The time for regulating data collection for minors at a Federal level is now[1]. I went to purchase an Amazon Echo a couple of days ago, and was surprised to see the children's version on sale for less than the current Echo Dot. It's currently listed as unavailable[2], perhaps because of the findings explored in this article.
I wouldn't be surprised if they were trying to liquidate.
I think it was $39.95 for the children's version and $49.95 for the regular version.
There were a few pieces of dark UX/UI that hid a couple of very important differentiations that made me nope out.
1. The service automagically came with something called Amazon FreeTime[3]. It's advertised as free everything for your child; books, tv, music, etc. in exchange, of course it would kindly listen and "learn" to offer better things. Nope.
2. The device was last generation's hardware with a nice cover. It wasn't even technologically up to snuff with the current Echo Dot.
Basically I wrote it off as a kid's tracking and advertising device and purchased a regular new one.
> The time for regulating data collection for minors at a Federal level is now
Are you aware of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA)? It was passed in 1998, and this article specifically says that they believe Amazon is in violation of it.
I guess it wasn't clear that I was also implying there may be something wrong when one of the largest companies in the world can sell ?? number of devices aimed specifically at children, without this regulation being enforced/checked for ?? amount of time.
Either enforcement, or regulation failed. I think we've got a lot of mechanisms for enforcement, as this article is bringing light to the necessity of.
So, perhaps the aforementioned "regulation" is not enough, and properly written regulation that can be enforced with some regularity and haste is required considering this is for children.
> Basically I wrote it off as a kid's tracking and advertising device and purchased a regular new one. Glad my Spidey senses were tingling.
Do you actually believe the regular one will be much better with respect to tracking and advertising? I have no such confidence. I think they'll just categorize the use and still associate everything they do with children.
I mentioned the second point because it appeared, to me anyway, that this was a separate service aimed specifically at the children's device; separate from my already assessed knowledge of Amazon, AWS, Prime, and their other affiliated (and paid) offerings.
Uhhh, collecting, storing and trying to make profit with it at some point in time? I still wonder why people don't realise this when they buy such system, it's so obvious.
While it's easy to believe free services like Google are siphoning your data, it's harder to connect that a device you pay for is collecting and selling your data.
It shouldn't be. At this point you need a really good reason to assume a company isn't storing any information it can collect, whether they are monetizing it now or not.
It's been proven the information has value. Unless there's some regulation or contract preventing them from doing so, they're going to collect it in the vast majority of cases. Whether they already made money on a service getting the information is irrelevant.
I find the best way to convey to people the reason why these smart speakers and devices are so cheap, and seem to be on sale almost perpetually.
A growing number of smart devices are being sold at below-cost, using a combination of data harvesting, ads and a proprietary app/skills store to make a profit for the maker after the sale.
I am not for regulation normally, but I feel we may need to protect our personal data with some type of oversight. The amount of information and personal data these companies hold is frightening.
The price doesn't actually matter - if they can make more money with ads/data harvesting, they will. When has a corporation ever said no to free money?
Don't forget about the ginormous TCL Roku televisions with "opt-in" Active Content Recognition. Now everyone feels they can afford a 70" TV and don't think twice about it.
I think I am fully on-board with giving people the same option Kindle does:
* Offer price with view tracking
* Offer price without view tracking
I cannot argue that this shouldn't be clearly visible, and I think, for the benefit of the consumer this can't be a ridiculous matrix of all the different kinds of tracking. Opt-in or pay the higher price. That sounds fair. But "make it so no one can opt-in": no. That is oppressive nonsense from rich people who would go "How much does a TV cost, man? Ten thousand dollars? Just buy it."
Kindle offers advertisements at a discount. I purchased one such model.
AFAIK Amazon is not keeping a remote log of every file accessed on my Kindle. Can you point to something saying otherwise?
> I cannot argue that this shouldn't be clearly visible, and I think, for the benefit of the consumer this can't be a ridiculous matrix of all the different kinds of tracking.
Visibility isn't really an issue either way if it's achieved normality.
I said "like the Kindle" in that it's clearly advertised what you're getting in the two different flavours. I didn't mean they track you. I was hoping to emphasise the clarity.
It's necessary to educate people that while they're purchasing* the hardware, they're receiving the service "for free" (AKA, supported by ads in some way, shape, or form) via the hardware.
*purchasing may not even be fully accurate here since loads of companies are starting to treat it like a pay-once licensing fee allowing you to use hardware that they own in perpetuity or until that hardware is no longer supported by the manufacturer.
That’s true. I’m still having trouble internalizing that my multi-hundred-dollar Bose headphones are spying on me. I’ve yet to delete the app, though I should.
Honestly, this is past the shark-jumping point. When I saw that Bose thread yesterday, my initial reaction was "what in the actual fuck?!". I would have never expected a set of wireless headphones to spy on users. I thought this has optics way too close to actual wiretapping for companies to do that, but I guess I should never be surprised by how low adtech industry can get.
Agreed. Considering the headphones have a mic and are used -for sending and receiving the contents of actual phone calls- it’s hard for me to imagine how prying into their data isn’t wiretapping.
No, it isn’t. If people buy these products knowing the terms of the trade, that’s one thing. But a lot of people don’t. This is why we have disclosure regulations.
You know how FB can create shadow profiles of people that have never had an FB account but were tagged on photos or comments? Same principle applies.
You may not buy an Alexa speaker, but if you're in the room having a conversation with someone who does, your name and personal information could leak as well. Same goes if the conversation was on a phone loudspeaker.
The voice data would have limited usability in its present state, but as Alexa's network effects improve, the signal to noise ratio will only get better.
Kids have entered fake ages since the dawn of the Internet, because a lot of content that's interesting to teenagers - violence, nudity, drugs, offensive language - has law-mandated age restrictions.
Is there a good reason to put minors in a separate group here, aside from legal aspects or that it just 'feels' like a worse offense to the casual reader?
I ask because a lot of common arguments in this area don't seem to apply here that well. I'm not sure adults and adolescents on average have that much better of an understanding of how technology like this works in general (in terms of what is tracked and what your rights to that data are) - so mentioning that the kid didn't consent doesn't seem to change much, because adults using this technology don't understand what is being done behind the scenes either.
I saw an Echo Dot on sale at Krogers (supermarket, midwest US) for $20 today. No, I won't install any sort of 1984-level spy machines in or around my house.
But this is easily within 'mow a lawn' budget for a kid. If I was younger, I might have considered it for 'cool' factor. But there's no restriction at Kroger like there is for alcohol(21) or cigarettes(18) or cold pills(18). A 10 year old could buy it and leave the store...
And yet, this $20 purchase is more dangerous long-term than 3 packs of cigarettes, a bottle of whiskey, or 2 boxes of cold pills. The data is being used in unknown and likely very unethical ways. There's quite a few questions that could easily cause ramifications for decades down the line. Examples are:
1. Asking about drugs
2. Asking about child abuse
3. Talking about suicide
4. Expressing sentiment that is now or will be persecuted
5. Private conversations that were never meant heard by a 3rd party
That data will always be attributed to them, no matter how they try to shed from it. Who would Amazon 'share' it with? We have no clue; European rules would indicate they didn't have the rights to sell/share to begin with, but we US citizens have no such rights. And for that 10-15 year old, they could very well have the rest of their life to deal with that fallout.
Damn, I'm glad that my childhood didn't have cell phones, or all this spytech, or ubiquitous always-on-always-snooping computer platforms. I truly can't relate to what kids go through these days, with in-person AND online presence, being on the edge of a gen-x'er and millenial.
It is literally not more dangerous than three packs of ciggies. Are you kidding me? That is prima facie ludicrous and you have to present pretty strong evidence of that.
My childhood had append-only bulletin boards and I put a lot of stuff in there that I am never going to delete. Guess what? I'm fine. And have been for twenty years.
On the other hand, getting off cigarettes changed my fucking life. Jesus Christ. "Worse than 3 packs of cigarettes."
I would agree by far that being addicted to nicotine and smoking cigarettes is terrifically deleterious. But I said only 3 packs. Not 4, not 5, or more.
> "My childhood had append-only bulletin boards and I put a lot of stuff in there that I am never going to delete. Guess what? I'm fine. And have been for twenty years."
How many of those had geospacial data, telemetry, chat logs, real names policy, email logs, and more attributed to you?
Kids these days do have all of that. We never did.
Perhaps if you'll help me understand what 'dangerous' means to you here. I will wager⁰ $1000 that if there were two kids of equivalent lives and you give one an Echo and the other 3 packs of cigarettes, boy 2 will die earlier, have a lower quality of life throughout, and have a higher likelihood of drug abuse.
Geospatial data, telemetry, chat logs, real names, email logs (we had that one, it's all our mailing list stuff). That is nothing in the face of burning tar in your lungs. I will wager actual money down on this. If you're in SF, I will send someone to meet you or your equivalent representative, with a contract you may discuss with him.
0: In fact, the $1k is intentionally low to encourage you to participate. I will do $10k. I am very convinced of my thesis: introduction to cigarettes is far more dangerous than introduction to voice assistants and will continue to be far more dangerous for the remainder of the century.
And I’d join you! But that is insufficient to dismiss OP’s claim as prima facie invalid. Mental health risks are real. And the chances of getting addicted to nicotine from a couple packs are small enough so as to be, prima facie, comparable to the risks of long-term mental health issues from the use of voice assistants.
We don’t have the data. OP’s claim and implied question are valid.
All right, name your terms. Are you in San Francisco?
I am going to win this bet. Easiest money I ever made. I just want to see if he'll stick to his guns when he has skin in the game. His claim is so patently ridiculous that he'd be throwing money away by taking the bet.
I said I’d join you, not that I’d bet against you. My claim is simply that the counterclaim to yours is valid. Just because I won’t bet for something doesn’t mean it isn’t worth discussing.
The vitriol with which this argument has been met shows, at some level, it’s validity as an item of controversy.
GP has a point; the primary health damage of smoking is from long-term use; of drinking, from long-term use, overdose, and mistakes made while intoxicated. 3 packs of cigarettes alone won't hurt anyone, as can be attested by probably a good half of the population of any western country (teenage smoking is a thing).
Your append-only bulletins weren't routinely processed at scale by morally bankrupt third parties with monetary interest to abuse what they find.
Let's say there are 100 kids in a school. You have $2000 dollars and you give fifty of them 3 packs of cigarettes and the other fifty Echo Dots. You follow them fifty years. You predict that the ones with Echo Dots will have worse lives than the ones with the cigarettes?
I just want to make sure I understand your assertion here. It's obvious to me no IRB would allow this study because they'd immediately realize the danger of the cigarettes not because of the Echos that are being presented as this massive risk.
Honestly, hard to say. You make a good point putting it like that; I guess I'm not so sure about relative dangers, mostly because for all its data collection, adtech is currently still quite bad at targeted manipulation of individuals.
I don't expect too many kids in such experiment to get addicted to smoking if they weren't smoking already (really, I'd expect trade to happen, with the usual smokers getting all the cigarettes from other kids, but let's exclude that). Assuming the government doesn't go on a totalitarian frenzy and assuming ad targeting doesn't improve much, I'd expect slightly larger average spending in the homes of kids with Echo Dots.
The risks with data collection increase with how low you think advertisers can go, and whether or not the government would be interested in acquiring and using that data for nefarious purposes. You could say this is arguing hypothetical, but they're not without historical precedents.
> Let's say there are 100 kids in a school. You have $2000 dollars and you give fifty of them 3 packs of cigarettes and the other fifty Echo Dots. You follow them fifty years. You predict that the ones with Echo Dots will have worse lives than the ones with the cigarettes?
Yes. I believe that this social media phenomenon will have even greater negative impact than even tobacco does. And yes, I accept the mountains of research of how dangerous tobacco is. I think this data gathering of everything and everyone will amount to worse than even tobacco.
The trends I'm extrapolating and see, even from 2012-2019, shows me that the voluminous mounds of data we leave is 'toxic'. Things people have said even earlier on have come back to seriously bite people hard. And we're seeing the old power upended for what amounts to mob rule. Except, this mob isn't a group of 30 people, but instead is millions filling the air with hate and bile.
The real toxicity of this data isn't mob rule though. Mob rule is quick and firey, and dies down. It's from long-term data acquisition from sensors we traditionally thought to be innocuous, sales data from credit cards, grocery stores, and similar, vehicle sensors, cheaper health detection checks (but not cheaper health), DNA classification, social media of all types, and more.
Whomever controls all that data can make more informed opinions about people than the people themselves can. The mound of that could be used to determine who gets best health, the best jobs, ability to run for office, who gets loans and for how much, and more. Just controlling the money and who gets the best health treatment then determines longevity.
Now obviously, this data has been collected for some time. However, it's only been since mid 2000's did we regularly carry dumb cell phones. 2012 was that magical year in which full stack smartphones (computers with a range of sensors) were introduced and really 'stuck'. Yes, there was blackberry, windows phone 6, and a few others, but they didn't win like apple/google did.
This data, and the cultures of the USA, I believe will entrench a caste-like system. And data will be the ever-present threat. I know when I was in elementary and middle school, there was always this threat of "it will go on your (booming voice) permanent record". Yeah, sure, but not really. In hindsight, the permanent record is much wider than that; my medical history, my education, my comments that ive said semi-privately on the internet, text messages, google services, my cell phone, etc. I know because of the ACA and pre-existing conditions amendment that my diabetes diagnosis isn't a 'no more insurance forever' sentence. But the rest? I don't see my data being good for me in nearly any way.
Data can be extracted and saved for a lifetime, consent or not. And we just entered this always-on digital age around 2012-2013.
We know the dangers of using tobacco. We know the dangers of alcohol. And we know the dangers of cold pills (even if they aren't normally abused).
We have no ideas about the longterm dangers of massive data collections. And I would posit that what we currently know about the abuses of data, that it is more dangerous than the aforementioned things. Most of what we have to look forward to is fiction books and tv shows and movies.
Why? The actuarial effects of 3 packs of cigarettes and a bottle of whiskey are virtually negligible. (No clue with cold pills.) The damage is in at the edge (addiction and overdose). The downsides of voice assistants are similar (negligibly bad on average and potentially deadly on the edge cases.)
Put simply, the mental health risks with voice assistants (with respect to a developing mind) is analogous to the health risks from cigarette use. And just like a bottle of whiskey could be someone’s last, voice assistants could e.g. disclose a teenager’s sexual orientation to a violently-inclined and medievally-minded parent.
If adults don't understand the technology and kids don't consent, isn't that exactly a scenario where we should at least protect the children, given that its widely accepted in most countries that children can't actually enter commercial relationships on their own?
While protecting the kids would be nice, it results in a large inconsistency to apply it here, given the level of control we allow parents to have over their kids in many areas. For example, parents have near-complete jurisdiction over the diet of their children and can therefore cause significant health issues at their own discretion (or just due to lack of nutritional knowledge). This is (at least at the current moment) a significantly larger issue for kids than if Amazon has personal data on them or not. Accordingly, it seems strange for us to want the government to intervene with respect to data on children, but not with respect to a child's diet.
I said 'near-complete' in attempt to include edge cases. Most parents definitely make their own decisions as to what to feed their kids rather than letting the government make them, just as they decide what to teach their kids.
> If adults don't understand the technology and kids don't consent, isn't that exactly a scenario where we should at least protect the children, given that its widely accepted in most countries that children can't actually enter commercial relationships on their own?
Or more accurately kids can't consent. This is the argument I've used for my kids against family members who had a hard time understanding not plastering them on social media. Basically we told everyone in the family that our kids images, names, DoB, whereabouts and anything else about them should not be posted in any form or fashion. I'd then go on to position it from my kids point of view: what if they don't consent later in life and those posts somehow impact them negatively at that time? Do you [family member] want to take on that you were the only one to choose for them? I am their custodian and doing my due diligence to keep their digital footprint to a minimum until they have the capacity to make those choices on their own behalf. I feel like there are lawsuits all around this that will be cropping up in the next decade which may shy people away from the unfiltered social media perspective many run with today.
OTOH, if you are plastering yourself all over social media and other kids parents are doing the same with their children, not including your child in your posts can feel extremely alienating to them, and make them feel like you do not care about them or want to be seen with them. And when they grow up, they may resent you for not even putting up even one picture of them with you.
The moral of that story is to beware: kids may not always share your values and by doing what you think is best you may be doing harm. They may not understand consent, but they will understand what it looks like when a parent doesn’t give a shit about them.
If you talk to your kids they are surprisingly intelligent and can comprehend this. I do my best to bridge the line of alienation and acceptable use of technology which leverages other forms of inclusion and sharing that doesn't require Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, etc.
And to your point, kids don't always share values of the parent which is why they don't have final say. Your implication that a parent that does more to protect their child "doesn't give a shit about them" clearly showcases your agenda and/or unfounded assertion.
The video shows that data wasn't deleted on the Echo Dot even after a parent tried to delete it. Which is bad. (Though there's a bigger point they are making— that parents should be able to control privacy for their children, not Amazon.)
The "think of the children" nonsense was so annoying as a child. Paternalistic bullshit that tried to stop me from using the Internet meaningfully. Fortunately, everyone decided to comply with pointless age gates and, as a child, I had a full and complete experience.
I'm a well-balanced individual now and I always wondered how people who were once kids and had loads of fun would lock down shit to other kids when they grew older.
Now I see this shit live. We used to think it was the previous generation that mollycoddled kids and instead we now have the perpetual hovermom because people are flipping out over this "think of the children" crap.
Imagine if I had had to have had an ID mailed in to register on sites just to discuss sci-fi just because someone might mention sex there. Wow, not living in America, I might never have even been able to discuss anything.
Children are under our protection, and don't yet have full rights. It's annoying to tweens, but not a bad thing.
Personally due to age I didn't get on the internet until age ~25 or so. And what I saw there I'll never "unsee" if you catch my drift. Would I choose expose that to my ten year old self now? Definitely not. It's just not necessary.
We may have survived intact, but the better question is, was it beneficial to you? I can't say that seeing those things at ten would have improved my life in any meaningful way. Didn't even mention the predator angle, while overblown, is a thing. Data harvesting FTW.
Of course "less is more" for everyone else. That's been the mantra of every group of people restricting rights to individuals. "Don't play video games. It'll make you violent" ; "You can't watch that movie. It'll make you a rapist" ; "Don't read that book. It'll turn you into a traitor"
No, thanks. I had the Internet from the time I was 10. It made me the capable person I am, gave me the incredible career I have today, and showed me all the things I could become. Horizons were crossed that I never dreamed possible. Many of the people I knew never saw these things and they would kill to have my life. I am absolutely committed to a free and open Internet.
Of course, the puritans are against this. The puritans are establishmentarians and authoritarians. You can never do anything because they're protecting you. Oh so very precious, the protection. No, enough with the shackles. The next generation has a right to grow without you cutting their legs out from under them.
Oh please, we're talking about children, not adults.
As I said I got on the internet at 25 and had a front row seat to the explosion of the web. Took to it like a duck to water. Considering all the time wasted, I didn't miss a thing waiting. It didn't harm me one bit.
You know what else I did in my twenties? Saw the world. Was much more compelling than online friends can ever be. Recommended.
You sound young, give it time and your perspective will change.
Are you trying to act sophisticated and condescending on the Internet? The added perspective of your travels should have taught you not to do that, surely.
My poor mother bought all of her adult children smart speakers for Christmas. None of us accepted them. People just don't realize what's going on behind the scenes.
Heh. My mom did the same thing a couple of years ago—the Google Home Mini.
We played some trivia for a while but it sits there unplugged until we want to use it... which is rarely. The last time has to have been over a year ago...
The fruit basket is the weirdest one. WTF could it be? Do you have any link to where you can get one, or any more information on it? Sounds like a fun writeup.
That is paranoid and absurd. It's much more likely that the person "reviewing the audio data for quality assurance" will be some gig economy worker hired through Mechanical Turk.
If anything I think adults should be more concerned about their own privacy than kids. WGAF that Uncle Sam/Aunt Madison Ave knows that Timmy binged 10 episodes of Spongebob. Adults on the other hand have more damaging secrets like affairs or confidential technical knowledge.
I kinda get that you don't want AI to learn how to manipulate kids but still this is a larger concern than just 'think of the children'.
86 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 356 ms ] threadI wouldn't be surprised if they were trying to liquidate.
I think it was $39.95 for the children's version and $49.95 for the regular version.
There were a few pieces of dark UX/UI that hid a couple of very important differentiations that made me nope out.
1. The service automagically came with something called Amazon FreeTime[3]. It's advertised as free everything for your child; books, tv, music, etc. in exchange, of course it would kindly listen and "learn" to offer better things. Nope.
2. The device was last generation's hardware with a nice cover. It wasn't even technologically up to snuff with the current Echo Dot.
Basically I wrote it off as a kid's tracking and advertising device and purchased a regular new one.
Glad my Spidey senses were tingling.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising_to_children#Histor...
[2] - https://www.amazon.com/Echo-Kids-smart-speaker-Alexa/dp/B077...
[3] - https://www.amazon.com/Amazon-FreeTime-Unlimited-Monthly-Sub...
Are you aware of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA)? It was passed in 1998, and this article specifically says that they believe Amazon is in violation of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children's_Online_Privacy_Prot...
I guess it wasn't clear that I was also implying there may be something wrong when one of the largest companies in the world can sell ?? number of devices aimed specifically at children, without this regulation being enforced/checked for ?? amount of time.
Either enforcement, or regulation failed. I think we've got a lot of mechanisms for enforcement, as this article is bringing light to the necessity of.
So, perhaps the aforementioned "regulation" is not enough, and properly written regulation that can be enforced with some regularity and haste is required considering this is for children.
Do you actually believe the regular one will be much better with respect to tracking and advertising? I have no such confidence. I think they'll just categorize the use and still associate everything they do with children.
Uhhh, collecting, storing and trying to make profit with it at some point in time? I still wonder why people don't realise this when they buy such system, it's so obvious.
It's been proven the information has value. Unless there's some regulation or contract preventing them from doing so, they're going to collect it in the vast majority of cases. Whether they already made money on a service getting the information is irrelevant.
A growing number of smart devices are being sold at below-cost, using a combination of data harvesting, ads and a proprietary app/skills store to make a profit for the maker after the sale.
(Yes it happens but it's damn rare)
I can afford tons of things when they are subsidized. That's why coal, etc. still seem so sustainable and we think we can afford them as well.
* Offer price with view tracking
* Offer price without view tracking
I cannot argue that this shouldn't be clearly visible, and I think, for the benefit of the consumer this can't be a ridiculous matrix of all the different kinds of tracking. Opt-in or pay the higher price. That sounds fair. But "make it so no one can opt-in": no. That is oppressive nonsense from rich people who would go "How much does a TV cost, man? Ten thousand dollars? Just buy it."
AFAIK Amazon is not keeping a remote log of every file accessed on my Kindle. Can you point to something saying otherwise?
> I cannot argue that this shouldn't be clearly visible, and I think, for the benefit of the consumer this can't be a ridiculous matrix of all the different kinds of tracking.
Visibility isn't really an issue either way if it's achieved normality.
If they ever start watching anti-government propaganda, the government will know.
We've all read 1984. We know what happens.
1984 was the mid 20th century take. I'm pretty sure any current take would be focused on people's desire for authoritarianism.
It's an education problem. Pointing at an ignorant man and then claiming he should get what he desires is ridiculous.
*purchasing may not even be fully accurate here since loads of companies are starting to treat it like a pay-once licensing fee allowing you to use hardware that they own in perpetuity or until that hardware is no longer supported by the manufacturer.
Are these people unaware or fanboys?
No, it isn’t. If people buy these products knowing the terms of the trade, that’s one thing. But a lot of people don’t. This is why we have disclosure regulations.
You may not buy an Alexa speaker, but if you're in the room having a conversation with someone who does, your name and personal information could leak as well. Same goes if the conversation was on a phone loudspeaker.
The voice data would have limited usability in its present state, but as Alexa's network effects improve, the signal to noise ratio will only get better.
I ask because a lot of common arguments in this area don't seem to apply here that well. I'm not sure adults and adolescents on average have that much better of an understanding of how technology like this works in general (in terms of what is tracked and what your rights to that data are) - so mentioning that the kid didn't consent doesn't seem to change much, because adults using this technology don't understand what is being done behind the scenes either.
But this is easily within 'mow a lawn' budget for a kid. If I was younger, I might have considered it for 'cool' factor. But there's no restriction at Kroger like there is for alcohol(21) or cigarettes(18) or cold pills(18). A 10 year old could buy it and leave the store...
And yet, this $20 purchase is more dangerous long-term than 3 packs of cigarettes, a bottle of whiskey, or 2 boxes of cold pills. The data is being used in unknown and likely very unethical ways. There's quite a few questions that could easily cause ramifications for decades down the line. Examples are:
That data will always be attributed to them, no matter how they try to shed from it. Who would Amazon 'share' it with? We have no clue; European rules would indicate they didn't have the rights to sell/share to begin with, but we US citizens have no such rights. And for that 10-15 year old, they could very well have the rest of their life to deal with that fallout.Damn, I'm glad that my childhood didn't have cell phones, or all this spytech, or ubiquitous always-on-always-snooping computer platforms. I truly can't relate to what kids go through these days, with in-person AND online presence, being on the edge of a gen-x'er and millenial.
My childhood had append-only bulletin boards and I put a lot of stuff in there that I am never going to delete. Guess what? I'm fine. And have been for twenty years.
On the other hand, getting off cigarettes changed my fucking life. Jesus Christ. "Worse than 3 packs of cigarettes."
I would agree by far that being addicted to nicotine and smoking cigarettes is terrifically deleterious. But I said only 3 packs. Not 4, not 5, or more.
And with https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1117323/ , 3 packs is 60 cigs at a total of "11 hours" shortened lifespan.
> "My childhood had append-only bulletin boards and I put a lot of stuff in there that I am never going to delete. Guess what? I'm fine. And have been for twenty years."
How many of those had geospacial data, telemetry, chat logs, real names policy, email logs, and more attributed to you?
Kids these days do have all of that. We never did.
Geospatial data, telemetry, chat logs, real names, email logs (we had that one, it's all our mailing list stuff). That is nothing in the face of burning tar in your lungs. I will wager actual money down on this. If you're in SF, I will send someone to meet you or your equivalent representative, with a contract you may discuss with him.
0: In fact, the $1k is intentionally low to encourage you to participate. I will do $10k. I am very convinced of my thesis: introduction to cigarettes is far more dangerous than introduction to voice assistants and will continue to be far more dangerous for the remainder of the century.
And I’d join you! But that is insufficient to dismiss OP’s claim as prima facie invalid. Mental health risks are real. And the chances of getting addicted to nicotine from a couple packs are small enough so as to be, prima facie, comparable to the risks of long-term mental health issues from the use of voice assistants.
We don’t have the data. OP’s claim and implied question are valid.
I am going to win this bet. Easiest money I ever made. I just want to see if he'll stick to his guns when he has skin in the game. His claim is so patently ridiculous that he'd be throwing money away by taking the bet.
I said I’d join you, not that I’d bet against you. My claim is simply that the counterclaim to yours is valid. Just because I won’t bet for something doesn’t mean it isn’t worth discussing.
The vitriol with which this argument has been met shows, at some level, it’s validity as an item of controversy.
I don't agree with the second bit about valid controversy but it's not worth arguing.
Your append-only bulletins weren't routinely processed at scale by morally bankrupt third parties with monetary interest to abuse what they find.
I just want to make sure I understand your assertion here. It's obvious to me no IRB would allow this study because they'd immediately realize the danger of the cigarettes not because of the Echos that are being presented as this massive risk.
I don't expect too many kids in such experiment to get addicted to smoking if they weren't smoking already (really, I'd expect trade to happen, with the usual smokers getting all the cigarettes from other kids, but let's exclude that). Assuming the government doesn't go on a totalitarian frenzy and assuming ad targeting doesn't improve much, I'd expect slightly larger average spending in the homes of kids with Echo Dots.
The risks with data collection increase with how low you think advertisers can go, and whether or not the government would be interested in acquiring and using that data for nefarious purposes. You could say this is arguing hypothetical, but they're not without historical precedents.
Yes. I believe that this social media phenomenon will have even greater negative impact than even tobacco does. And yes, I accept the mountains of research of how dangerous tobacco is. I think this data gathering of everything and everyone will amount to worse than even tobacco.
The trends I'm extrapolating and see, even from 2012-2019, shows me that the voluminous mounds of data we leave is 'toxic'. Things people have said even earlier on have come back to seriously bite people hard. And we're seeing the old power upended for what amounts to mob rule. Except, this mob isn't a group of 30 people, but instead is millions filling the air with hate and bile.
The real toxicity of this data isn't mob rule though. Mob rule is quick and firey, and dies down. It's from long-term data acquisition from sensors we traditionally thought to be innocuous, sales data from credit cards, grocery stores, and similar, vehicle sensors, cheaper health detection checks (but not cheaper health), DNA classification, social media of all types, and more.
Whomever controls all that data can make more informed opinions about people than the people themselves can. The mound of that could be used to determine who gets best health, the best jobs, ability to run for office, who gets loans and for how much, and more. Just controlling the money and who gets the best health treatment then determines longevity.
Now obviously, this data has been collected for some time. However, it's only been since mid 2000's did we regularly carry dumb cell phones. 2012 was that magical year in which full stack smartphones (computers with a range of sensors) were introduced and really 'stuck'. Yes, there was blackberry, windows phone 6, and a few others, but they didn't win like apple/google did.
This data, and the cultures of the USA, I believe will entrench a caste-like system. And data will be the ever-present threat. I know when I was in elementary and middle school, there was always this threat of "it will go on your (booming voice) permanent record". Yeah, sure, but not really. In hindsight, the permanent record is much wider than that; my medical history, my education, my comments that ive said semi-privately on the internet, text messages, google services, my cell phone, etc. I know because of the ACA and pre-existing conditions amendment that my diabetes diagnosis isn't a 'no more insurance forever' sentence. But the rest? I don't see my data being good for me in nearly any way.
What a ridiculously silly thing to say. It's such an absurd statement that I don't even need to elaborate.
Data can be extracted and saved for a lifetime, consent or not. And we just entered this always-on digital age around 2012-2013.
We know the dangers of using tobacco. We know the dangers of alcohol. And we know the dangers of cold pills (even if they aren't normally abused).
We have no ideas about the longterm dangers of massive data collections. And I would posit that what we currently know about the abuses of data, that it is more dangerous than the aforementioned things. Most of what we have to look forward to is fiction books and tv shows and movies.
Why? The actuarial effects of 3 packs of cigarettes and a bottle of whiskey are virtually negligible. (No clue with cold pills.) The damage is in at the edge (addiction and overdose). The downsides of voice assistants are similar (negligibly bad on average and potentially deadly on the edge cases.)
Put simply, the mental health risks with voice assistants (with respect to a developing mind) is analogous to the health risks from cigarette use. And just like a bottle of whiskey could be someone’s last, voice assistants could e.g. disclose a teenager’s sexual orientation to a violently-inclined and medievally-minded parent.
Or more accurately kids can't consent. This is the argument I've used for my kids against family members who had a hard time understanding not plastering them on social media. Basically we told everyone in the family that our kids images, names, DoB, whereabouts and anything else about them should not be posted in any form or fashion. I'd then go on to position it from my kids point of view: what if they don't consent later in life and those posts somehow impact them negatively at that time? Do you [family member] want to take on that you were the only one to choose for them? I am their custodian and doing my due diligence to keep their digital footprint to a minimum until they have the capacity to make those choices on their own behalf. I feel like there are lawsuits all around this that will be cropping up in the next decade which may shy people away from the unfiltered social media perspective many run with today.
The moral of that story is to beware: kids may not always share your values and by doing what you think is best you may be doing harm. They may not understand consent, but they will understand what it looks like when a parent doesn’t give a shit about them.
And to your point, kids don't always share values of the parent which is why they don't have final say. Your implication that a parent that does more to protect their child "doesn't give a shit about them" clearly showcases your agenda and/or unfounded assertion.
Pushing for children protection first would not be wrong, but would be counter productive.
The video shows that data wasn't deleted on the Echo Dot even after a parent tried to delete it. Which is bad. (Though there's a bigger point they are making— that parents should be able to control privacy for their children, not Amazon.)
I'm a well-balanced individual now and I always wondered how people who were once kids and had loads of fun would lock down shit to other kids when they grew older.
Now I see this shit live. We used to think it was the previous generation that mollycoddled kids and instead we now have the perpetual hovermom because people are flipping out over this "think of the children" crap.
Imagine if I had had to have had an ID mailed in to register on sites just to discuss sci-fi just because someone might mention sex there. Wow, not living in America, I might never have even been able to discuss anything.
Personally due to age I didn't get on the internet until age ~25 or so. And what I saw there I'll never "unsee" if you catch my drift. Would I choose expose that to my ten year old self now? Definitely not. It's just not necessary.
We may have survived intact, but the better question is, was it beneficial to you? I can't say that seeing those things at ten would have improved my life in any meaningful way. Didn't even mention the predator angle, while overblown, is a thing. Data harvesting FTW.
Less is more.
No, thanks. I had the Internet from the time I was 10. It made me the capable person I am, gave me the incredible career I have today, and showed me all the things I could become. Horizons were crossed that I never dreamed possible. Many of the people I knew never saw these things and they would kill to have my life. I am absolutely committed to a free and open Internet.
Of course, the puritans are against this. The puritans are establishmentarians and authoritarians. You can never do anything because they're protecting you. Oh so very precious, the protection. No, enough with the shackles. The next generation has a right to grow without you cutting their legs out from under them.
As I said I got on the internet at 25 and had a front row seat to the explosion of the web. Took to it like a duck to water. Considering all the time wasted, I didn't miss a thing waiting. It didn't harm me one bit.
You know what else I did in my twenties? Saw the world. Was much more compelling than online friends can ever be. Recommended.
You sound young, give it time and your perspective will change.
We played some trivia for a while but it sits there unplugged until we want to use it... which is rarely. The last time has to have been over a year ago...
If I can just get myself to accept that the mic is off when I have turned it off I might actually start using it more.
BTW: Has anyone verified this?
- amazon fire stick
- wifi thermostat serving a web api
- cam/mic security system accessible via http(sans ssl)
- fruit basket with as yet inexplicable plastic-encased antennae
"Jeff Bezos, can you put some mood music on?"
"Jeff Bezos, get me a good Mac and Cheese recipe"
"Jeff Bezos, I'd like to order some Tide pods"
I kinda get that you don't want AI to learn how to manipulate kids but still this is a larger concern than just 'think of the children'.