Or maybe you don’t install a data mining spy device in the office?
Is it any different than speaking in front of your smartphone?
I don’t own an echo or Google whatever but I’ve definitely mentioned things and then got ads for that thing within the hour/day. Like cat litter when I don’t even own a cat, just mentioned it once for cleaning up spills.
More likely there’s a bunch of data points it can use. Coming within BT range of someone who does have a cat for example. Otherwise all the major smart phone companies would need to be in collision to keep the secret because the battery drain would be so blatant of it was recording, processing, transfering etc.
And all the articles that have said they aren’t recording everything, I guess they would have to be in on it too.
So keep cell phone in lockers, no smart TVs, and no Alexa or similar devices.
Someone should invent the pocket microwave
They can call it the hot pocket
Sounds dangerous to have anywhere near your groin.
If this is a medical facility, I’d never trust them ever again if I saw an echo there.
Yeah, don’t go looking too hard whenever you’re in a hospital or anything. The number of vulnerabilities I can spot with as little infosec knowledge I have is deeply concerning
Dentist office I went to has a private room with an Echo, they use it to switch playlists without having to touch anything, I guess. Figure they didn’t really think it through…
But yeah I was a bit uncomfortable with that. Not that anything private was discussed, I simply had a cavity filled. They’re excellent dentists tho, best I’ve ever seen, so I won’t be going elsewhere.
Maybe mention the potential privacy issue if they’re still using echo on your next visit. They might’ve not aware of it.
In my experience with “mentioning the potential privacy issue” people are aware, it’s just an awkward conversation that they’d prefer not to have.
Imagine being a receptionist at a dentists office and some whackadoodle rolls in to the waiting room on their electric scooter, and loudly exclaims… “are you aware that you and all of the staff here are absolutely completely 100% butt naked under your clothes and hosiery? It’s unhygienic, unsanitary, non-inclusive, and completely unsatisfactory. I just thought you should know and perhaps talk it over with your boss”.
Your reaction to this hypothetical scenario is the reaction you can expect when talking to your dentist about privacy.
Wait until you hear about the listening devices that 90% of people carry around in their pockets everywhere they go.
You’re all missing the real kicker here - this sign is only here for the HIPAA auditor. Everyone knows that no one is actually going to mute the thing.
Also muting it probably doesn’t stop it listening, it just stops its response.
No, there is a button to make the Echo stop listening.
If you want to prove me wrong, it should be incredibly easy to press the button and record the Echos network activity. If you’re right you’d still see network traffic. But nobody has been able to show this so far. I wonder why?
If the Echo stored the audio and then sent it sometime after you unmute, it would still pass your test.
Which you could easily see by looking at the amount of traffic sent after unmuting, unless you believe that Amazon secretly found an infinite compression algorithm they use only in muted Echo devices.
Unless some or all of it was sent along during the next time you actually do a voice command.
Again: Which you could easily see by looking at the amount of traffic sent after unmuting, unless you believe that Amazon secretly found an infinite compression algorithm they use only in muted Echo devices.
You understand that sending more information means more traffic? Unless - as I stated - they found a perfect compression algorithm, you’d be able to tell.
I’m not sure that’s the case. We have one at work and if it thinks you’re calling out to it repeatedly it will say out loud that its mic is off and that you have to enable it.
It might just be the part that listens for “Alexa” but that audio buffer is available to the device and it can do things with it.
Yeah I read the other comments after making mine. However everyone keeps calling it a “physical” button, and I don’t think that’s accurate. It won’t be a physical switch that opens a circuit, it will be a button that operates a transistor that opens the circuit.
Still, I see no good reason to trust the device - especially in a medical setting.
There’s not much difference between a direct switch and a transistor, both will cut the signal and neither is over rideable by software
This is disingenuous at best and incorrect at worst. The mute button on the Echo is just that, a button; it is not a switch. It is software-controlled and pushing it just sends a signal to the microcontroller to take some action. For instance, one action is to turn on the red indicator light; that’s definitely not physically connected to the mute button.
Maybe another response of pushing the button is to disable the transistor used for the microphone, but it’s more likely that it just sets a software flag for the algorithm to stop its processing of the microphone input signal. Regardless of which method it uses, the microcontroller could undoubtedly just decide to revert that and listen in, either disabling or not disabling the red light at the same time.
But I personally don’t think it listens in when muted. I don’t think it spies on us to target ads based on what we say around it. I’m not worried that the mic mute function doesn’t work as intended.
But I fully understand that it is fully capable of it, technically speaking.
I don’t know the internal workings of the echo, I was responding to a comment that said it “operates a transistor”. Which is way different than it being an input to a microcontroller.
If the button is just connected to a transistor, it’s not software controllable, since transistors are electronical devices that don’t interpret any software. A microcontroller does execute software. There’s a big difference.
A transistor is controlled by software so yes, it’s absolutely over rideable.
Transistors are simple electronical devices. They don’t run software. You can control their inputs with another device (such a microcontroller) that does run software. You can also control their inputs with a button. You can’t control their output with software.
I don’t know how an Amazon echo is wired up, but if you just have a button connected to the gate of the transistor, it works basically the same as a mechanical switch.
Transistors are simple electronical devices. They don’t run software.
No, as I just said in the comment you replied to, it’s backwards. Software controls transistors.
The important difference is that a mechanical switch cannot be maliciously switched on by software. It has to be done physically and intentionally.
Aww, you actually believe that!
Shouldn’t take you more than 5 minutes to prove me wrong. Please do!
Shit like this is why I got a dumb speaker. It just plays audio, it doesn’t have a battery (meaning that unplugged = zero power), it doesn’t have wifi, it doesn’t have an assistant, it just plays the music I ask it to play via Bluetooth.
It’s fascinating how people know that these devices break their privacy, yet they keep using them.
Some people just don’t care about their privacy and I’m not judging them, you do you!
Professionals should care about their client’s privacy though. That shouldn’t be a debate.
People that don’t care about their privacy is exactly what makes it so hard to just exist privately. I shouldn’t have to give up my rights because other people don’t care about them
mutedthrown in the trash where it belongsIoT and smart device security only means your data is protected from unauthorized access. It’s up to the manufacturer, not the user to decide who can get in.
Remember that S in IoT stands for Security!
If the patient’s name is Alexa, you’re gonna have a bad time
