The question is, does that really matter? Isn't that just something you tell yourself to feel like you're still in control, ahead of the game? I have two colleagues who in general are pretty concerned with privacy, data protection etc. but still bought an echo. Then countered my surprise with the same argument: at least I know it's listening and how it works! Like somehow, that knowledge makes you immune to the Problem. In reality, you don't suddenly behave differently at home. You won't think twice before saying something. You just managed to fool yourself enough to deal with that cognitive dissonance.
And I'm all for charges against google here, I mean I dislike them more every day because of something they did, including this story. It's just funny that some people still think you can trust them in any way.
I absolutely think it does.
I have also bought an Amazon Echo, but I unplug it when it's out of use for extended periods of time.
I wouldn't purchase a similar product from Facebook, because I trust Amazon with my personal data more than Facebook.
I've never purchased a Smart TV that contains a microphone.
Just because I make some decisions you disagree with in balancing my privacy and convenience trade-offs doesn't mean I should be prevented from making those decisions at all.
I was given a Google Home for Christmas, and won't even take it out of the box. I'd give it away, but that not really solving the problem.
I've never purchased a Smart TV that contains a microphone.
My LG has one in the remote control. But I disallowed the TV from my home wifi about a year ago. I don't trust LG, and looking through the 53 screens of Terms of Service LG thinks need to agree to just to watch TV, I probably did the right thing.
This implies that your moral judgement must apply to whoever you gave it to. Why?
I'd buy an Echo if it had a physical switch to enable the microphone, along with a light that says its on. Software switches are worthless.
Legally speaking, it really does matter (18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d) [1]) [my emphasis]:
> It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person [...] to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception [...].
They learned to pay off DC around when Microsoft was taken to the anti-trust woodshed.
Now they are beyond accountability. Especially once it's clear to everyone that they control election results to a wide degree.
I mean laughing and experiencing schadenfreude over someone planting a hidden and previously unknown microphone in ones home, is just weird man.
The difference is that we know our phones have microphones and cameras and internet.
The reason people are upset is because there was no way anyone would know they added an internet-connected microphone to their home with this device unless they opened it up and reverse engineered the firmware.
If anyone can prove that these microphones were turned on without the owner’s consent — even just for “telemetry” or “quality assurance” — then criminal charges will follow.