Should Burger King Be Prosecuted For Their Google Home-Triggering Ads? (washingtonpost.com) 448
Slashdot reader Lauren Weinstein thinks Burger King should be prosecuted for
successfully running an alternate version of its advertisement to trigger Google Home devices again Wednesday:
Someone -- or more likely a bunch of someones -- at Burger King and their advertising agency need to be arrested, tried, and spend some time in shackles and prison cells. They've likely been violating state and federal cybercrime laws with their obnoxious ad campaign... For example, the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act broadly prohibits anyone from accessing a computer without authorization... Burger King has instantly become the 'poster child' for mass, criminal abuse of these devices... It was a direct and voluntary violation of law.
/. won't either (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:/. won't either (Score:5, Interesting)
You're looking at this the wrong way - you should see this as an opportunity. When you see an obvious dupe on Slashdot, your first response should be to submit a new, slightly tweaked version of the item.
If we all work together, we can make it so Slashdot's front page is full of eight or nine copies of the same story!
Re:/. won't either (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's face it. From a marketing perspective, this is a huge success for BK. A relatively small number people were *actually* negatively affected, and I'd bet very few regular BK customers will actually STOP going there as a result. But for a single commercial, a huge number of people are now talking about BK and Whoppers. Even better, some people shift blame to Google for the insecurity of those voice interfaces. It's highly unlikely and negative legal consequences will come from this either.
Whichever sociopathic marketing asshole came up with this ploy is probably getting a big raise this year.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
A fitting response would be for Google to make sure that all OK Google + whopper requests forward on to results that BK dislikes: In-n-out, 5guys, Wendy's, etc. Tell everyone how BK always comes up short compared to their more palatable peers.
Re:/. won't either (Score:5, Insightful)
It would be funny, but then you're just playing BK's marketing game. There would be headlines AGAIN about Google doing that, which is just giving them more publicity. How many marketing campaigns end up with several Slashdot headlines (along with plenty of other big-name media outlets)?
The worst thing that could have happened to BK is that this story was ignored. They way they figure it, the longer they can keep this in the news, the more successful their marketing campaign is. The faux anger will dissipate in fairly short order, but we're still all thinking about BK's Whoppers in the meantime.
Re: (Score:3)
Companies prove every year that bad publicity is bad.
Target is about to go under from bad publicity on the right.
A whole State is losing billions of dollars from bad publicity on the left, though that should go back to normal now.
It doesn't even matter who is mad, when people get pissed at your company, and your company relies on sales of cheap shit to the masses, or tourism, it hurts.
What confused people in the past was cases where companies got what was actually good publicity, but society had some tradit
Re: (Score:3)
Ask Benetton if there is no such thing as bad publicity. Their controversial ad campaigns from the 90's shocked and abused the trust of many resulting in my and so many others boycotting them and tossing the sweaters we had.
They were oh so happy in the beginning -- "Look at all the free publicity!". Middle term it became "Hey guys, why are our sales tanking?" Long term was the closure of 90% of it's stores and a voluntary return to obscurity in order to not disappear completely.
Re:/. won't either (Score:4, Insightful)
Shocked, ok. but how did they "abuse the trust"? What trust du you have (or do you need) to buy a plain sweater withthe only difference from other china produced mass market ware is a certain word?
And for the return to obscurity.. That's what's happening to all mass market fashon brands. They start with an exclusive price tag and everyone wants a genuine "Foobar" shirt. Then profits are increased by becomming more and more "available" (both in number of stores and price) until everyone will buy them. And when the early adopters give the first pieces to welfare, the brand folds.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah, well that is OK the first time around, a big ole tee hee whoopsee but the silly fuckers went back for seconds, after they knew the outcome and Google's attempt to block it. So from neat advertising trick to multi-million dollar fine, value of the ad space stolen, serious money and Google will demostrate it is serious about security and junk food is shit food, as such junk food companies are shit food companies, so no empathy for those fuckers. Google makes a bunch of money and a junk food company get
Re:/. won't either (Score:5, Insightful)
Google will demostrate it is serious about security
Snerk. Sorry, but voice interfaces are a MASSIVE security hole (think tape recorder). There's really no way to completely secure the damn things. You could prevent this attack, but there's lots more where that came from.
As long as Google thinks people want them (and, from the fact that people buy the things, I have to say it looks that way), Google will keep making them. The only way to clean up the mess is to point out the flaws to the point that people don't WANT an always-on voice command system. And the only way that happens is if people find it more annoying than helpful.
So kudos to Burger King for forcibly pointing out that there's a big problem in a way that DOESN'T drain customer's bank accounts.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
...The only way to clean up the mess is to point out the flaws to the point that people don't WANT an always-on voice command system. And the only way that happens is if people find it more annoying than helpful.
People have always found passwords to be annoying. So much so that the "top 10 worst passwords" lists haven't really changed in decades. Yes, the same fucking stupid behavior of picking a shitty password has been passed on through generations of computer users. Identity theft on the rise because of it? Sure. People still don't give a shit.
In short, there is no fixing this. People WANT insecurity. They WANT to be lazy. It's the entire fucking reason they paid good money for an always-on voice comman
Re:/. won't either (Score:5, Interesting)
But it would be really simple here: That activation phrase is already annoying enough. ("Hey Siry" rolls like something you'd normaly say to someone, but chanting some company name to get results back sounds more like arcane magic summoning a demon from mammon's hell..)
Why not use individualized activation phrases?
Give your "personal assistant" some personality! A name of it's own, randomly modulate the speech synthesis parameters a bit for each device, and BK would need to go "OK John, OK Helen, OK Majel, OK Eliza, OK HAL..." and the spot would be over without triggering any device
Actual technical reasons (Score:3)
There are actual technical reasons for using one name.
In the Kinect, there is a very lower power custom hardware circuit that only detects the phrase 'XBox On", and nothing else. I would guess other devices work in a similar fashion.
This saves hardware and electrical costs when spread over millions of devices that are always 'on' by allowing them to be in a low-power state, yet still able to respond when triggered, without it people would be complaining about the constant waste of the power drain.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, this IS the company that actually made a video game of an adult in a creepy king costume stalking children and making them eat unhealthy food.
Re: (Score:3)
You seem to be confusing burger king, the corporation, with you or I or any other "individual 1337 h4xx0r". If "we" did this, we would be in jail for life. Corporations don't get p
Big raise for assaulting a customer too? (Score:2)
If United Airlines CEO Oscar Munoz still has his job maybe the same broken logic is operating there too. United recently assaulted a customer who didn't want to give up his seat.
Re: Big raise for assaulting a customer too? (Score:5, Informative)
Nope. United's Contact of Carriage explicitly lists the conditions where they can remove a seated customer without consent, and none of those apply. They contacted away their right to declare the passenger as a trespasser.
Moreover, the airport police were not acting within the scope of their police duties at the time. They were instead acting as agents of United, and as such, the principal (United) shares responsibilities for their actions.
Re: /. won't either (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder if anyone has figured just how malicious this actually is, it is insidiously so when we consider this deliberate repeat activations of what is a google search recorded against a users google account and feeds into the advertising interest algorithms for the advertising google's network serves. It is directly going to skew adverts to win win the advert buy auction on an interest score rather than a price per an advert.
Support BK! (Score:2, Funny)
I'm going to side with BK on this one. Nice troll of google. Again! With BK you can get a product that will feed you. With google you *are* the product. Not sure which product is the fattiest or greasiest of the two but there you have it.
Re: (Score:3)
Same thing here. Stupid interface is just asking for trouble. But this does kind of remind me of the Captain Crunch episode.
Re: (Score:3)
With google you *are* the product.
No, with google you're the service, they don't sell your data they only sell targeted ads.
If you're going to pretend to care, at least pretend to know wtf is going on.
Re: (Score:3)
No, with google you're the service, they don't sell your data they only sell targeted ads.
With Google, you've just an ant -- one of many. They're looking into their ant farm from the outside, occasionally dropping in pretty, shiny things and even making you pay for the privilege, either with real money or yet more information. And if they somehow happen to lose a few along the way, there's lots of others for replacements.
They know where you've been, when and how often you go there, and a lot of what you're interested in (from gmail and browser web-bugs.) With Google Voice -- which I use -- t
Appropriate link: (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Burger King did WHAT??! (Score:5, Funny)
I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!
Give it to me straight... who does this affect - 4 or 5 people tops?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Give it to me straight... who does this affect - 4 or 5 people tops?
No, this is a new attack on freedom of speech, so it affects everyone.
Re:Burger King did WHAT??! (Score:4, Insightful)
You're missing the point. If Burger King legitimizes triggering digital assistants, then everybody can do it.Every ad is going to tell your devices to take you somewhere. The reputable giant global corporations will just do harmless things like send you a coupon or take you to their website. But imagine being on the wrong side of the internet, and suddenly an add pops up which commands "OK Google, show me some biracial gay midget porn!". Which is now on your official search history, easily viewable by the government, your ISP, credit card bureaus and your family.
Re:Burger King did WHAT??! (Score:5, Informative)
Just as it should be. BK isn't "legitimizing triggering digital assistants", they are exposing serious flaws in poorly thought out technology. BK is not to be blamed but thanked; the people who would allow themselves to be exposed to such triggering and the companies that makes the shoddy products are the problem.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
A TV show recently caused Amazon Echo to order doll houses. The fun you could have ordering random shit for you friends.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.theregister.co.uk/... [theregister.co.uk]
And an advert which caused the xbox to turn on and start playing titanfall!
Re: (Score:3)
Just as it should be. BK isn't "legitimizing triggering digital assistants", they are exposing serious flaws in poorly thought out technology.
You're missing the point. Because BK will likely not suffer any legal action against them for this stunt, they are in fact legitimizing the activity of triggering digital assistants. A lack of legal action or punishment can easily set a precedent.
And they aren't exposing jack shit because no one cares.
BK is not to be blamed but thanked; the people who would allow themselves to be exposed to such triggering and the companies that makes the shoddy products are the problem.
Thanked? That's a laugh. Who gives a shit enough to thank them?
As I said before, the people don't care about secure products, and haven't given a shit about security in a very long time. They still choos
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a good thing it happened. (Score:5, Interesting)
No, this is a good thing. The security hole is, and has always been, that the devices only recognize selected trigger words. This hole is due to poor design choices of the manufacturers, and they must step up to the plate to fix it or become liable for any and all consequences.
My GPS in my car has a 100% programmable verbal trigger (I have used "yo, bitch" in the past... so as you can see, quite programmable) and it is almost a decade old. So there's zero question it can be done.
The message is flat on the table now: Amazon, Google, Mycroft... everyone has to set up user-programmable trigger words as part of the install of the device / app. Otherwise this kind of thing, including truly hostile events, will be a regular consumer experience, and the manufacturers will be complicit.
No manufacturer can argue they were ignorant of the risk now. Entirely a good thing. I look forward to them repairing this obvious malfeature.
Re: (Score:2)
You're missing the point. If Burger King legitimizes triggering digital assistants, then everybody can do it.
So turn it off. Seriously, who gives a fuck...
Re:Burger King did WHAT??! (Score:4, Insightful)
Next time it will be someone doing a 911 call or other DoS action.
Why cant Google just reply with a MacDonalds plug? (Score:5, Funny)
I mean, as long as we are all being dicks, why not have the bigger dick?
Re:Why cant Google just reply with a MacDonalds pl (Score:5, Insightful)
Or why not remove Burger King from their search engine? A milder version would be pushing up a warning page when searching for Burger King or any of their trademarks...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or why not remove Burger King from their search engine? A milder version would be pushing up a warning page when searching for Burger King or any of their trademarks...
Hmm, you want Google to punish a paying customer (i.e., Burger King) to protect the rights of non-paying non-customers?
Re:Why cant Google just reply with a MacDonalds pl (Score:4, Insightful)
Or why not remove Burger King from their search engine?
Because it's legally an incredibly stupid thing to do for a company that states over and over again they are not abusing a monopoly position.
Re: (Score:2)
And the MPAA and RIAA would LOVE this because it means Google CAN do it, WILL do it, and are doing it for stupid reasons.
Instead of having to "legally" prove a site is bad, why not have Google remove piracy sites for possibly having links? I mean, you removed Burger King because they embarrassed you, so why not remove these sites because no p
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, as long as we are all being dicks, why not have the bigger dick?
Because being an annoying dick is different to being a monopoly abusing dick, and Google doing that would just result in a very lengthy court action.
Some people think all publicity is good publicity (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not of that opinion. When a company is universally mocked on social media, I have trouble understanding how that is good for that company.
But they are not. You just think they are.
Quite a lot of people are laughing this off.
A few people are annoyed.
Many people are pointing out how clever the idea was.
A lot of others are pointing the blame at Google.
Hell here on Slashdot there seems to be more praise for them than not. This isn't United beating up passengers and getting grilled for it. This is actual somewhat interesting and intelligent social conversation which mentions Burger King over and over again.
Re: (Score:2)
...huge exposure like this makes increases brand awareness...
Whether an increased brand awareness is good or bad is really determined by the quality of that brand awareness. iow, how is this increased awareness of the Burger King brand helping them? Is the mocking helping? How does the mocking bring more people into their stores.
Is there another message that Burger King could attempt to deliver that would do far better for the Burger King franchise owners?
Re: (Score:2)
"Hey Alexa..." (Score:2)
"Order me a widget..."
You just know someone is going to try it. Put out a tv or radio ad, that tells every Echo out there to order a particular item, or at the very least, add it to a shopping cart.
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.theverge.com/2017/1... [theverge.com]
"One recent instance occurred in Dallas, Texas earlier this week, when a six-year-old asked her family’s new Amazon Echo “can you play dollhouse with me and get me a dollhouse?” The device readily complied, ordering a KidKraft Sparkle mansion dollhouse,"
"The story could have stopped there, had it not ended up on a local morning show on San Diego’s CW6 News. At the end of the story, Anchor Jim Patton remarked: “I l
Media trolls (Score:3)
Somebody's full of crap. In order to complete an order this way, after getting the Echo to understand what you want and confirming it verbally, you still need the 4-digit confirmation PIN number. That's a 1-in-10000 chance of getting right. If the parents let the kid hear the PIN number, that's on them. Not Amazon.
It's just the news media trolling you, hyperventilating about a non-problem. Again. Still. As they will continue to do tomorrow, because you let them.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And again, this would be the parents fault. Not Amazon's. You press "order" without knowing WTF in is in your shopping cart -- it's right there in front of your face -- you're an idiot.
Always listening, always spying (Score:2)
The people who designed these systems knew full well in an environment with widespread adoption there would be a wide range of incentives to intentionally exploit this using unauthenticated local and broadcast communications. This is only the beginning.
I hope all those upset about burger king "hacking" their devices continue to enjoy their Surveillance Marketed As Revolutionary Technology devices.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually I bet it was written showed up j. Testing. I completely believe that they missed this type of error,
For the simple fact the would have texted radio and other audio but not third parties saying such things.
Never as five to malice when shear stupidity covers it. Of course it is why I don't use voice controls they have zero ability to identify people.pure audio doesn't work as you need to identify users and audio indentification is problematic even among people let alone visual.
How long before BK gets blacklisted (Score:2)
Google should tweak the reply (Score:2)
Burger King Ad: "Okay Google: what is the whopper burger",
Google Home: "The whooper burger is one of the leading causes of obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular diseases in the United States."
A response that is objectively true, and not in Burger Kings interest.
On topic, this is this actually illegal, but the severity is similar to that of an elementary school kid who installs scripts displaying a funny gif on the teachers computer while
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On topic, this is this actually illegal
In this case seems nothing was "accessed" and nothing "protected" bypassed. There seems to be no criminal intent to defraud.. etc.
Would be interested in hearing details about what law(s) were broken and what aspects make it illegal in your view.
Hey Publicity (Score:4, Funny)
Dara Schopp, BK regards the ad as a success, as it has increased the brand's 'social conversation' on Twitter by some 300%," though he's not a fan of "reaching through your TV speakers and directly messing with your digital devices. You may wish to consider alternate vendors for your burger needs."
All publicity is good publicity. Thus the thugs at United Airlines have just completed the most sucessful and money making PR campaign ever.
Next on Burger Kings agenda - Murdering a reandom customer. Strangle that fucker in th efront of the store. That oughta get their Twitter feed, the undeniable measure of success, to go up by a million percent or so.
Re: (Score:2)
All publicity is good publicity. Thus the thugs at United Airlines have just completed the most sucessful and money making PR campaign ever.
You're missing the content of the social conversation. For United it is far more negative (actually absolutely negative) than it is for Burger King. Much of the "social conversation" for Burger King is actually that, proper conversation with people both for, and against what BK have recently done. This has been amazingly positive for BK.
United don't have a social conversation. They have a public tar and feathering combined with a witch burning, with a desert of salting the grounds in the hope that their spi
the king will not last 1 day in gen pop! (Score:2)
the king will not last 1 day in gen pop!
No Siri, or Echo attack? (Score:3)
is BK just trolling for the biggest fish, or is there something more?
YES! (Score:2)
In fact they should be put up for the death penalty and deported. in that order.
Dear god, because it triggers a piece of toy tech the stupid people get all "PUNISH THEM!"
Honestly, my fellow Americans all have turned into Low IQ whiney babies.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's not that it triggered it, it's that they went around something that was obviously meant to stop them from triggering it. It's like someone putting up a no trespassing sign but the trespassers come and trespass again. That shit will get you six months and a $5000 fine.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not that it triggered it, it's that they went around something that was obviously meant to stop them from triggering it.
No, thats not what happened.
You are confusing Googles targeted fingerprint "solution" with an attempt by Google to prevent advertisers from doing this, and you are confused in this way because you suck the Google cock and wont take a moment to think that maybe, just fucking maybe, that Google was at fault, is at fault, and will continue to be at fault so long as bullshit "fixes" are considered a "solution."
Re: (Score:2)
It embarrassed them - it stripped off the pretend mask of "cool" and let everyone see them as the idiots they are. Go back to the other thread on this and read the vitriol they sling. Who is it directed at? Or, rather, to which comments do they direct their hatred?
Dump the law that covers this prank (Score:2)
Where I come from, laws that put people in prison for these sorts of pranks is known as Nanny-Statism. Such laws keep growing and festering.
Eventually a popular uprising occurs and a nut-job is voted in to power ...
People versus corporations (Score:5, Insightful)
Kevin Mitnick spent 5 years in jail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] and Aaron Swartz was prosecuted/persecuted to the point that he committed suicide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Meanwhile, Sony pulls off their rootkit exploit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] and now Burger King with "OK, Google", and nobody goes to prison. The takeaway lesson for cybercriminals... don't do anything as an individual; instead, incorporate as a multinational, and have the corporation do the dirty work, without risk of anyone going to jail.
Re: (Score:2)
In all honesty, the most effective thing would probably be to fine the company a significant amount of cash, because that will hit the shareholders in the wallets.
Complete and total overreaction (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously? You people are the reason nobody can get along anymore.
wtf? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How much you want to bet she's on Google's payroll?
Without authorization? (Score:3)
Should Burger King Be Prosecuted For Their Google (Score:2)
Hey, is there anybody out there as old as me, that remembers the Bill Gates' intro to voice controlled computing - - - when someone in the audience yelled out "Format see colon return" - and the computer did it - - - rofl.
I never did find out what happened to the poor fool that scuppered BG's prime time demo.
Just wait until someone figures out how to diddle the phones to switch to 'speaker-phone', and then proceed to totally trash the house's voice control network ! ! !
cheers . . .
Of course (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course they should. It would be a perfect stage to show off how dumb the CFAA is to luddites in government.
If this were a person and not a multinational (Score:3)
corporation, they'd have been arrested, and would currently be awaiting trial in jail with an outrageous bail set.
So fuck Mitt Romney, corporations are not people, they're clearly better than that.
let's take a step back here (Score:3, Interesting)
What is authorized and un-authorized use? Has Google made any effort to limit use to only the owner, or have they optimized to allow use by anyone who can talk to the device? If there's no authentication, log-in, or physical controls, there's no permission needed to use the device. What does the owner need to do to keep other people from using the device? Turn it off.
Dear Wikipedia or someone, (Score:2)
I appreciate the sentiment but... (Score:2)
I have a stack of PC Magazines back for ages at the top of my closet. On one of them, there is a caricature of Bill Gates as an octopus, fighting off attacks from fighter jets (the lead of which was Netscape) because Microsoft had the audacity to ship Internet Explorer as the default browser in their operating system. Let me repeat that: The fact that an operating system used it's influence to set the DEFAULT WEB BROWSER was front page news. And people were upset.
And now....Microsoft has the stones to invol
No, Google should be prosecuted - (Score:3)
Burger King's Ad should be firmly covered by the first amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see the problem here... (Score:2)
Burger King are basically nothing more than Black Hat hackers showing us the devices are insecure. Anyone stupid enough to have bought into this generation of voice activated devices deserves all the accidental or malicious triggering they get because the devices just have no attempt at security at all. I mean, I hope the gen 2 devices make some attempt to authenticate that its their owner issuing commands.
Right now these devices are as secure as running routers or other iot devices with the default passwor
Are you fucking kidding? (Score:3)
Is this really "a thing" now? If so, and you're worrying about it, just please fucking shoot yourself.
For the good of humanity. Just off you over-sensitive ass and have done!
It's not BK's problem that Google's device security is half-baked shit.
Insecurity of IoT Devices (Score:3)
"Burger King has instantly become the 'poster child' for mass, criminal abuse of these devices."
What Burger King has become the "poster child" for is the utter and complete insecurity of any of the "Internet of Things", most of which have no security at all. There's not even any way to MAKE them secure. I sincerely hope that every IoT designer and programmer was interrupted by this and will see the light.
It' is ALSO an enormous argument against anyone putting ANY faith in Wikipedia. NEVER use Wikipedia.
It's also another warning (as if we needed one, after "Oath of Fealty") that computer/brain interfaces will make it trivially easy to implant false memories in the brain of any person who gets one.
Re: As far as I can tell.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Lauren seriously needs to get a grip on reality if he thinks that jail time and shackles are appropriate punishments for a burger ad that triggers Google's spy equipment. There are real injustices in the world that are worthy of indignation, but Lauren's hyperbolic outrage over trivial first-world-problems (for those dumb enough to buy a Google Big Brother microphone to put in their homes and listen to their every conversation) is just plain silly.
Re:Someone triggered a /. dupe? (Score:5, Funny)
Apparently Burger King made a slight change to the article and resubmitted it.
I don't really care as long as I keep getting those sheets of coupons.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, that's kind of the thing, isn't it? It's *hard* to draw that boundary and the CFAA is really vague about what constitutes unauthorized. I mean, do we commit a felony if we link to perfectly accessible sites where the owner has written a ToS that purports to give them full control? How do we even know that we weren't authorized? Clearly we need to have some kind of notice. And the web is full of programs, it's not reasonable to expect everyone to read every ToS on the web, clearly we should have s
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Lauren Weinstein, a whiny, weak-ass, entitled, irresponsible snowflake with no life.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree - BK exploited a hole in the system in a way that was reasonably annoying but pretty harmless. This just highlights the fact that voice control over computers is a crappy way since there's no way to truly identify that the person who do the command has the right to do it.
It's about as secure as a MS-DOS system.
Re: (Score:3)
This. I, for one, think that the law is too strict, but it should be applied consistently, so BK should find themselves in front of a judge for this just as any bored teenager would for being caught doing the same.
Re: (Score:3)
Lack of security features isn't an agreement to let others to use your product.
If I leave my front door open and random people just walk in my home I would be pissed can I could get them removed by law for trespassing because.
We shouldn't need a fortis for protection all the time to make sure people behave.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Should be trivial: fingerprint the question, if X searches are the same within a certain time limit then ignore it and add the fingerprint to a persistent database of phrases to ignore.
Re: (Score:3)
All commercials use heavy range compression to boost the relative loudness. Just detect that, a quality a real voice would never have, and then advertisers would have to at least make the ad quieter to bypass it.
Re: (Score:2)
"Hey Asshole" comes to mind. (Read Old Man's War to get the reference)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it was you, opening the door and inviting the thief into your home to stay the night.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't complain, go to https://slashdot.org/recent/ [slashdot.org] and vote instead.
This is because people don't vote on new stories and downvote spam.
Re: (Score:2)
And do you know who always comes across as fake news reading, racist sexist, hate filled 'WASP's? People who use the term 'SJW'. This instant I hear this term I think sad misinformed person who can't tell the truth from fiction and can't partake in an argument without multiple fallacies, no point in interacting with them, time to move on.
Re: (Score:3)
"They manipulated my 'computer' from far way through sound waves to do their bidding, on purpose, repeatedly."
When you turn your computer on, and navigate to a webpage, the remote computer, through the internet sends files to your PC that manipulates what is displayed on your computer to show you what it wants to show you. Are they hacking your computer?
What if they send you video file and it starts playing? what if they send you some javascript (and you've enabled javascript) and a little program runs on y