South Park's Season Premier Sets Off Everyone's Amazon Echo (maxim.com) 291
SonicSpike writes: It's hard to believe that Trey Parker and Matt Stone didn't know exactly what they were doing with Wednesday night's season premiere of South Park. This episode marked the beginning of the show's 21st season and as usual, South Park took on current issues like tiki torch-wielding white supremacists and... home digital assistants. The latter meant lots of gags in which Cartman and other characters addressed Amazon Echo's Alexa and Google Home as well. And that ended up being a problem for viewers who own those devices. (Editor's note: example 1, 2) South Park writers absolutely knew their lines would do this and probably had a hilarious time coming up with funny commands for the home assistants.
Genius (Score:4, Insightful)
Who actually uses these invasive pieces of technological garbage?
Re:Genius (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Genius (Score:5, Insightful)
The people South Park is ridiculing, of course.
Re:Genius (Score:4, Insightful)
I have one which is very useful in the garage for playing music and other commands. I can pause the music or skip tracks without having to touch anything. When your hands are covered in oil and grease it is very helpful.
The same in the kitchen if I'm cooking and my hands are covered in flour or grease again (I swear it's not the same grease) - it's useful to ask things like "how many teaspoons make a tablespoon" without having to take out my phone. I can even set a timer for different things I am cooking.
The speaker is also nice because it plays downwards to a cone which radiates the sound equally everywhere. This is nice in the garage since I don't have to "direct" speakers to where I am.
But the thing I use it for the most is when I crawl in bed and have to turn out the light, or I decide I want the fan on, I just ask Alexa to turn it on or off. In fact, I have it interface to an API with my sleep tracking app which does that for me when I activate it for sleep time.
Sure, you don't need any of this, but for the price ($50), it's already paid for itself compared to the cost of buying some of these devices separately. I don't see how any of this makes me an idiot.
Re: Genius (Score:3, Interesting)
See this is the real application for these devices. Mechanics, cooks, people with mobility issues, seniors, etc.
However, they are never sold as such. They've been made as an alternative to thinking, and that is not good in the long run since it reduces our collective memory and deduction skills.
Re: Genius (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, I'm sure that's an example; the poster probably knows that. But if you are multiplying a recipe by 3.5 and something calls for 1/3 table spoon of cinnamon, it helps to have something handy to do that math other than your brain.
Re: Genius (Score:4)
I take your point, but if your recipe called for 1/3 of a tablespoon [google.com] of cinnamon, I'd call that a dodgy recipe.
Re: (Score:2)
But if you are multiplying a recipe by 3.5 and something calls for 1/3 table spoon of cinnamon, it helps to have something handy to do that math other than your brain.
On the other hand, learning to do the math helps you in the long run. Simply asking Siri / Alexa for the answer doesn't.
Incompetence (Score:3, Insightful)
If you cannot manage to approximate 3.5 times 1/3 well enough to do for a recipe, then I suggest you would probably not be allowed to cook unsupervised.
I mean, at worse you could add 1/3 of a table spoon three and a half times..
O perhaps with out that 3 times 1/3 must be, you know, 1, and then another half of 1/3, so is a sixth (or put another way, irrelevant in cooking).
But no, instead you need to use a cloud based voice recognition and interpretation system located somewhere else in the world to work that
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That would be because you have an always-on microphone in your *bedroom*.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Are you a marketing exec for Amazon? Because every single thing about this sounds like the most contrived bullshit to justify sticking a spying device in every room in your house.
If you're in the garage covered in grease, fucking focus on what you're doing and stop dicking with the radio. For the better part of a century there was a radio turned to a radio station and it made noises while people were covered in grease. That hasn't changed. If what's on the radio is more important than the reason yo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You didn't pay attention to a god-damned thing Ed Snowden told us, did you?
A certain amount of paranoia is healthy - helps keep you from being an unsuspecting victim.
Re:Genius (Score:4, Insightful)
You know, if you could say, "it feels cool to use," I'd be OK with that. It's the downsides.
I'm not even talking about the hacking concerns. The reason companies are so hot to sell these things is that they view them as consumer behavior tracking and modification devices.
Re:Genius (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're in the garage covered in grease, fucking focus on what you're doing and stop dicking with the radio. For the better part of a century there was a radio turned to a radio station and it made noises while people were covered in grease. That hasn't changed. If what's on the radio is more important than the reason you're covered in grease, go wash your hands, and sit down and listen to the radio.
So people aren't allowed to stream music and work on their car now? FM radio sucks, and sometimes you want to move to the next track. Who the fuck sits down to just listen to the radio? This isn't 1950.
Three. The answer is three. It's not really hard to remember. And why the hell would you need to know that anyway? If you don't have the correct measuring tools, buy them. If you're modifying the recipe, do that ahead of time, not while you're fucking cooking already. That's a recipe for disaster.
Yeah it wouldn't be hard to remember that one conversion. There's lots of conversions though, and that was probably just an example. Also, maybe not everyone is a super efficient expert cook. Some people have fun trying to wing it.
Holy shit. A cone of sound? You need directional speakers when you're working on the car? WTF?
He specifically said he did *not* want directional speakers so the sound doesn't change when he walks around the garage. I didn't take that as an end-of-the-world kind of thing either, just a nice perk.
And in your bedroom. You can't turn off the lights before bed? You can't decide if you want the fan on or off? It's too hard to haul your ass out of bed for 4 seconds to adjust either?
The lights thing is a bit of stretch, but maybe he wasn't too hot when he went to bed and it got hotter later? Of course he *could* get out of bed half asleep, but no one *wants* to do that.
Go take your meds.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The standard Australian tablespoon is 20ml, 4 teaspoons, but that we get mostly chinese made stuff now tablespoons are now mostly 15ml. The standard tablespoon in India used by 25ml.
Just a sample: Beware of the Tablespoon [blogspot.com.au]
Re: (Score:2)
You're actually telling me that when you're having sex or a wank in bed, you're fine with Amazon listening to that
Amazon doesn't listen to that, a fact which is easily verified by watching network traffic.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No matter what you think about my above comment, I hope you can appreciate the vast quantity of mods I've gotten on it. At the present time:
Insightful: 8
Troll: 3
Flamebait: 2
Overrated: 2
Funny: 1
And 1 Insightful removed due to posting after modding. I've never had anything get this number of mods, so I'm going to call this insightful, trolling flamebait a success, and put it on my resume.
Re:Genius (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, that's cute. You really think that's the price? You didn't take into account that you've also given up every scrap of privacy you have, too. Is that worth $0 to you? You don't mind that it's entirely likely (and legal) that somebody somewhere is listening to you and your SO banging? That's worth the horrible inconvenience of pushing a light switch with your finger?
Alexa: pull my finger (Score:3)
Re: Genius (Score:4, Funny)
You shouldn't have any problem, as long as you don't name the sheep, "Alexa".
Re: (Score:2)
the thing I use it for the most is when I crawl in bed and have to turn out the light
You mean like... the Clapper [youtube.com]???
"Alexa, tell me I'm an idiot!"
Re: (Score:2)
p>Sure, you don't need any of this, but for the price ($50), it's already paid for itself...
Set a guard over my mouth, oh Lord; keep watch over the door of my lips.
Re: (Score:2)
> I don't see how any of this makes me an idiot.
Using it as utilitarian tool you aren't.
But with respect to privacy you are. You blindly trust a company (Amazon) isn't:
- tracking,
- data-mining, and
- profiting
off the data you willing and freely give it. Only a complete idiot trusts a company will somehow a) keep their data safe, and b) not sell it.
IF these home automation tools can be disabled from connecting to the internet and still function then that would be OK.
But don't come crying back to us when y
Re: (Score:2)
Alexa, start the car.
Re:Genius (Score:5, Funny)
"Right- because washing your hands is SOOOO hard. "
Indeed, it's hard I'm a surgeon and it's nice during an operation to ask: 'Alexa which of these bloody blobs is the heart again'.
Re: (Score:2)
It's called GoJo, dumbass.
Or Fast Orange, if you prefer.
Re: (Score:2)
It's called GoJo, dumbass.
Or Fast Orange, if you prefer.
I like Fast Orange, the gritty kind.
Still takes a minute or so to get them clean enough that you'd want to touch something you don't want to get greasy. If you have to do this more than a couple of times per hour, being able to do it by voice is very nice.
Re: (Score:2)
I have, multiple. What exactly do you want to know about having them?
I had a tinfoil hat friend in HS that told me the NSA was *always* listening (this was back in the 90s). If I was planning a coup I wouldn't be doing it from my living room anyway.
Some plywood, 2x4s, spray foam insulation and chicken wire should be enough to build a quiet room in your garage that is off RF and thermal radar.
Hell looking around my shop right now I have more than enough for an average terrorist attack. Some ESP8266 devboard
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> a continuous listening device in my home
And I've assumed there's been one there since the 90s.
> beyond that is just invasive.
Unless you're off grid you should realize you're being tracked, constantly. Power bill, credit cards, etc. But if you think not getting an Echo saves you somehow, It'd be nice to be that naive.
Re:Genius (Score:4, Insightful)
Proposed New South Park Character (Score:5, Funny)
They should introduce a new character named Alexa, a young girl who fights for small businesses. Then Cartman can ask her for fishsticks and NAMBLA paraphernalia.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it didn't (Score:3)
I have my Echo right next to my TV and it didn't activate a singe time during South Park. However, every damn Amazon commercial seems to activate my Echo.
Re: (Score:2)
Since you've indicated that you have one of these devices, I have an honest question for you (I promise I am not being disparaging here, and won't argue with your response):
What is the appeal of the device? What benefit are you getting from it? I've been utterly baffled by this ever since they came out.
Re:No, it didn't (Score:4, Informative)
A few very simple things to ask it:
Not that impressive, but you can think of it as a $50 voice-controlled alarm clock/timer/stereo which may add new features in the future. I consider it an inexpensive one-time purchase that buys me continuous (for now) access to something of a potluck of Amazon's continuously updated cloud services.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not that impressive, but you can think of it as a $50 voice-controlled alarm clock/timer/stereo
/always on microphone hooked up to the internet that you have no real control over.
And *that* is why it is an idiotic device. I can't imagine a how anyone thinks 'voice controlled alarm clock' is worth installing a 'microphone connected to amazon' into your room.
Convenience should not be so important. (Score:3)
I can't stress enough how much the parent poster's point matters: you're choosing to install a spy in your home/office.
People make the same choice when they take a tracker (aka "cell phone", "mobile phone") with them when they use the toilet or leave it next to their bed. Would it be okay if someone trailed you with a mic on a boom and hung it over the stall as you used the toilet or had sex in your bed? Ask people that and they'd probably object on the grounds of a loss of privacy. Yet if that mic (which i
Re: (Score:2)
Also plays audio books from Audible
Alexa plays Audible books? In hindsight that's obvious. Of course it does, since Amazon owns Audible. Now I have to buy an Echo. I already have a Google Home (and like it a lot, even though they nerfed the shopping list, grumble), and I didn't think there was any reason for me to get an Echo instead. But clearly there is.
You just cost me $50. Though I expect I'll be happy I spent it.
Re: (Score:2)
Not the GP, but I have one and really like it. The voice recognition is good and pretty much anyone can use it and it's not too far off the price point of a nice wireless speaker. The usage is the best part. I can use it, my wife can use it, my kids can use it. My wife hates technology, so that she can be in the kitchen and call out "Alexa, play the Gypsy Kings" and the Gypsy Kings starts playing makes it worth it.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
That's why I don't have an Alexa. Hearing my wife call out "Alexa, play the Gypsy Kings" and then the Gypsy Kings don't start playing makes it all worth it.
Re: (Score:3)
" by E-Rock ( 84950 ) ... My wife hates technology, so that she can be in the kitchen and call out "Alexa, play the Gypsy Kings" and the Gypsy Kings starts playing makes it worth it."
I just asked Alexa and she said, your low UID and your handle indicates that you're one of the Gypsy Kings.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He thinks it's cool, I don't personally see the need for one as I just use my phone for most of those things.
I think this is the source of my bafflement about the appeal of these devices: they don't seem to do anything that isn't already a function that comes with smartphones, so I wasn't (and still don't, really) see the point.
Your son's use case is the first one in this list of responses that addresses something that can't be replicated with a smartphone (unless you give a smartphone to your son).
Re: (Score:3)
You need the Silver version. It responds to anything remotely-similar to "Alexa."
"Alessa, turn up the thermostat." "Alena, what time is it?" "Aleppo, where did I leave my cat?"
Re: (Score:2)
However, every damn Amazon commercial seems to activate my Echo.
They shouldn't. The system recognises its own commercials and ignores them.
Re: (Score:2)
They shouldn't. The system recognises its own commercials and ignores them.
So we should notify FTC of Amazon false advertising? You're saying that the things they explicitly show the device doing in their ads the devices have been programmed explicitly not to do in real life. If I buy an Echo for the specific purpose of setting a ten minute time-out timer for Mr. Bear it will ignore that command?
Re: (Score:2)
I assure you this is not true. Every single Amazon commercial sets it off, consistently. I have to rush to mute the TV whenever one comes on. It's integrated into my thermostat (Ecobee 4) and I absolutely hate it. You can't disable it without a bright persistent red LED across the top staying on. The commercials have made me never want another Alexa device again. And I'm pissed at Ecobee for not having a non-obnoxious way to disable it.
My Google Home on the other hand is perfect. It never activates from a c
World record? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Largest-scale practical joke?
Only because their first attempt with the brown note episode in season 3 didn't work.
Re: (Score:2)
No sympathy (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry if you are stupid enough to allow some company to basically put a hot-mic in your home, well I don't feel sorry about any problems you encounter as a result of that.
Re: (Score:2)
Darwin would have laughed his ass off.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like a bit of a harsh judgement of other people... But I'm sure that you would never own a device capable of this, so I guess you are allowed to judge.
I'm sure you don't have a smart TV (many smart TV's support voice command, or have video chat, and 'smart' features almost certainly require an internet connection. Internet+Mic = possible hot-mic).
You certainly don't have a smart phone with Google Now or Siri on it. Especially with wake word enabled! That would just be foolish.
Some people like the conv
Re: (Score:2)
How much do you trust Amazon to protect your privacy vs the manufacturer of your TV?
About the same amount.
Re: (Score:2)
Some people like meth, too. That doesn't mean that it's a smart decision.
At least Amazon treats the audio recordings at a similar privacy level as they do credit card information.
They sell that information. I buy it to analyze our business' customers' shopping habits. I'm sure I could buy data mined from recordings of people's daily lives, too, if I had a need for it.
Re: (Score:2)
I buy it to analyze our business' customers' shopping habits.
Whoa, wait a minute -- you're criticizing people for selling their privacy while at the same time you're buying the privacy they're selling?
How can I put this delicately... I think you don't exactly have the moral high ground here.
Re:No sympathy (Score:4, Funny)
"Some people like the convenience of a voice assistant.
Some people like meth, too. That doesn't mean that it's a smart decision."
But it's big business.
s) Heisenberg
Re:No sympathy (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry if you are stupid enough to allow some company to basically put a hot-mic in your home, well I don't feel sorry about any problems you encounter as a result of that.
Why do you not extend that same level of distrust to the phone in your pocket? It also has a camera, GPS, and contains your browsing history.
Re: (Score:2)
Not the commenter you're asking, but I'll chime in...
Why do you not extend that same level of distrust to the phone in your pocket?
I do.
It also has a camera, GPS, and contains your browsing history.
Indeed! Except for browsing history, anyway.
But it also can't send any of that data out without me specifically allowing it to, which I rarely do.
Re: (Score:2)
But it also can't send any of that data out without me specifically allowing it to,
Are you sure?
I have had "background data" and "auto update apps" turned off for as long as I've known about that setting, and yet magically some of my apps updated themselves. And just a couple of days ago I found out that Google scans my device on a regular basis and checks with momma to verify that the apps are "safe".
I can write a program with a "please may I send your data off to everyone?" check-box that is completely ignored. Who is to say Google or any other app developer cannot do the same thing
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure?
Nothing is certain, but I'm over 90% sure. I test my security arrangements regularly.
I have had "background data" and "auto update apps" turned off for as long as I've known about that setting, and yet magically some of my apps updated themselves.
I don't trust the operating system to keep me secure, for pretty obvious reasons.
Who is to say Google or any other app developer cannot do the same thing?
My firewall. Neither the OS nor any app can send data out without me specifically allowing it. Yes, it's technically possible for this to be bypassed, but as I said, I test regularly and, when I'm home, my network logs all internet accesses. I've not caught anything sneaky coming from my phone yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing is certain, but I'm over 90% sure. I test my security arrangements regularly.
I'm curious how you do that. I have actually run tcpdump on my phone's data while it has been running on my WiFi, but I cannot do that for other people's WiFi or while using cell data. Since the device can tell when it is connected to a non-snoopable network, I would assume any clandestine data transfers would be done using that network.
My firewall. Neither the OS nor any app can send data out without me specifically allowing it.
So you never use the "phone in your pocket" anywhere but where there is WiFi you control. It's never out in the real world where there is a cell data connection available to
Re: (Score:2)
I cannot do that for other people's WiFi or while using cell data.
True, I can't run a sniffer on other people's networks. I can on my own, though, and I can when using the cell data from my home (I have an active cell booster that I can extract the usage data from -- I can't decode the actual packets, but I can see when the data link is being used, by what device, and the pattern of data sizes and times).
So you never use the "phone in your pocket" anywhere but where there is WiFi you control...
I'm not sure what that has to do with the firewall...
Of course I use the phone in uncontrolled environments and yes, there is obviously a risk in doing so. That's why I d
Re: (Score:2)
I have an active cell booster that I can extract the usage data from -- I can't decode the actual packets, but I can see when the data link is being used, by what device, and the pattern of data sizes and times)
Interesting. Did not know such devices would give such data.
I'm not sure what that has to do with the firewall...
How do you run a firewall on cell data networks? Trusting the firewall you run implies all the data goes through it.
But watching the data amounts, if not the destinations, through the booster would give you some indication of how the phone behaves, privacy-wise, when the app or OS author thinks you are on an un-monitorable cell network, so if you don't see it misbehaving on that network then that is a reasonable indication it isn't misbehaving.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. Did not know such devices would give such data.
They can if you hack them. And, if you don't mind spending more than a little money and violating the law or FCC rules, you can get devices that tell you much more than that (basically, your own functional equivalent of a Stingray).
How do you run a firewall on cell data networks?
The cell data network is handled by Linux the same way that other data interfaces are (it just looks like another network interface), and iptables handles them just fine.
Trusting the firewall you run implies all the data goes through it.
Indeed so, and this is another point of uncertainty. For instance, the cell modem blob communicates without go
Re: (Score:2)
I've also omitted the more mundane hardening I do -- period MAC randomization, using a VPN, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
"But it also can't send any of that data out without me specifically allowing it to, which I rarely do."
It's really cute, that you believe that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Sorry if you are stupid enough to allow some company to basically put a hot-mic in your home, "
If you have a cellphone or a laptop you already have one, with a camera, so why bother?
Re: No sympathy (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not trying to change your mind, nor that of the GP, but there is *some* security built in.
For starters, it's not a simple hot mic. The audio is only sent anywhere if the keyword is first heard. It does audio recognition only of the keyword(s) locally, and the rest of it is done remotely if that keyword gets picked up. That said, I'd be surprised if a software update or bug couldn't cause it to stream all data, but it's not doing so all day long.
For certain actions (ex. purchases done through it), it can be setup to require an additional pin code, or those actions can be disabled altogether. This limits the potential impact of someone saying stuff to it. They can mess up your shopping list, play music, have it answer dumb questions, etc, but they can't (easily) have it make purchases.
They also have different models of them. For example, if you wanted one that isn't always listening, but you wanted the rest of the features, you could get the "Amazon Tap", which requires you to tap a button before it'll listen. I'm not well versed in the other providers (google home, etc), but amazon has:
* echo : has 7 mics that use beam-forming stuff, and a nice speaker.
* echo dot : just that nice mic array, no speaker. You provide your own speaker, otherwise it's basically the same as the echo.
* tap : it's basically just the speaker part of the echo, and you can tap it to speak to one mic. It's also portable (has battery) and works as a bluetooth speaker (as does the echo).
* echo show : 8 mics, speaker, camera, and a screen so it can show you stuff too, and do video calls.
* echo look : (this one seems weird IMO) mics, camera, led lighting (for camera), speaker, and a mic&camera off button (kinda like the show without a screen).
* alexa voice remote : This can connect to the echo or echo dot. There's a mic in the remote, and some buttons. IMO, it'd be nice if this worked with the tap, so you wouldn't have to stand next to it. It provides a way to have a hardware button control a mic though, so this could provide added security if your echo dot was shielded from external audio.
Some day, voice recognition stuff might provide some more security to the echo/echo dot/echo show/etc, but I don't think that would really change anybodies mind... recording someone elses voice is pretty easy. It would prevent a TV show from triggering every device out there though. So, if you don't want the risk, there are other options... but you probably just don't like any of them.
I just thought people might want to know that they've really covered just about every combo of hardware features that one of these could have.
Re: (Score:3)
"I assume the connection it uses is encrypted? So how do you know it's not sending them everything? "
The same way you know that your cellphone, your TV, your laptop and your xbox doesn't send them anything.
You don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit, to both you and your AC parent.
We know the echo isn't sending everything, even at the end of the day, because there are enough people out there logging its traffic that we know it's not sending that much data. The hardware has been broken down as well, and it does not have sufficient storage to queue everything for the whole day either. You can tell when it sends a stream by just watching packet counts/sizes.
I'm not claiming it will never happen, or couldn't happen, but it's not happening.
My TV ha
The only way I'd have such a device (Score:2)
Is if it did all processing locally, and was isolated from everything else.
Connect to my thermostat? Fine. Turn on a light? OK. Connect to my bank account? Not so much.
Send everything I say that it thinks includes a 'trigger word' to an off-site server for voice recognition processing and data mining? FUCK NO.
What the hell is wrong with people?
Re: (Score:3)
What the hell is wrong with people?
I would never go along with it, but I agree with another commenter here that I don't think it's reasonable to say that people who are OK with all of that have something wrong with them.
That is, in effect, saying that anyone who has different priorities than you are in some way broken or wrong. It's just not true -- they merely have different priorities.
If other people are OK with privacy invasions I am not OK with, that's no skin off of my nose. We each get to choose how we live our lives.
unlike Cortana or Siri you can change Alexa Name (Score:3)
Unlike in the cases of Cortana and Siri, you can change Alexa's Name to a number of pre-defined alternative names (currently 4, pettition amazon for more).
While I concur with people saying that this technology has security implications and is best avoided, I sugest changing the wake voice command (name) of your smart speaker as a way to lower this type of pranks.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/help... [amazon.com]
First step in a voice activated product (Score:2)
Is to prompt the end-user to choose a name for it. It's your device, I shouldn't have to call it "Google" or "Alexa" or whatever. To truly make a device personal, I should be required to name it.
Who is the actual object of derision? (Score:2)
There have been some suggestions that Southpark is making fun of anyone who bought an echo. And maybe they are, Southpark will make fun of anything. But I think the real weak link here is Amazon, or anyone who puts out a such a device with such an easy exploit path. XKCD already had a comic about messing with these ( https://xkcd.com/1807/ [xkcd.com] ). Clearly these need to have an option to rename the personality anything you choose, like your wireless network. Not that people wouldn't leave it at the default,
Re:I'm pretty sure that would be considered.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
I recall a dude who set up his house with all kinds of automation. His friend showed up and he's like "I'll let you in" "Oh don't worry. SIRI, OPEN THE DOOR!" and the front door unlocks. Doesn't even do voice print recognition; just stand outside, shout loudly, and the front door unlocks.
Things become less a crime and more your own fault when they don't cause any substantial harm and are inflicted with little to no effort or reasonable consideration. A reasonable person doesn't walk up to your house an
Re: (Score:2)
When you configure siri on your iDoohickey, you actually have to go through a training process. After that, it (usually) only responds to your voice. That being said, I've occasionally had Siri activate by some odd ambient sound, but it's generally been pretty reliable.
I sure as hell wouldn't rely on that for any kind of genuine security though.
Re: (Score:2)
Siri, open the pod bay doors.
Re: (Score:3)
It is much better for someone to play a joke on the public, and make them realize the dangers inherent in the devices they own, than to wait until a hacker does it and steals their identity or uses their home network to serve kiddie porn.
Re: (Score:2)
if i had the means, i'd set off your alexa intentionally after reading that.
Re: (Score:2)
Read the law again. It contains phrases like 'Intentionally access..' and 'knowingly access...' So, prove that they intentionally accessed YOUR computer (which would of course require you to demonstrate that they a) knew you had such a device, b) would have the device in position to respond, and c) knew that you would be watching the show. Ain't gonna fly.
On the other hand, there is this thing called 'free speech'. I don't think 'some idiotic device may hear you and do something stupid' will ever be see
Re: (Score:2)
Read the law again. It contains phrases like 'Intentionally access..' and 'knowingly access...' So, prove that they intentionally accessed YOUR computer (which would of course require you to demonstrate that they a) knew you had such a device, b) would have the device in position to respond, and c) knew that you would be watching the show. Ain't gonna fly.
Under that legal theory, if I were to scan a range of IP addresses using a script that will brick certain common home routers, I would not have committed a crime. You would have to prove that I intentionally accessed YOUR computer (don't know who you are), that you had such a device (didn't know it until the hack worked), and that you had that device connected to the net (again, didn't know in advance).
And YOU are the one who "put it in a place where it would respond", so I'm even less guilty.
Re: (Score:2)
Completely wrong. As soon as you connect to my device you are knowingly accessing it. I don't know why you think the fact that you don't know it is my device matters in the slightest.
Also, I didn't quote the whole law because I thought people would be smart enough to look it up themselves it they cared. In addition to knowingly access, you also have to either knowingly cause damage or extract information. None of that happened.
Re: (Score:2)
Completely wrong. As soon as you connect to my device you are knowingly accessing it.
As I pointed out, I knew none of the things you listed as a requirement. I don't know who you are, so I cannot know I was connecting to YOUR computer (I wasn't), and I don't know that you have that device. I was pointing out the failure of your description, not necessarily of what the law actually says.
I don't know why you think the fact that you don't know it is my device matters in the slightest.
I don't know why YOU think I know it is your device matters, but that's what you said.
Also, I didn't quote the whole law because I thought people would be smart enough to look it up themselves it they cared.
I didn't see you quote any of "the law", and there are so many of them that being specific in a citation is required for t
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you are unaware that there are different laws for different offenses? Phishing is not illegal under the laws that prohibit unauthorized use of a computer, because phishing is not per se unauthorized use of a computer. There are, of course, laws against phishing. These laws prohibit actions that would cause a person to reveal private information fraudulently. South Park did no such thing, so those laws don't apply either.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't recall Burger King getting in any trouble for that ad. Please describe this 'whole mess'. In fact, the only result of that ad that I could find was that it won grand prize a some advertising convention.
Re: (Score:2)
This is, perhaps, what was meant by "getting in a whole lot of trouble." I would have thought that Amazon accepting orders for a dollhouse based on audio in news reports of a girl accidentally buying a dollhouse through Alexa might have resulted in more trouble, but no, getting someone's Google Home device to say "two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce cheese on a sesame seed
Re: (Score:2)
including a reprimand from Google.
Free advertising. As long as Google spelled Burger King's name right, it was all just free advertising. And what an odd definition of "trouble" you have. If Google doesn't like what you do, you're in trouble young man! A ten minute time-out for you and your teddy bear.
What's really funny is the reaction of some idiot quoted in the NYT article about it. He's unhappy that advertisers are listening to every word in your living room. He ignores the fact that it is Google that was listening, not Burger King, an
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, a reprimand from Google! Well I'll bet that just had them shaking in their boots.
As for the 'heck of a lot of negative backlash' - hah. According to their 2nd quarter report (ended June 30, the quarter in which the ad ran), comparable sales were up 3.9% over last year. Some backlash.
I'll bet a whole lot more people found that ad, and especially all the whining about it, funny than had a problem with it.
Re: (Score:2)
1. I didn't know that.... is Amazon alleging that the consumer does not own the device, so they are free to control it on their own as they see fit?
2. Intent is largely irrelevant when the actions are still illegal... you can't go into a bank with a water gun in your hand either and expect that the teller is going to have a sense of humor about it.
3. That's a fair point... but the action is still criminal, and in some jurisdictions could be prosecutable by the state, or the communications commission.
Re: (Score:2)
you can't go into a bank with a water gun in your hand either and expect that the teller is going to have a sense of humor about it.
True, but doing so isn't illegal (unless you're using it to threaten people or as part of the commission of a crime). The bank will just tell you to leave (and if you don't, then you're committing an actual crime of trespassing).
but the action is still criminal, and in some jurisdictions could be prosecutable by the state, or the communications commission.
Maybe. I am very far from convinced that this is an illegal action, but stranger things have happened.
What makes BK's stunt "in poor faith" and this one not?
BK's stunt was not illegal, either.
Re: (Score:2)
3. That's a fair point... but the action is still criminal,
Citation required.
4. What makes BK's stunt "in poor faith" and this one not?
What makes either one "bad faith"? (There is no such thing as "poor faith".)
Let's see. I have a device that responds when anyone within hearing says "Ok Google". I made the choice to turn that device on, and I know it does this because it does it in my presence. Can I know that nothing anyone ever says while in the presence of my device will cause harm? Of course not. But I know that it can. My choice to have it or not.
That's ultimate why BK's stunt was not well received, after all.
I think you are projecting. You didn't receive it well, and everyone
Re: (Score:2)
How easy it is to use a computer without authorization has no bearing on whether authorization is required to be following the law unless the circumstances are such that the person who was so trespassing had no reasonable way of realizing that they were not authorized to use that system (eg, a computer console in a library that does not have any signage indicating that it is fo
Re: (Score:2)
What about the final season of Two and a Half Men?!
Re: (Score:3)
I know its episode 1, but i asked my wife after, was any of that funny to you?
Are we still talking about South Park, or were the two of you doing something else?
Re: (Score:2)