It's on "always on" to the extent it's listening for a trigger word.

Now you can say that "hey they could be secreting recording you anyway."

Sure, but so could any internet connected device with a microphone or speakers.

As we recently saw with this feature being forced into Chromium, implementations change, and auto-updates happen.

Even if the current implementation acts as you describe, do you trust that Amazon won't change4 that behaviour in the future? How about when Amazon is handed a national security letter? Do you trust Amazon to pull a LavaBit to avoid having to change the firmware? Do you trust that Amazon actually got the security right and nobody will ever crack the device and change its behavior?

Also, claiming that other devices are also surveillance tools does not excuse this device.

If you regard your privacy that highly that the very small change that the NSA will bug your Amazon Echo, then sure, don't buy it.

But the NSA/FBI/Virgina Police can:

get my emails from google

get my emails from my work

get my emails off my phone

read my texts, pix, and other cell phone information

listen to my phone calls

hack my shittily exposed to teh internet home server

get my facebook information

tap my ISP

search my house when I'm not there

bug my house

If they can force Amazon to record me against my will, they can force apple to. Or leveno to record on my laptop. Or the Xbox Kinect on my TV. If I were plotting to join ISIS, yea probably a bad move. Otherwise it's a very minor threat.

It still communicates through my network. My router/firewall/etc sitting in between my network and the Verizon ONT can do packet captures on all traffic going through it.

I can tell exactly when when the Echo is and isn't listening

Yes. Yes, I do. Because I am the paying customer, not the product being sold.

Wrong. You and your habits/data are the product for Amazon to sell/use. The box isn't the product.

It is an indisputable fact that I paid for my Echo, and that my information as a result of that purchase is used by Amazon, where they may profit from me when I purchase more products. I do not believe that Amazon grossly misuses my data; what reason do I have not to trust them? My value to them is derived from my purchasing decisions.

It is an indisputable fact that I didn't pay for Chrome, and Google doesn't care at all about what I buy because they're not selling me anything. My value to them is derived from the data I provide, in many cases, unwillingly.

So, respectfully, I'm not "Wrong", and it's presumptuous to say so.

In order to trust Amazon, you would also have to fully trust the government(s) that have the authority to force Amazon to do things.

Not really, you just have to trust that they won't make Amazon do the things you don't want Amazon to do. You don't need to have "full trust" in anybody, really. You just have to have enough trust regarding what you're concerned about. Trusting that a government will spend its education money on education, for example, has no bearing on whether or not they'd force Amazon to record you 24/7.

I don't think that works both ways.

Plus non-internet connected cellphones. We know full well that the baseband within cellphones can be updated to turn a cellphone into a passive listening device.

This is pre-smartphone tech'.

Is there a reason you trust this device less than the computer with a microphone that you carry around in your pocket all day?

Not the GP: One of these advertises 'always listening'. The other one doesn't.

One is an established device to actually talk to (usually) one other person, of your choice. The other one records you to send the information ~elsewhere~.

One is - in theory, let's leave the three letter stuff out - protected by quite a lot of battle-tested laws. The other one is so much harder to judge.

Do you trust the advertising/documentation/claims?

If so, Echo advertises that it is listening for its wake word and doesn't transmit the audio until that is used. It sends the information to a service of your choice.

If not, why would you trust that the other device's microphone doesn't activate and send your audio remotely?

What laws protect you from your phone/tablet that don't apply to the Echo?

If I'd be a trusting person, I probably wouldn't have this exchange with you. I don't have social network accounts (except for a ~mostly~ readonly Twitter thing), I don't use Google Now etc.

Now, I admit that this just shows that I'm not part of the target market - just like the thread's author I assume. I don't claim that people are stupid if they buy into Echo, I just don't see why on Earth you would want to.

"why would you trust that the other device's microphone doesn't activate and send your audio remotely?"

As explained above: All voice activated features have an off button and I try to keep an eye on things/removing services/disable whatever I can. The distinction here is that one device works perfectly fine if you can convince yourself that it doesn't listen to you. The other one doesn't.

"What laws protect you from your phone/tablet that don't apply to the Echo?"

IANAL - but tapping your phone is something that the law is rather specific about and it is usually well protected. You can argue that the use of the phone's microphone outside of a call would be really not 'phone' related, but I'd hope (erm.. maybe I do have more trust than I'm aware of myself here?) that a court would find the invasion worse. Again: One is a device that is meant for private communication under your control. The other one is a microphone in your living room that is sold to stream your audio (yes, I understand the wake word concept) to random corporations.

And in the end it's a matter of limiting exposure. I _do_ think that the phone can be abused. It's just not practical to avoid one in my daily life. I take precautions and accept the risk. Without bashing Echo fans, I personally just wouldn't see the benefit and therefor cannot accept the risks.

Bottom line: Having a phone with a microphone and then buying another microphone for the living room isn't a case of 'Ah, all is lost anyway' for me. I don't think the comparison makes sense/leads anywhere.

I think the point is: why do you trust the "off" button for the features on your other devices but not trust the assurances of the Echo about what it is doing? The other devices could just as well lie about whether they are off.

I'm certainly not a lawyer, and I'm not sure which laws you're referring to, but I know that some laws relate to one's expectation of privacy which would certainly apply to an Echo in your bedroom just as well as your phone.

It's perfectly reasonable not to want an Echo because you don't value its features.

My point is that we may get the emotional 'creepy' factor from thinking about the Echo listening, but that rationally the risks and trust involved are not greater than those with, for example, a smartphone.

We agree that smart phones could spy on you.

We don't seem to agree about the comparison in general.

A smart phone

- offers a button to disable voice activated features

- remains useful without voice activation

- is arguably (job?) not optional

- is no reason to dismiss feeling uneasy about 100% unrelated, additional 3rd party controlled microphones

Yes, a smart phone can probably pull off any attack on my privacy that I can come up with for the Echo. But that's not relevant for my feelings about the Echo IMHO. I can dislike Android AND iOS. I can worry about smart phones AND express similar things about the Echo.

A lot of Moto devices actually are "always listening" -- they have a co-processor that just listens for the "OK, Google" hotword.

Both Android and iOS have always-listening modes: OK Google and Hey Siri.

I have no clue about iOS.

I've never seen 'OK Google' work (because everything Google Now, Google (Games|Music|Books), G+ etc. is terminated and/or disabled and/or removed). Don't claim that this is something you cannot (try to, if we're paranoid) avoid, some mandatory, intrinsic feature of the phone.

And, once again, how do you know you disabling all that actually turned listening off. It could easily still be listening and just not reacting to OK Google because that component was disabled. You have absolutely no guarantee that what you did works, and that your device is not spying on you, but you somehow have a massive problem with the Echo (which also has a "turn off microphone" button) spying on you.

Read the sibling threads.

I agree that I have no guarantee. That is not related. I don't have a massive problem with the Echo - I plain don't get the risk/reward situation and it's not for me.

The only problem I do have is people jumping from 'having a smart phone' to 'cannot seriously be worried about random other gadgets with microphones'. There's no connection. That logic is flawed.

None of those points are very compelling. Fact is, any pc or cell phone could be rigged to eavesdrop and it would behoove the providers to implement and prove that it's not possible.

Smart tv's have already beaten this one to the punch by a few years now.

"Smart tv's have already beaten this one to the punch by a few years now."

Yes, but no technologically clueful or savvy person is buying or using a "smart tv". Those are "grandma devices" that get sold to the demographic still shopping at Best Buy (whatever that is).

The HN crowd thoughtfully buys computer monitors that don't connect to networks. Like an NEC commercial (airport) display.

Right ?

As a very technologically savvy person, most TVs I have bought recently are "smart" TVs, just because that functionality happened to be included. I don't use it, but I imagine it's probably listening anyway.

This is the case for most non-technical people as well.

If I have a choice of a "smart" TV and a dumb one with the same panel, I pick the dumb one (it's also cheaper, but I'd probably pay extra). My "smart" TV in the living room would show ads on power-up until someone told me how to deactivate them. It still nags me to update its useless apps when I accidentally press the "internet" button on the remote.

I wasn't aware that airport displays like that are available to the public. Fascinating!

Does anyone actually use the "smart" features on their smart TV?

I know of zero people who do this... and I've asked.

I used the $200 off feature when I purchased an identical panel without a half-finished roku knockoff builtin.

Clearly you and your friends aren't the target market for smart TVs.

I know several people who actually use their TV's Netflix app, and occasionally Youtube or Pandora or something for music, but they're in the minority, and here's why.

Most people already own a TV, and have an HTPC/Xbox/Roku/Chromecast/whatever device that works for them. All that happens is the old device gets plugged into the new TV, and they're good.

Conversely, most of the people I know who use their smart TV's Netflix app have zero dedicated devices to play Netflix on their TV. The ones with Macbooks don't even own the whatever adapter to plug their laptop in using an HDMI cable I'd give them.

They also exclusively use Netflix and Youtube for online video, so the question of codecs on a downloaded mkv file never comes up.

You now know one. We do not own an Xbox/PlayStation-gaming system, or Roku/Apple TV-like streaming box in our living room. New LG TV came with "smart" features, and we use them (Netflix really) daily.

My brother does - or at least, I assume you're talking about the different apps that come installed on TVs these days. For example my brother uses it to watch Netflix, BBC iPlayer and another VoD service that I don't remember the name of. He also uses an Apple TV, but most of the time he just uses the television's interface.

Uhh yes? Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu Plus, and the YouTube app (it is Chromecast compatible).

We use it extensively. We've talked about cancelling cable but my wife watches the live sports too much.

PS - We'd also use a HBO Go app if they had one. Currently it is Amazon Fire and game console exclusive as far as I know.

I use the Netflix and Plex apps on my Vizio and they work well enough.

my panasonic smart tv has a netflix app, but it's so clunky and unbearably slow that it's faster and easier to boot up a playstation and browse netflix on that.

Are TV manufacturers continuing down this path of lunacy? I thought once they got caught they'd turn the damned thing off.

They were planning to evaluate the reaction after they got caught and then determine whether to continue. Seems people forgot about the whole thing after a few months and I doubt it caused more than a blip in lost sales, so they're probably still doing it.

So if I buy a new TV the first thing I do is turn off WiFi connectivity. I pay for a bunch of features that nobody in their right mind would use if they thought through the consequences.

So don't give them your money! Yes, sometimes fighting against crap like this requires sacrifice. Right now, the people that are trying to normalize surveillance are betting that most people are too addicted to TV and won't go without.

This is one of the reasons some of us try to make a big deal about fighting "insignificant" things (the DRM module in firefox (EME) is a recent example). They aren't a huge issue today, but when left alone, the sacrifice required tends to grow.

It's pretty depressing! It's also the case that so many photos are taking place in urban areas that if you are Google/Apple/Facebook, you can almost certainly face-recognition someone's path through all the photos people take of the areas.

it's stupendous.

You have a microphone, camera, GPS tracker and wireless transmitter on you at any given moment how much different is this really?

I do think Amazon should implement and explain why it could never be used to eavesdrop.

But the TVs in 1984 did have microphones, didn't they? Or at least cameras.

I'm pretty sure the parent was commenting on the "will pay for it" vs "government-forced"

Dunno, paying for objects that respond when you call their name (and, like the Echo, make a lot of sound, and are mostly useless) is a pretty longstanding practice. The old type is more emotionally fulfilling, but higher maintenance.