For me, it's this: "Your Echos are Heard"
So, the opening salvo. That's what gives me the impression they imply voice assistances are listening to everything.
I don't refer to voice commands or normal interaction as "echos" so the user of the word "echos" here implies something nefarious. Sure, it's the name of the product, but for me, it reads like something more.
WOW
That was a hostile response for what seemed like a reasonable position.
Tell me samhw: If I told you I had a bunch of echos in my garage. Would you be wondering why I just said "I have a bunch of voice commands issued to my echo in my garage"? No. You would not.
It's not an unreasonable position
So tell me why it deserved that response.
> I personally don't use the word 'echo' in connection to vocal communication, which (for some incomprehensible reason) means that, when someone else uses the word 'echo' thusly, they are implying something nefarious.
> Oh, and not just something nefarious, but specifically that they are eavesdropping on every word you say (also: every breath you take, every move you make, &c). Somehow.
> In summation: they are spying on everything you say, because they used the word 'echo' in their marketing material about a voice assistant. QED.
I mean, this is barely even intelligible as a line of reasoning. I assumed it was dashed off quickly and without really thinking. If it represents your considered opinion, then perhaps I'm missing something very obvious, I don't know.
You are literally engaging in a straw-man argument. Nobody said any of those things verbatim, no matter how much you wish they had. This is bad-faith commenting and you should consider taking a break to de-escalate.
> perhaps I'm missing something very obvious
The title "Your Echos are Heard" is a pun. One meaning of "Echos" is the Amazon product, and the other is a vocalization reflected back. It's stretch, to the point where it's technically spelled wrong for one of the meanings of the word. But it's a pun re-enforced with the word "heard" and thats enough for people to make the connection.
The complaint is that the article title heavily _implies_ the study finds devices are listening to your conversations unprompted, without actually doing any such science. The clickbait title is bad enough, but when there's already a partisan comment brigade ready to claim that "science is on their side" it's definitely worse.
No, of course I'm paraphrasing. I hoped I had made it sufficiently comically obvious that no non-brain-damaged reader would ever believe I was representing that as a quotation, or even an unembellished paraphrase.
> The complaint is that the article title heavily _implies_ the study finds devices are listening to your conversations unprompted
I don't think anything implies 'unprompted' rather than 'prompted', and many people in this thread appear equally confused by that inference. I am in complete incomprehension of how "Your Echos Are Heard" suggests that the smart speaker is specifically listening to your unprompted speech.
1. Wake word systems are by design, always on, always listening. At one level, the speaker _is_ listening to unprompted speech.
2. Those systems are imperfect. Pretty much everyone I know can describe at least one occasion on which a voice assistant accidentally triggered, and I have personally witnessed Siri transcribe the words said _before_ "Hey Siri."
3. There's an urban legend that FB or Amazon are, without any prompting, listening in on conversations, and using that to improve user profiles. Moreover we've seen several stories on HN lately about Zoom still sending data when the user has clicked mute, so people are more likely to make that connection.
4. Even the abstract uses the phrase "egregious privacy breaches" and doesn't provide sufficient clarity to distinguish between prompted and unprompted listening.
The title is ambiguous in a way that requires you to read the article to know whether this applies to unprompted or not -- both are equally supported conclusions IMO. And that same ambiguity lets anyone project their biases onto the article, retweet / repost / share, and demand. People are jumping to conclusions, certainly, but ambiguity interacts with "fast" social media in the form of people reading only the headlines before commenting.
Yes, I would agree with this. In other words, the word ‘echo’ entails nothing at all about whether it refers to prompted or unprompted speech (which of course it doesn’t). That’s precisely why their argument that “they must be referring to unprompted speech because they used the word ‘echo’” is not just illogical but utterly mystifying and verging on schizophrenic thought derailment.
I mean, come on, let’s recap what we’re talking about. This guy responded to this question:
>> What part of the paper gives you the impression they imply voice assistants are listening to everything?
With this answer:
> For me, it's this: "Your Echos are Heard"
> That's what gives me the impression they imply voice assistances are listening to everything.
> I don't refer to voice commands or normal interaction as "echos" so the user of the word "echos" here implies something nefarious.
This is the most brain-damaged nonsense I have ever heard in my life. They are seriously arguing that the word ‘echo’ is some sinister cryptic message indicating – for absolutely no reason any sane reader can decipher – that Amazon is listening to everything you say.
Come on. I know you’re committed to arguing that his comment is actually a brilliant masterpiece of logic, because I violated the law that One Must Always Be Superficially Polite and so the template dictates that I must be Actually Wrong and Humiliated for my Arrogance, but you can’t convince me that you really believe that garbage represents a reasoned thought.
(Incidentally, in case the original commenter is reading this, I should underscore that I’m not trying to attack him personally. We all say stupid shit now and then. I’ve said far more than my fair share. But no one gains from being nauseatingly insincere about it, as though it were a grave insult to acknowledge that someone said something silly on one occasion.)
Saying “process voice for ads” has subtle connotations in the current landscape of privacy discussions.
There is an argument that this is more privacy conscience than other ad platforms. One needs to say the word "Alexa" before Amazon will collect any potential targeting data. There is an active and distinct choice that must be made before every interaction. That isn't true for Google and Facebook. They will collect data in the background while you are doing other things. There is much less transparency in when and how they are collecting their targeting data and therefore we have much less agency in the process.
> We find that Amazon processes voice data to infer user interests and uses it to serve targeted ads on-platform
Amazon has publicly stated that it does not use voice data for targeted advertisements [83], [75].
https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/are-smart-speakers-plant...
They're using skill interaction, order history, listening history, etc to target ads.
The discussion in the paper is nuanced on that point and does not make that claim as far as I read it. Section 2.2 (page 2):
> The content of users’ speech can reveal sensitive information (e.g., private conversations) and the voice signals can be processed to infer potentially sensitive information about the user (e.g., age, gender, health [82]). Amazon aims to limit some of these privacy issues through its platform design choices [4]. Specifically, to avoid snooping on sensitive conversations, *voice input is only recorded when a user utters the wake word*, e.g., Alexa. Further, only processed transcriptions of voice input (not the audio data) is shared with third party skills, instead of the raw audio [32]. However, despite these design choices, prior research has also shown that smart speakers often misactivate and unintentionally record con- versations [59]. In fact, there have been several real-world instances where smart speakers recorded user conversations, without users ever uttering the wake word [63].