"If an argument uses valid reasoning, it would not be identified as the slippery slope fallacy,[2] and the term "slippery slope" may be used without an implying faulty argument."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope#Non-fallacious_...
If for no other reason, the behavior would be blatantly obvious to the kind of people that run Wireshark for funsies, the alarm would go up, and Amazon's reputation goes into the toilet.
Upd: > the behavior would be blatantly obvious to the kind of people that run Wireshark for funsies
Echo probably does not send the recordings all the time, it would be too simple to detect. However, it could simply send random parts of the recordings or send the data by a trigger from Amazon/random hackers. We can only say for sure that we have no possibility to check what it really does, since it is proprietary. I prefer not to trust for-profit companies (when it's possible). I only trust the source code.
The device itself has been rooted via a set of contacts compatible with what you'd use with a Raspberry Pi: https://www.reddit.com/r/netsec/comments/4inesj/rooting_the_...
and the ones that it mistakenly accepted as triggers, at least.
>No proof of any kind exists to even begin to suggest it does something other than that.
No proof exists to suggest anything about Echo. It is a question of trust. This is why I mentioned trust in my previous response.
Anyway, thanks for an interesting link.
> just because they may, at some nebulous point in the future, be used against me in some nebulous way. If and when that happens, we can fight it then.
sounds very much like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...