'll see if I can find some more details in the morning.
Yes, but there could have been recordings but they just weren't relevant. It doesn't say one way or the other, but the fact that there was data to hand over makes it seem like that was the case.the case got dropped for insufficient evidence. that makes it pretty clear how relevant any data they handed over was.
i guess he didn't say "Alexa, how do i drown someone and make it look like an accident?"