This thread and the some of the responses in it are just getting absurd. Before making outlandish legal claims, maybe read up on the law. instead of just making hyped up claims.
That the device didn't know it wasn't being used by a child is all you need to know.
> This thread and the some of the responses in it are just getting absurd. Before making outlandish legal claims, maybe read up on the law. instead of just making hyped up claims.
Since you claim to be so well versed, perhaps you have an argument to make besides calling names?
The entire point I was making is that it is blindingly obvious that this is a defective behavior. Amazon immediately acknowledged that. The question that is unanswered is the degree to which these sorts of defects are inherent in the software design or the degree to which they can be fixed without a fundamental rework of the design.
If this is a fundamental type of defect in the design, Amazon needs to take steps to secure their devices against unsupervised children.
The device (or rather the service behind it) removed the critical safety warnings and context from the content, directly encouraged the child to engage in dangerous activity and then added a timer to encourage the child to engage in that activity with as little consideration of the consequences as possible. As a society we are well aware that 10 year old minds have not developed the capacity to reliably consider and understand the consequences of their actions; this is why we limit their legal ability to make choices for themselves.
If this is not "defective" , then Amazon would be guilty of attempted murder. Clearly this is a software defect, the only question is if the design
The webpage that Alexa sourced this "challenge" from exists precisely because there are lots of children who are put at risk