I've also considered one for my shop, so if I get pinned under the car or something I can yell for 911. But I'd only turn it on if I was about to do something dangerous. I might also get one if I decide I'm at risk for "I've fallen and I can't get up". (That happened to a relative, it took her 2 days to inch across the floor to get to the phone.)
And it's not new either. I remember these TV ads[0] from when I was a teenager (1980s) and my peer group and I found them quite amusing.
These days, the same folks take a more threatening tack[1] (a sign of the times, perhaps?), which I find pretty galling.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I've_fallen,_and_I_can't_get_u...!
Not to mention the "Lullabuy of old Broadway."[1]
And that does not even touch the corporate world. How does a company protect against disclosure of things that are otherwise a corporate secret ( especially in today's increasingly WFH world )?
My work is all open source, so no problems there :-)
The apple watch has fall detection, it will automatically call emergency services if it detects a fall and you don't cancel the SOS.
Of course, either way, it's only really helpful if you're able to speak.
Having the phone in your pocket works if you can move. Having the smart speaker works if you can speak. If you can do neither, hope somebody finds you soon.
But that last point is important, I always tell people before I'm about to do something dangerous: "if you hear a noise, please come and check on me."
These are always pretty amusing. I went on vacation with a girl I was dating one summer, and her parents brought their Alexa with them. Her dad thought it was so cool, and he loved to show me by saying "alexa, play <music>" three times until he got frustrated enough to just do it with his phone. Then, he'd say "hey alexa, you're a b*tch," and laugh when it responded by telling him that was rude.
Why would anyone pay money for that???
I wonder if in a lot of cases, for the people it is not actually about the smart stuff (that might be a plus or just out of curiosity), but convenience and aesthetics. Most people I know, don't have a traditional sound setup at home anymore and instead just use a bluetooth speaker. But the ones made for outdoor use look pretty ugly indoors, whereas the smart speakers are more designed to disappear in the home decor.
Personally I think, bookshelf speakers with bluetooth functionally would be a better option for most, but from what I have seen people are often not even aware of their existence and the ones with good audio as well a modern look (in case you don't like the classical black or brown boxes) tend to be in higher price classes than the smart speakers.
I remember a few years back when Google let you view a map of your daily movements over the past few years or something. I saw this map and turned off location tracking. Most people I talked to thought this was neat and forgot about it shortly after, because no one is using this information to hurt people in visible ways.
This still exists: https://www.google.com/maps/timeline
I don't use rewards programs ( though now those seem to have migrated to collecting phone numbers ).
But no, to answer your question, I don't trust them not to abuse this information so there are things I simply pay cash for. I think last time that issue came up for me was when one bank seemingly decided ( and backtracked ) that legal gun purchases are verbotten ( https://dailycaller.com/2013/01/16/bank-of-america-credit-de... ). Though that particular cases again seemed to deal more with individual specialist decision and was not a policy decision.
Yes. But I live in Europe, where that trust is anchored in laws that still have some teeth left.
Because the average person doesn't understand the pervasive nature of the surveillance capitalism model.
In fact, as Shoshanna Zuboff[0] discusses in her book, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism[1], those engaged in such activities take great pains to make sure that you don't notice it.
We're only talking about this here, now because it's highly visible and the state has taken an interest in using such surveillance data for its purposes.
You might think it's a good thing that people are starting to notice, and on some levels it is. However, this sort of activity has been going on for so long and is so embedded in the culture that people just don't pay attention any more.
But this sort of thing has a long history of happening, mostly unimpeded in the US at least. Credit reporting agencies/scoring and the data brokers that go with them have been around for decades.
Advertising Research[2][3] goes back a century, with automated data analysis reaching back to the late 1960s. Statistical techniques developed then were refined in the early to mid 1970s at Grey Advertising among other agencies and moved into the advertising mainstream by the 1980s with projects like Backer Spielvogel Bates' GlobalScan[4].
However the costs of collecting primary data across the globe was prohibitive for all but the largest advertising agencies/consumer products companies.
This limited both the scope and effectiveness of such research.
Since the advent of "Social Media" the sorts of data collected by projects like GlobalScan at the cost of millions/annum are now freely provided by vastly more people.
That drives the thirst for more data, more detail, more ability to identify target markets. And that's great. For marketers. Less so for those who are constantly bombarded by increasingly individualized ads for products, services and political messages.
This wholesale collection of data about people has been so successful that it has become an important part of many organizations -- even if data collection/analysis/brokerage isn't their core business.
What we see now with Amazon Echo/Ring, Google Nest, etc. is just the logical (if incredibly evil) evolution of this market trend.
That law enforcement wants to tap into this enormous stream of data isn't remarkable. They've been data mining pen registers[9] and phone location data (using the Third-Party Doctrine[10] as justification) via telecom records. And Stingray[5] tracking has been a thing for quite some time.
They also dig through social media too.
And the hubris/liberty endangering partnership of Amazon (with Ring devices) and law enforcement[6] is quite frightening.
And this isn't the first time that police have attempted to access conversations from "smart" speakers to use in criminal prosecutions[7][8].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshana_Zuboff
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Surveillance_Capita...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_research
[3] https://thearf.org/about-arf/
[4] https://www.coursehero.com/file/p7tsoeb/Backer-Spielvogel-Ba...
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stingray_phone_tracker
[6] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/08/28/doorbel...
[7] https://www.thedailybeast.com/police-seek-amazon-echo-data-i...
[8] https://www.engadget.com/2019-11-02-florida-police-obtain-al...
[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pen_register
[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine
Edit: Added detail about Pen Registers and the Third-Party Doctrine.
"The Social Dilemma" on Netflix may help with that. As someone already in tech it wasn't particularly enlightening for me (and the "reenactment" acting they included was way over the top), but it is accessible and apparently a good eye opener for "lay people" I know who've seen it.
I strongly oppose excessive force by police. But I'm aware that police are people, and I am fully cognizant that they have a gun and I do whatever is necessary to assure them that I am not a threat to their safety.
For example, during a traffic stop I keep my hands firmly visible and on the steering wheel. When the cop asks for my license, I say it is in my right front pocket. I do not move my hands to get it until he says ok. I do not reach for the glove box until he says ok.
I do not berate officers, I don't argue with them, I don't move unless they tell me to. Yes, I have been held at gunpoint by the police.
I never lunge for my cell phone in my pocket. I do not run at the cop or away from him. I do not try to touch the cop. I do not reach for the cop's weapon.
Back in the 60's, when toy guns looked like real guns, my dad (WW2 and KW combat vet) gave me one. I am white and lived in a small all white town. My dad said if I ever pointed it at anyone, I was liable to be shot, and he didn't want me to be shot. Being a rather stupid boy, I pointed it at people, and he took it away.
Always remember you're dealing with an armed person who does not know you're a sweet old gent with a cellphone in his pocket. Never force him to make a split second decision at night in poor visibility as to whether you're whipping out a cell phone or a gun.
American police kill 35 people per ten million population; in Canada that figure is 9.7. In Europe, the UK, Australia, NZ, and Japan, that figure is under 4.[0] The problem with American policing is the police, not the fact that too many Americans 'lunge' for cell phones during police stops.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforc...
Also consider the wildly different statistics on gun possession in the populations.
Poor communities didn't turn into the kind of places you describe until after the jobs went away. I do not see this as a racial issue, however.
Poor communities in the US have broadly similar attitudes, and social problems, regardless of their ethnic identity. That problem hit urban African American communities many decades ago and is hitting rural white communities now.
People need money and personally meaningful work. Unless they have it, things go wrong. When people don't have it for generations, ghettos and violence are what you get.
I never got that much into it, but the lesson stuck with me.
I'm also extremely careful with my table saw. You describe this as fear, I describe it more as risk minimization. It costs me nothing, I am not degrading myself, I simply avoid things that trigger fear in the cop.
My father served in combat in WW2 and the KW. He received a couple medals for bravery. But he always did everything he could to minimize any unnecessary risk. If it was a tough mission, he'd often be asked to lead because the other pilots knew he'd bring 'em back with fewer holes in their airplanes while still pasting the target.
He came up behind me. I had no idea he was there.
Also if my table saw turned itself on and started walking at me while I was doing something else, I'd get a new one. And if all table saws tended to do this, I'd question whether I needed one at all.
Some traffic stops happen because the cop sees something suspicious and decides to investigate/explore the situation. I'm grateful they do. It helps keep trouble at bay, to an extent.
> the victim is scrutinized for eg not preemptively putting their hands on the steering wheel.
A cop would be an idiot to not make judgements, and change his behavior based on the situation.
Well, between the 2 of us, we seem to have covered the 2 sides.
> I honestly do not get it.
Perhaps the important differences between us and the USSR are having a democratic legislative process and a fair judicial system, and the relevant extent of our surveillance apparatus is a secondary concern.
(Obviously, there are problems with our legislative and judicial systems - the point is that they are better than the former soviet republics'.)
Not saying that the privacy aspects aren't valid concerns or that convenience should outweigh them, but quite a few people here seem to not be able to see any upsides.
You underestimate the power of social status and conspicuous consumption[1]. I would say it's been the fundamental driver of our society for quite some time now (maybe since early 1920's?, briefly paused for WW2)
edit: added link
I can tell you why I personally don't care. First off here in Germany I'm pretty sure it's not legally possible for authorities to request my voice commands randomly and due to GDPR I can delete all my recordings at any point, and turn off personalisation meaning they wouldn't use my individual data.
Secondly I just don't say anything in my home that's super secret, I live in an apartment and I'm pretty sure the neighbours can hear me talking on my balcony, and I'm in voice chats most of the day these days due to covid which probably accidentally means more people listen in because I forget to press mute than some guy at Amazon.
Legality wasn't really an issue for authorities in Germany before, even if it contradicted our basic law. Of course it was for national security. It is my goto excuse too if I break any laws.
There is a lot of room between paranoia and being extremely naive in context of state powers.
> Secondly I just don't say anything in my home that's super secret
Then why would the state need capabilities to get this not super secret data?
I honestly expected more from Germany in this regard, especially with the experience of the past.
What I do find odd, however, is the weird distribution of those devices. In my immediate social circle, its either old people who want to show they have something cool and hip and young tech enthusiasts. My sample may be completele skewed as I am not the most social person ever though. The trend may be much more pronounced.
Still, it boggles my mind. Why would you voluntarily do it? My parents only invited trusted friends to ensure nothing 'questionable' made it to the authorities ( former soviet republic ). People today brazenly broadcast it.
I honestly do not get it.