I don't necessarily agree with this argument but... it seems that by intentionally purchasing and installing in your home a device explicitly designed to respond upon hearing the phrase "OK, Google, ..." one could argue that you have authorized it to do exactly that.

Perhaps you didn't intend or expect it to be co-opted by a Burger King commercial, but "unauthorized use" (in the legal sense) might be a bit of a stretch.

IMO, that sounds very similar to arguing the following, which, if I understand it correctly, is not an argument that has been successful in the past (see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weev which incidentally I found by guessing the URL...).

> it seems that by intentionally [making available a server on the Internet] a device explicitly designed to respond upon [receiving the request] "[GET <URL>]" one could argue that you have authorized it to do exactly that.

FWIW, I'm not convinced that should constitute unauthorised access. I do think the Burger King case is slightly different though - no "OK, Google" commands would be likely expected from a remote third-party, whereas third-parties are authorised to make _some_ GET requests. If anything, I'd say that makes it more likely to be considered an unauthorised use.

I buy lots of gadgets that take input. That doesn't mean any time someone else is in the same room they have the legal right to activate them and tell them what to do. Audio, mouse, keyboard, touchscreen, digitizer, light pen, or SSH session makes no difference.

Aaron Swartz certainly didn't break into anything. He just used a system he had authentication to in an unauthorized manner.

I don't have data on this, but my hunch is that most buyers of a Google Home device weren't driven to the purchase by a deep-rooted desire to speak the words "OK Google" to a device - they probably wanted a device that they can give voice commands​ to fulfill their tasks. That the command mechanism includes the phrase "OK Google" and incidentally takes commands from everyone are implementation details but probably not the intention of the customer. As such, I thing this does qualify as unauthorized.

Doesn't freedom of speech trump that?