The Furby came out in 1998. Less than 50% of US homes even owned a computer at the time, let alone had Internet access (and that was usually dialup if they did). Cellular networks were largely voice-only and quite expensive. In short: even if Furbies had some way to record data (which they didn't), there would have been no practical way for them to exfiltrate it.

Practicality has never been an issue for spies. Look at the lengths the Soviets went to for surveillance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_(listening_device)

the craziest thing about this is:

> The Thing was designed by Soviet Russian inventor Leon Theremin,[7] best known for his invention of the theremin, an electronic musical instrument.

Huh. Makes sense actually, both are induction-at-distance audio devices.

> there would have been no practical way for them to exfiltrate it.

Pick it up and carry it? It's not like analog tape recorders are permitted in these places either. All outside recording devices are banned. See the link in the now top-comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39107224

On the other hand,

Ooh, looks like this Furby has learned the English words "new", "nuclear", "facility" and "Ohio"!

/s

Absolutely.

Is there a portion of my comment that indicated otherwise? I can still edit it for clarity (I thought that wasn't allowed after a reply occurred)

I'm not arguing with you, just adding to the conversation. While the Furby was feared to be recording, but actually wasn't, voice assistants can be a real concern in that they actually do.

One of these fears is rational and based on things people know are in fact taking place. The other one is isn't, so drawing the parallel seems iffy. Maybe it's a little closer to the fear your phone is listening to you and that's how you get eerily targeted ads when browsing the web.

What makes the two fears fundamentally different?

One is the fear of the possible consequences of something you know - with a voice assistant, you know you are being recorded and the recordings are sent somewhere. 'Is furby spying on me' is a vague suspicion but it's not (for most people with the fear) based on any known facts about the furby.

I don't think you read my comment fully, the Furby thing was real, based on known facts, that were trumpeted by the manufacturer.

The idea the Furby was "[not] real" persisting after reading the comment, is probably why it seemed like I was saying the voice assistants don't record voice.

I read the comment and explained why I don't think it's the fear of the same thing. Maybe you didn't read my comment fully!

A Furby didn't have the capacity to meaningfully spy on you. You could be afraid that it actually does but it didn't. A voice assistant is already, in a sense, actually spying on you and you know that - the manufacturer tells you upfront. These aren't the same kind of fear.

The Furby manufacturer told you upfront: - it listened all the time - it learned to speak, word by word, via your speech

The first comment, 10 comments up, was specifically written to provide that context: the Furby manufacturer was up front about spying.

Working with you, and steel-manning your contributions:

- You're trying to explain a distinction you see between local data processing and remote data processing. i.e. a microphone in a room recording you isn't spying, but a microphone with a data connection is "in a sense, actually spying" on you "meaningfully".

- example: "the Furby didn't relay audio data anywhere other than the Furby, and I'd like to point out the voice assistant does - your comment intends to highlight the Furby listened, but it only listened locally. Mentioning voice assistants and using them in an analogy may give a reader the understanding voice assistants process data locally, like Furbys"

Unknowns are inconsistent with assurance. It’s rational to reject unknowns if you prefer assurance.

If you’re the NSA and you need your security assured, you’ll absolutely balk at having novel machines with recording equipment and unknown possibilities placed around your office.

Unknowns translate to unknown consequences. For a risk-averse agent, I don’t see a meaningful difference between the unknown consequences of technology you understand and unknown consequences of technology you don’t. Sometimes understanding a technology means the unknown consequences can be bounded more precisely, and you might be okay with those bounds once you have them, but that’s not always true.