Omg we just got Alexa

[reddressinggown]

Tell me what fun things she does

This is freaky!

Yup I want one now after reading this thread. But which one is best?

Just for the reminder to check what's cooking when I'm engrossed in MN and forget to check and it's burning

Out of interest, and a genuine question, do the people who object to Alexa on snooping issues also avoid iPhones (Siri is the same as Alexa) and Androids with voice activated assistants?

Alexa is only in my home. My iPhone is on or near my person nearly 24/7, not only has the ability to hear my speech but see what I type to friends / look up online and tracks my location.

I think Google is pretty questionable with snooping and uses all our data for commercial gain. Do you avoid Google too?

If not, how do qualify one and not the other?

And what about social media? It’s becoming much clearer they’re not some young friendly students just trying to connect people. Do those who object to Alexa avoid all social media, too?

Personally, I have Alexa but no social at all anymore (deleted FB in 2010 and Twitter and Insta last month, even deleted donkeys old Goodreads and Vimeo accounts. A proper purge!) so I’m by no way implying it’s one route or the other, just intrigued to know what qualifies one as okay and another as not.

VW81 - my point exactly! At least Alexa doesn't advertise to me or make me listen to political party broadcasts for UKIP (never say never, but if she did she'd go the way of my Spotify account)

People complaining about alexa using mumsnet, a company that uses targeted ads paid for by companies, offers surveys for us to fill out that are sent to companies all about our lives, a company that can track everything you post and say here, a company that can send your details to any third party if it so wishes.

Finally, (last one...) if Alexa objectors have social media do you share personal details there? Messages to friends? Or selfies, or pictures of your kids.

Photos of us can often tell as much about us and our lifestyles and beliefs as our words can.

Personally, I’ve never uploaded a selfie or a picture of my kid or others’ kids as they can’t consent and it’s their life being uploaded without their consent. I also banned my siblings from sharing pictures of my kid (much to my social loving brother’s frustration).

I know I’m the outsider here. Most people are happy to share their lives and their kid’s lives on social.

However I ask as I’m interested, how do Alexa objectors qualify one and not the other?

Again, as with my other posts, I get that it’s possible to pick and choose between equally invasive forms of tech. I’m just curious to know why Alexa seems to get the majority of objections when (I think) other everyday tech does the same thing.

Bluntness I don't know why you're now trying to argue that it's technically unfeasible. The government won't need to "invest billions" or create "huge infrastructure" because intercepting some data over the cloud is doable with the same technology and infrastructure they already use to track your web history, read your, emails, facebook messages, text messages, etc. Chances are high that they are already doing it, if any criminals or terrorists are stupid enough to have Alexa.

If you don't care about the government potentially being able to see, hearand track your entire life and build a profile of you based on your shopping and credit history, web browsing history, the people you communicate with, where you go, what you say in your own home, etc. then fine. That's your choice. But are you really trying to say you can't even understand why some people are uncomfortable with that?

@Cuttingthegrass I got the full size echo. It's £54.99 at present. I'm getting my kids Dots for Christmas.

Alexa just found and is playing an album by Jane Wiedlin, a singer I loved in my angst ridden teenage years and haven't heard in years. She's worth every penny for that alone

However I ask as I’m interested, how do Alexa objectors qualify one and not the other?

For me, it's just a balance between what I want/need in my life enough to sacrifice some of my privacy. So although Alexa does admittedly sound like a lot of fun (and kind of useful in some cases, like shopping lists and reminders, etc.), for me I can live without it enough to get it.

I don't have any social media profile and my closest friends all know I don't want them putting pictures of my kids on theirs (I told them early because some of them post selfies and crap like that daily).

I do use email and the internet (obviously!) because it would be hard to live without it!

FranciscoGoya so nosey Google is okay because the rewards are great enough for the loss but nosey Alexa is a no because the rewards aren’t great enough? Totally no judgement in my summary as that’s exactly how I choose, too!

However, that last para sounds as if Bluntness should be bothered by that tracking but it’s the same tracking happening to both of us as we type here and do so many other everyday things, every day, such as use a smart phone / order online / have our smart phone near us / use social / use banks / use loyalty cards.

I totally agree each to their own decisions but there is a logical inconsistency in okaying one and not the other without acknowledging some form of subjectivity (such as the rewards are worth it for some but not others).

Unless of course those Alexa objectors are typing on Mumsnet on a secure phone / computer, on a secure network in a secure location. And certainly don’t use Gmail, another mainstream email account, or Google.

Bluntness I don't know why you're now trying to argue that it's technically unfeasible

I suspect you're being deliberately obtuse because you are unable to answer the question. I have stated all along it's tech feasible. But the amount of storage and infrastructure required to manage the level of data we are talking about, and extract anything useful from it would be enormous and cost billions.

The question remains, what will they get from listening in 24/7 to people's homes, that they can't already get from bank accounts, phones, social media, internet, on line purchases etc? What would they get from committing this huge human rights abuse, breaking many many laws, investing a huge amount of our tax dollars to do it, that they can't already get?

Anyone?

Given that if I search something in google on my computer, targeted ads come up on other social media sites I visit, I'm not keen on having something 'second guess' what I may or may not want in other areas.
As I said before, a friend has one. He'd not told her to do anything yet (he was on the phone to me) but she started talking to him. He'd not said the word "Alexa".

I am not scared of smart devices, but I value my privacy. I won't buy one for the same reason I cover my windows with curtains: of course most people don't stare through other people's windows, and they wouldn't find it fascinating if they did. But I want to relax in my own home and know that no one is, or could be, watching me.
An Alexa is not comparable to the kind of information a bank can gather from a bank account, the possibilities of misuse are huge.
I am also reluctant to give up my personal data because huge corporations are making money with it while I don't get paid at all.
Besides, all of Alexa's features are superfluous. It's just a toy I would get bored of after a day.
So no, I am not "scared" of smart devices.

He'd not told her to do anything yet (he was on the phone to me) but she started talking to him. He'd not said the word "Alexa"

That's not even logical. You don't tell Alexa not to do anything yet. It does nothing unless you tell it to.

Where as of course he could say something that sounded like Alexa and it woke up, all it would say is sorry I'm not sure and shut down again if there was no command.

An Alexa is not comparable to the kind of information a bank can gather from a bank account, the possibilities of misuse are huge

How. And it's not just banking, it's phone, email, internet, online shopping, social media the lot. So how ?

And I assume if you don't want to think no one is watching you at home, you don't go on line? You don't mumsnet at home? You don't use your phone?

I suspect you're being deliberately obtuse

It's you that's being obtuse, but I'm becoming less and less sure that it's deliberate. You just said "it's tech feasible" and then basically listed reasons why it's not. For a start, they wouldn't have to store all the data. There goes your theory of needing huge data storage.

I totally agree each to their own decisions but there is a logical inconsistency in okaying one and not the other without acknowledging some form of subjectivity (such as the rewards are worth it for some but not others)

That's why I have acknowledged the subjective nature of these decisions the entire time.

However, that last para sounds as if Bluntness should be bothered by that tracking but it’s the same tracking happening to both of us as we type here and do so many other everyday things, every day, such as use a smart phone / order online / have our smart phone near us / use social / use banks / use loyalty cards.

Not at all, I've said repeatedly that whether people are bothered by it or not is personal choice. My only argument has been with people (or maybe just one person, I can't remember now) acting like they can't understand why giving away more and more of our privacy every day might worry some people. As if it's just totally incomprehensible.

It's like saying I would accept the government installing cctv in my toilet if they promise not to record it (storing all that data would be too expensive after all) and they would only watch it live if they believe I'm guilty of a crime. I mean, why would they want to watch me on the toilet anyway, right? I'm a law-abiding citizen!

But I still wouldn't want them to do it! The potential for misuse and abuse would freak me out. Everybody has different levels of what they would and would not accept. Clearly for some people, Alexa crosses that line, for others it does not.

FranciscoGoya I get all of that. I think my feeling is that when you say ‘for some people, Alexa crosses that line’, that line has already been crossed by Gmail, Google, social (for those who use it), and the internet generally.

I was just chatting to my very techy bro about it and he said, ‘so if you aren't using some disposable computer you wipe constantly then you've already lost the [data] battle’.

Again, I get we can all choose who to give the data to (I hate Facebook but love WhatsApp. Go figure!) but pretty much the data I’m giving is the same. The only difference is what I feel I’m getting in return.

This all said, I didn’t mean to contribute to any online anger or frustration. For me, one good thing to come out of Brexit and Trump is I’ve learned that online battles and general fury only ends badly for everyone. We never convince anyone by shouting at them. So peace, love and harmony. I was asking the questions out of a genuine interest and I think I’ve got an answer.

It has spurred a new question that maybe the fears around Alexa / other home devices are greater than for other equally invasive tech because of the voice. It’s more human and like a robot from the movies and we’ve been trained by films to be terrified of / threatened by robots. However, that is for another day. I’ve already given mumsnet, Apple and Chrome enough of my personal data for this morning.

You just said "it's tech feasible" and then basically listed reasons why it's not. For a start, they wouldn't have to store all the data. There goes your theory of needing huge data storage

No. Feasible means possible in this scenario for me. I think what you mean is do we currently have the capability. And the answer to that is no, I don't think the government currently does have the capability to manage and store the level of data that's being discussed here. Is it feasible they could invest and become capable. Absolutely I believe it is. But the cost would be enormous.

In addition, still no one has answered my question, what would the government get from doing this that they cannot already gain from harvesting other data repositories ie banks, online accounts, social media, phone, emails, internet history etc?

What would be the reward which would make the British government, or any western government for that matter want to break so many laws, commit so many human rights abuses, invest so much of our tax money that they would move to hook up with amazon and start monitoring their citizens in their own homes to this extent?

If you genuinely believe they may do it, they you must understand why you think they woild do it, and what they could gain from this mass monitoring that they cannot already gain today.

I think my feeling is that when you say ‘for some people, Alexa crosses that line’, that line has already been crossed by Gmail, Google, social (for those who use it), and the internet generally

I respectfully disagree with you and your brother. Of course a line has to be drawn somewhere. You're just telling me that you draw it in a different place than I do.

(I hate Facebook but love WhatsApp. Go figure!)

To be fair, facebook invades your privacy far, far more than whatsapp does (for now). People probably should move over to a more secure messaging service soon though. This is a good article on how shit facebook are:

www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2018/09/26/exclusive-whatsapp-cofounder-brian-acton-gives-the-inside-story-on-deletefacebook-and-why-he-left-850-million-behind/

Insane. None of these reasons have convinced me that there's any point at all getting Alexa.You can look out of the window to see what the weather's up to. You can look up other things. You can talk to your family...

Bluntness this will be my last reply to you because it feels like I'm banging my head against a brick wall.

And the answer to that is no, I don't think the government currently does have the capability to manage and store the level of data that's being discussed here

Like I said, they don't have to store all data. So that's not an issue.

In addition, still no one has answered my question, what would the government get from doing this that they cannot already gain from harvesting other data repositories ie banks, online accounts, social media, phone, emails, internet history etc?

That's like asking why would they monitor your facebook messages if they can already monitor your email? If somebody wants to monitor you, they'll do so by as many means as possible. So the idea is just to give them less means where possible.

What would be the reward which would make the British government, or any western government for that matter want to break so many laws, commit so many human rights abuses, invest so much of our tax money that they would move to hook up with amazon and start monitoring their citizens in their own homes to this extent?

1. They wouldn't have to hook up with amazon. They didn't hook up with any social media, email or internet provider to hack into all that stuff. They just do it "covertly" and justify it under national security.

2. You obviously are very trusting on what "Western" governments will do in the name of national security, and how leaders like Trump can take small steps to erode your freedom and privacy over time . Given the direction politics is heading worldwide, there is clearly a potential for abuse in the future.

If you genuinely believe they may do it, they you must understand why you think they woild do it, and what they could gain from this mass monitoring that they cannot already gain today

They could, for example, identify people they see as troublesome and then monitor their home to listen in for keywords (much as they do with phone taps). Maybe you're cool with that if you're not talking about anything interesting anyway, but as I said above, there is potential for abuse and there is also potential for the government to change what they define as "troublesome" or illegal in the future.

Ok then we do have to agree to disagree. I do think for some point in time they have to store the data, even if for a short period. And personally if they think a potential terrorist is using Alexa and they can listen in I'm all for it. If that means they mistakenly listen into me by mistake and hear me and my husband discussing master chef, I've no issue with that.

You have hedged round rhe question of what they could get, simply said it's another means of monitoring. And that's ok. I get it. You are scared the British government will start monitoring people in their own homes. Be it labour, Tory, whatever, you feel this is a very real risk. You are however comfortable enough with them possibly monitoring your social media, internet usage, you're emails, phone records, bank accounts etc becayse the reward for you in terms of easy life justifies it.

I don't have any concerns and see no risk So I shall continue to enjoy using my echo dots. If I felt there was a risk. I would unplug them.

FranciscoGoya not a new message just a clarification, () Facebook owns WhatsApp, which is why I said ‘Go figure!’

So while I vehemently object to FB I’m still being subjective and inconsistent and giving FB loads of personal info because I haven’t found a better message service than WhatsApp.

As I have very honest chats on WhatsApp, WhatsApp must know far more about me than Alexa ever will.

Yeah I know, but they're still separate companies. Your whatsapp messages (for now!) are still encrypted and not readable to FB, so it's not the same as using their social network, which is basically a free-for-all. If you read the link I posted though, you'll see that FB are trying to make Whatsapp less private though, hence the "for now".