All these smart speakers can turn that on anytime processing and storing such a vast amount of data becomes viable. Not surprised. I don’t use any of these smart devices for exactly this reason.
I don’t need smart XYZ appliances that connect to the internet. After working a decade in the industry, I’ve seen enough of what these companies do with user data. No thank you.
Also, I don’t speak English at home. So that’s a hedge for now I guess.
> All these smart speakers can turn that on anytime processing and storing such a vast amount of data becomes viable. Not surprised. I don’t use any of these smart devices for exactly this reason.
The same is true for smart phones, yet almost nobody has an issue with those.
Not only could they listen at any time (albeit with lower quality), I put extremely personal information into my phone via the screen keyboard all the time. How is trusting the manufacturer to not transfer that information any more reasonable than trusting Amazon to not spy on me when they say they don't?
> The same is true for smart phones, yet almost nobody has an issue with those.
Let me just be the first to say I absolutely have an issue with smartphones.
(edit: Of course, I could very well count in the 'almost nobody' category, but the same might well be true in general for people concerned about smart devices.)
I also absolutely have an issue with smartphones and privacy.
But I'm also a pragmatist.
In my opinion Apple, while not even approaching being "perfect", are most likely to be the least worst of all practical options. 5 or 10 years back, I would have ranked Google's Pixel phones in 2nd, but not so much these days, if they're still 2nd they're a long long way back from 1st and only second because every other choice is so so bad. I used to buy Samsung phones back in the Galaxy S2 up to Galaxy S6 era, but they did so many bad-for-security things I no longer trust them with any of my data.
I don't trust any of the Chinese brand at all. Although I do have a few super inexpensive Chinese Android tablets that get used on a non internet connected subnet as home automation controllers. Even if they do manage to phone home, the only sensitive data they have is the private subnet wifi password and the always-on VPN endpoint through the router. I like to think (but cannot prove) that Chinese manufacturing hasn't managed to plant working backdoors in every iPhone they build, and that if they have targetted supply chain attacks for individual or small batches of devices that I'm not interesting enough to burn one of those on. I do sometimes wonder whether Jamal Khashoggi thought that too though...
I've "settled" with the level of security I believe my iPhone gives me. Partly because I long ago made peace with the fact that if a nation state security agency even became "interested" in my, I've already lost the game. I've given up trying to protect myself against the NSA or Mossad or the MSS or the FSB, or even "second tier" security agencies like my local ASIS. I do what I can to make it hard for adversaries like organised crime, scammers, script kiddies, and surveillance capitalists, and I'd like to think I've done enough that law enforcement (short of ASIS) probably can't access data on my devices via technical means (while knowing full well they have the capability to ruin my life if I refuse to hand over password and decryption keys).
> How is trusting the manufacturer to not transfer that information any more reasonable than trusting Amazon to not spy on me when they say they don't?
Probably because phone manufacturers have historically not done things as bad as Amazon has privacy-wise.
They can technically store, but not always legally, since storage may be in violation of their privacy policy. For example, Apple won't store the audio, unless you opt in [1].
Soft Welsh accents are really good for robots, because they combine the sort of officious, authoritative British English accent with a folksy, approachable quality. Then they wait for you to go to sleep…and with a lilting brogue glancing faintly off the meniscus of your dreams you hear, “Ay, oi, Dave! They’re out, it’s time.” and that’s how the world ends. A Welsh-accent LLM named “Dave” decides sheep husbandry is the maximally productive utility for the Earth and Solar System. Humanity is lost. Dave the AI companion from Swansea and a trillion sheep remain.
A relative’s doctor’s practice just got acquired by one of these private-equity-backed profit-hungry medical chains.
I went with him to an appointment. As a condition of checking in to see his doctor, on a silly tablet at the office, he had to sign away his HIPAA rights for them to sell his charts, along with his identity information, to advertisers or any other third parties. I was beside myself.
Wasn’t long afterward before he started seeing insultingly specific (but medically incorrect) prescription drug ads, almost exclusively, on his TV service.
> As a condition of checking in to see his doctor, on a silly tablet
As with QR codes in restaurants, reception tablets with NDA boilerplate, or electronic security scanners, declining to use an electronic device can lead to the magical appearance of a manual alternative, where lines of text on paper can be crossed out manually before signing and taking a photo for your records.
This is because the consent (of 99% who will not decline) is only valid if the 1% who choose to decline can actually do so. If everyone is forced and it's literally impossible to decline consent, then none of it is consent, and they may as well omit the text and do whatever they want anyway. The act of asking consent for ridiculous terms is actually quite positive, if one ignores the implied pressure of a silicon wrapping.
For clarity sake, this is what "Do not send voice recordings" used to do [1]:
"Here’s how it works: When you turn on Do Not Send Voice Recordings and say your chosen wake word, an on-device algorithm will process and transcribe your request to Alexa from audio into text. The text is encrypted and sent to Amazon’s secure cloud where we can fulfill your interaction. After processing, the audio of your request is deleted."
So they transcribed the voice and sent the text to the cloud. Surprising that needs to go to allow GenAI to work?
I've always wondered what kinds of things can happen within the specifics of privacy policies nowadays.
Like I think it would be possible to have text/voice/object recognition work on the photos you send in an end-to-end encrypted chat app, described out-of-band and used for ... purposes.
<encrypted data stream>
<"spoken keyword: starbucks">
<"picture: LG washing machine">
<"picture: donald trump">
<"text: prescription xanax">
Alexa with GenAI is a paid (via Prime for now) product, right?
Echo can work offline for control of Zigbee devices connected to Echo (non-Dot) Gen4, which is a Zigbee hub with US firmware. Voice commands such as "Turn Porch Light On" can be processed locally on Echo and executed immediately, without an internet connection, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43368008
If an Alexa customer is using this offline functionality today, with no interest in GenAI or other online features, how can Amazon remove it?
The Stasi or the KGB would have loved to install listening devices into everyone's homes, so they can monitor everyone. And here we are, people are voluntarily doing it. It's like a dream come true, just a few decades too late.
Anyone have any experience with the offline OSS offerings?
Eager to replace my cheap Echo devices with more expensive privacy friendly options.
Another question: anyone aware of community custom firmware efforts? I know early gen devices had some exploits but it never resulted to much last I checked.
I’m getting more and more tempted to start a startup to sell a small box for a purely local LLM for HomeKit and google assistant control (and home assistant of course). I wonder if the market is strong enough for this. Sure, it won’t be GPT 4 level but it’ll definitely be better than Siri. Maybe YC 2026.
Will they be sending all customers "Audio recording in progress" signs to post at the entrance of their homes? Or will the Alexa now say "By continuing to talk to this device you consent to audio recordings" every time the wake-word is detected?
Otherwise I can't see how this isn't blatantly violating 2-party consent laws in every state that has them, as Amazon can't reasonably claim they've received affirmative consent from every guest in their customers' homes...
Very nice (in a Christian Bale accent).
All these smart speakers can turn that on anytime processing and storing such a vast amount of data becomes viable. Not surprised. I don’t use any of these smart devices for exactly this reason.
I don’t need smart XYZ appliances that connect to the internet. After working a decade in the industry, I’ve seen enough of what these companies do with user data. No thank you.
Also, I don’t speak English at home. So that’s a hedge for now I guess.
> All these smart speakers can turn that on anytime processing and storing such a vast amount of data becomes viable. Not surprised. I don’t use any of these smart devices for exactly this reason.
The same is true for smart phones, yet almost nobody has an issue with those.
Not only could they listen at any time (albeit with lower quality), I put extremely personal information into my phone via the screen keyboard all the time. How is trusting the manufacturer to not transfer that information any more reasonable than trusting Amazon to not spy on me when they say they don't?
> The same is true for smart phones, yet almost nobody has an issue with those.
Let me just be the first to say I absolutely have an issue with smartphones.
(edit: Of course, I could very well count in the 'almost nobody' category, but the same might well be true in general for people concerned about smart devices.)
I also absolutely have an issue with smartphones and privacy.
But I'm also a pragmatist.
In my opinion Apple, while not even approaching being "perfect", are most likely to be the least worst of all practical options. 5 or 10 years back, I would have ranked Google's Pixel phones in 2nd, but not so much these days, if they're still 2nd they're a long long way back from 1st and only second because every other choice is so so bad. I used to buy Samsung phones back in the Galaxy S2 up to Galaxy S6 era, but they did so many bad-for-security things I no longer trust them with any of my data.
I don't trust any of the Chinese brand at all. Although I do have a few super inexpensive Chinese Android tablets that get used on a non internet connected subnet as home automation controllers. Even if they do manage to phone home, the only sensitive data they have is the private subnet wifi password and the always-on VPN endpoint through the router. I like to think (but cannot prove) that Chinese manufacturing hasn't managed to plant working backdoors in every iPhone they build, and that if they have targetted supply chain attacks for individual or small batches of devices that I'm not interesting enough to burn one of those on. I do sometimes wonder whether Jamal Khashoggi thought that too though...
I've "settled" with the level of security I believe my iPhone gives me. Partly because I long ago made peace with the fact that if a nation state security agency even became "interested" in my, I've already lost the game. I've given up trying to protect myself against the NSA or Mossad or the MSS or the FSB, or even "second tier" security agencies like my local ASIS. I do what I can to make it hard for adversaries like organised crime, scammers, script kiddies, and surveillance capitalists, and I'd like to think I've done enough that law enforcement (short of ASIS) probably can't access data on my devices via technical means (while knowing full well they have the capability to ruin my life if I refuse to hand over password and decryption keys).
I don't think apple is the best. You still end up with lots of data collection by Apple.
Degoogled Android like Graphene is way better for privacy as long as you are careful with the apps you install.
> How is trusting the manufacturer to not transfer that information any more reasonable than trusting Amazon to not spy on me when they say they don't?
Probably because phone manufacturers have historically not done things as bad as Amazon has privacy-wise.
But you're right. They could.
Touche
They can technically store, but not always legally, since storage may be in violation of their privacy policy. For example, Apple won't store the audio, unless you opt in [1].
[1] https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/data/en/ask-siri-dictati...
Soft Welsh accents are really good for robots, because they combine the sort of officious, authoritative British English accent with a folksy, approachable quality. Then they wait for you to go to sleep…and with a lilting brogue glancing faintly off the meniscus of your dreams you hear, “Ay, oi, Dave! They’re out, it’s time.” and that’s how the world ends. A Welsh-accent LLM named “Dave” decides sheep husbandry is the maximally productive utility for the Earth and Solar System. Humanity is lost. Dave the AI companion from Swansea and a trillion sheep remain.
I'll poppity-ping to that.
What else do they do with the user data besides ads targeting? Serious question.
What if you're a green card holder and say "Palestine" in the privacy of your own home? We may not be there now but it's not far.
Non-issue. However if you start saying pro Hamas sentences..
I’ve seen privately identifiable information (PII) along with patient records sent over to 3rd party agencies.
A relative’s doctor’s practice just got acquired by one of these private-equity-backed profit-hungry medical chains.
I went with him to an appointment. As a condition of checking in to see his doctor, on a silly tablet at the office, he had to sign away his HIPAA rights for them to sell his charts, along with his identity information, to advertisers or any other third parties. I was beside myself.
Wasn’t long afterward before he started seeing insultingly specific (but medically incorrect) prescription drug ads, almost exclusively, on his TV service.
> As a condition of checking in to see his doctor, on a silly tablet
As with QR codes in restaurants, reception tablets with NDA boilerplate, or electronic security scanners, declining to use an electronic device can lead to the magical appearance of a manual alternative, where lines of text on paper can be crossed out manually before signing and taking a photo for your records.
This is because the consent (of 99% who will not decline) is only valid if the 1% who choose to decline can actually do so. If everyone is forced and it's literally impossible to decline consent, then none of it is consent, and they may as well omit the text and do whatever they want anyway. The act of asking consent for ridiculous terms is actually quite positive, if one ignores the implied pressure of a silicon wrapping.
For clarity sake, this is what "Do not send voice recordings" used to do [1]:
"Here’s how it works: When you turn on Do Not Send Voice Recordings and say your chosen wake word, an on-device algorithm will process and transcribe your request to Alexa from audio into text. The text is encrypted and sent to Amazon’s secure cloud where we can fulfill your interaction. After processing, the audio of your request is deleted."
So they transcribed the voice and sent the text to the cloud. Surprising that needs to go to allow GenAI to work?
Here's the email they sent: https://imgur.com/ZGPBwgZ
[1] https://www.amazon.com/b?ie=UTF8&node=23727313011#:~:text=He...
I've always wondered what kinds of things can happen within the specifics of privacy policies nowadays.
Like I think it would be possible to have text/voice/object recognition work on the photos you send in an end-to-end encrypted chat app, described out-of-band and used for ... purposes.
Alexa with GenAI is a paid (via Prime for now) product, right?
Echo can work offline for control of Zigbee devices connected to Echo (non-Dot) Gen4, which is a Zigbee hub with US firmware. Voice commands such as "Turn Porch Light On" can be processed locally on Echo and executed immediately, without an internet connection, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43368008
If an Alexa customer is using this offline functionality today, with no interest in GenAI or other online features, how can Amazon remove it?
Why bother to mandate telescreens in each home, when the people will do it themselves and willingly pay for the privilege of being monitored.
The Stasi or the KGB would have loved to install listening devices into everyone's homes, so they can monitor everyone. And here we are, people are voluntarily doing it. It's like a dream come true, just a few decades too late.
1984 but we chose it instead of it being forced on us.
Brave New World.
Fahrenheit 451 has whole rooms full of screens with, I think, virtual/pretend people that people enjoy talking to.
Not only did we choose it, we felt lucky to be alive in a time where we were afforded the privilege to purchase it
Can anyone recommend some decent alternatives to Alexa? I like my home automation but I don't like this new privacy policy
Anyone have any experience with the offline OSS offerings?
Eager to replace my cheap Echo devices with more expensive privacy friendly options.
Another question: anyone aware of community custom firmware efforts? I know early gen devices had some exploits but it never resulted to much last I checked.
Perfect timing for Apple and Google to promote their on-device TPU/NPU hardware and speech models..
I’m getting more and more tempted to start a startup to sell a small box for a purely local LLM for HomeKit and google assistant control (and home assistant of course). I wonder if the market is strong enough for this. Sure, it won’t be GPT 4 level but it’ll definitely be better than Siri. Maybe YC 2026.
Given Donald and NSA, is this wise?
So the same folks complains about lack of AI in Alexa are complaining now? - cloud level processing is needed for the gen ai features
My phone and TV already use anything I see and listen to everything I say. Echo doesn't seem to be doing anything different.
I cancelled my Prime subscription, will ditch my Echo.
Will they be sending all customers "Audio recording in progress" signs to post at the entrance of their homes? Or will the Alexa now say "By continuing to talk to this device you consent to audio recordings" every time the wake-word is detected?
Otherwise I can't see how this isn't blatantly violating 2-party consent laws in every state that has them, as Amazon can't reasonably claim they've received affirmative consent from every guest in their customers' homes...
It won't because I never invited one into my home because why the bloody hell would I want a listening device in my house in the first place?
As if it already wasn't?
kitchen timers galore
I have mine set to muted. Using LLMs will drastically improve Alexa. It's near brain-dead with that puny CPU in it.
Take that, terrorists.
It's dumb to buy this device and turn on the setting. Just don't buy the device.