Sonos One / Amazon Alexa smart speaker - Bluetooth Conversion

[My Old Landy]

Indeed. Plus why would I care that Amazon was "listening" to me in the first place? No secret, criminal are money-making ideas get discussed in my kitchen!

Where do you discuss them then?

 

[minimutly]

I believe I'm correct in what I said - recordings are stored of all voice commands and it is your right to acces them and, as you say, stop this happening.

For the wake word to activate Alexa, she of course is "listening" to everything, but not supposed to be recording. Whether she is or not, you can decide based on your trust in big tech and governments.

Remember when Google "accidentally" harvested everyone's WiFi passwords? Or the well documented cases of US government agencies requesting back-doors and in some cases willingly welcomed into the companies to share data?

The fact of the matter is we all have devices capable of spying on our every move. The question is how much we trust industry and governments not to abuse the technology.

No, I'm sure not everyone has, but many people may not be aware of the power of some of the devices out there..

 

[ajlelectronics]

Humour me with this - let's say, in some parallel universe, there were people in tech companies and government who wanted the ability to eavesdrop through these devices.

Knowing that consumers would be "testing" their equipment in the way you describe - how would the the devices be programmed to react?

How COULD they? Well If there is no internet connection, the only thing that could be done is to store data in large amounts of onboard RAM, battery backed. That could then be uploaded at the next connection.
The thing that prevents that happening is the sheer numbers of people who are deeply investigating anything new on the market, even to the disassembly of the software and so anything like that would be impossible to hide.

Bear in mind also that everyday chatter is of zero interest to anyone, so the idea that there is a bunny with headphones on at Amazon HQ, listening to the output 24 hours a day is frankly preposterous. For many reasons, including there not being sufficient people in the world to do it! OK, it could be stored and analysed by computer, but what interest would there be? Security and espionage departments have far better targeted devices for suspects.

 

[GG1]

No, I'm sure not everyone has, but many people may not be aware of the power of some of the devices out there..

Yes, not everyone, only those with smartphones, smart speakers, doorbells etc. and 100% many are not aware of the power.

In some respects this shouldn't worry us law abiding citizens at all. In other respects, it should be scaring all of us.

 

[ajlelectronics]

In some respects this shouldn't worry us law abiding citizens at all. In other respects, it should be scaring all of us.

I am one of the greatest advocates of personal privacy, but I have no qualms whatever about smart speaker type devices.

 

[GG1]

How COULD they? Well If there is no internet connection, the only thing that could be done is to store data in large amounts of onboard RAM, battery backed. That could then be uploaded at the next connection.
The thing that prevents that happening is the sheer numbers of people who are deeply investigating anything new on the market, even to the disassembly of the software and so anything like that would be impossible to hide.

Bear in mind also that everyday chatter is of zero interest to anyone, so the idea that there is a bunny with headphones on at Amazon HQ, listening to the output 24 hours a day is frankly preposterous. For many reasons, including there not being sufficient people in the world to do it! OK, it could be stored and analysed by computer, but what interest would there be? Security and espionage departments have far better targeted devices for suspects.

I think we are talking at crossed purposes - I had understood that your procedure to prove that recording does not take place involves disconnecting from the internet. For "spying" to happen I agree the device would need to be connected, as I think probably 99% are 99% of the time.

My point is that if sound is being recorded which shouldn't be, I think it would be done in a sophisticated enough way to circumvent your trivially simple (as you called it) method to prove it is not happening. Granted you can't prove a negative but equally I think it's hard to argue against the fact that technology exists in our living rooms which has the potential to be used for nefarious purposes.

I'd put your suggestion that people actually think these companies are recording and monitoring all conversations in the same category as calling people conspiracy theorists/paranoid and I don't think it does anything for your argument.

I think the bottom line is a) do you believe the technology exists which could be used to monitor private conversations (be it of groups or selected individuals)? and b) if so, do you trust those "in power" (whoever that may be) not to use this technology given half the chance?

My answers are a) yes and b) #### no

 

[Morrisman]

I think we are talking at crossed purposes - I had understood that your procedure to prove that recording does not take place involves disconnecting from the internet. For "spying" to happen I agree the device would need to be connected, as I think probably 99% are 99% of the time.

My point is that if sound is being recorded which shouldn't be, I think it would be done in a sophisticated enough way to circumvent your trivially simple (as you called it) method to prove it is not happening. Granted you can't prove a negative but equally I think it's hard to argue against the fact that technology exists in our living rooms which has the potential to be used for nefarious purposes.

I'd put your suggestion that people actually think these companies are recording and monitoring all conversations in the same category as calling people conspiracy theorists/paranoid and I don't think it does anything for your argument.

I think the bottom line is a) do you believe the technology exists which could be used to monitor private conversations (be it of groups or selected individuals)? and b) if so, do you trust those "in power" (whoever that may be) not to use this technology given half the chance?

My answers are a) yes and b) #### no

Earlier on I found a setting on my Alexa that asks me if I am happy for them to record and sample conversation to improve the way Alexa works. It states that very little of it will be listened to by humans, most will be done electronically. I switched it to 'off'. Not that anybody will be interested in me talking to my dog, or myself. Or my beer.

 

[m_c]

I believe I'm correct in what I said - recordings are stored of all voice commands and it is your right to acces them and, as you say, stop this happening.

For the wake word to activate Alexa, she of course is "listening" to everything, but not supposed to be recording. Whether she is or not, you can decide based on your trust in big tech and governments.

Remember when Google "accidentally" harvested everyone's WiFi passwords? Or the well documented cases of US government agencies requesting back-doors and in some cases willingly welcomed into the companies to share data?

The fact of the matter is we all have devices capable of spying on our every move. The question is how much we trust industry and governments not to abuse the technology.

Just to clarify this bit, they didn't harvest passwords.
They 'accidentally' harvested data from open (unsecured) WiFi networks - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/may/15/google-admits-storing-private-data
Now if you're naïve enough to still be using an open WiFi network, then a big corp harvesting a few fragments of your communications is probably not going to be that high up on your concern list.

 

[GG1]

Just to clarify this bit, they didn't harvest passwords.
They 'accidentally' harvested data from open (unsecured) WiFi networks - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/may/15/google-admits-storing-private-data
Now if you're naïve enough to still be using an open WiFi network, then a big corp harvesting a few fragments of your communications is probably not going to be that high up on your concern list.

Quite right, thanks for the correction I had misremembered. It did later transpire that it was not an accident and the breadth and depth of data gathered was impressive. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...sting-emails-passwords-Street-View-drive.html

I wonder if everyone having all these devices will also be seen as being naïve one day?

 

[Morrisman]

Quite right, thanks for the correction I had misremembered. It did later transpire that it was not an accident and the breadth and depth of data gathered was impressive. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...sting-emails-passwords-Street-View-drive.html

I wonder if everyone having all these devices will also be seen as being naïve one day?

There was a time we were told that the normal household tv could actually watch us, as we were watching it....

 

[GG1]

There was a time we were told that the normal household tv could actually watch us, as we were watching it....

Yes, I remember that.

I guess the difference between then and now is that our devices actually can and do record us. We just trust the capability is not used for untoward purposes, currently or in the future.

 

[ajlelectronics]

Yes, I remember that.

I guess the difference between then and now is that our devices actually can and do record us. We just trust the capability is not used for untoward purposes, currently or in the future.

Can you explain what you are actually worried about and what information you think that ANYONE is interested in, supposing that your fear was justified? Also, thinking about the logistics and the millions of "listening devices" in the world, how do you imagine that any snippet of valuable information could be gleaned? Why would the "snoops" be interested in you and your conversations enough to want to monitor them?

 

[Nomad]

There was a time we were told that the normal household tv could actually watch us, as we were watching it....

I have a smart TV that's a few years old, it's nothing fancy.

Last year it popped up a message saying "The TV has been automatically updated and can now respond to voice commands."

I'm reasonably tech-savvy but it shocked me as A> the TV must have been built with a microphone even though there was no software to control it (why waste time & money fitting it?) and B> the updates happened without me giving permission.

If I wanted voice control listening devices I could have bought Alexa / Google or whatever, it did make me wonder how many other tech gadgets are doing things we are not aware of? (conspiracy types keep saying mobiles are always listening which is why you often get targeted adverts after you have had a conversation about something - holidays in the Alps, a new pair of shoes, etc.)

Are manufacturers capable of making devices with "unpublicised features"? Of course. Tessla publicise that they include lots of options when they build a car but only activate the ones the customer has paid for. Other car manufacturers do similar to reduce complexity (and cost) of manufacture. No reason why TV companies won't do the same.

Do I trust the government & manufacturers to always be open and honest about what they're doing? No, so who knows what is happening that isn't public knowledge. The good news is I have plenty of tin foil in stock for when it's needed to make a new hat !

 

[ajlelectronics]

(conspiracy types keep saying mobiles are always listening which is why you often get targeted adverts after you have had a conversation about something - holidays in the Alps, a new pair of shoes, etc.)

It's like a religion. There is no point trying to counter it with logic and scientific fact, they only listen to those who re-inforce their belief system. Same with 5G. I had someone the other day, an otherwise sensible bloke I thought, telling me that he wanted to get rid of them. I agreed with him, they are an absolute eyesore.

"Oh no, it's not that, it is the death rays that they emit".

I attempted to explain the facts but he was having none of it.

 

[My Old Landy]

It's like a religion. There is no point trying to counter it with logic and scientific fact, they only listen to those who re-inforce their belief system. Same with 5G. I had someone the other day, an otherwise sensible bloke I thought, telling me that he wanted to get rid of them. I agreed with him, they are an absolute eyesore.

"Oh no, it's not that, it is the death rays that they emit".

I attempted to explain the facts but he was having none of it.

Do you remember in the 70's when they said your library monitored the books you took out to build a profile on you?
Nothing changes, just the technology!
If people want to live in fear they will, you won't be able to use logic to counter it

 

[Stupoty]

It's like a religion. There is no point trying to counter it with logic and scientific fact, they only listen to those who re-inforce their belief system. Same with 5G. I had someone the other day, an otherwise sensible bloke I thought, telling me that he wanted to get rid of them. I agreed with him, they are an absolute eyesore.

"Oh no, it's not that, it is the death rays that they emit".

I attempted to explain the facts but he was having none of it.

Yeah it's not like the authorities take three years to test devices that might be emitting potentially dangerous levels of radio waves or anything ,

The iPhone 12 Isn't the Only Phone to Fail France's Radiation Test

Samsung, Motorola, and other phone makers have exceeded the limits that caused France to ban the iPhone 12. In fact, all phones emit radiation—should you be worried? Here’s everything you need to know.

www.wired.co.uk

Stu

 

[ajlelectronics]

Yeah it's not like the authorities take three years to test devices that might be emitting potentially dangerous levels of radio waves or anything ,

View attachment 426809

The iPhone 12 Isn't the Only Phone to Fail France's Radiation Test

Samsung, Motorola, and other phone makers have exceeded the limits that caused France to ban the iPhone 12. In fact, all phones emit radiation—should you be worried? Here’s everything you need to know.

www.wired.co.uk

Stu

It is precisely that sort of utter nonsense that scares people who don't understand what RF is and allows the **"HHGTTG philosphers" to peddle their doom to those who will not research basic science themselves.

There is nothing dangerous about RF, especially at the milliWatt levels that are currently in use for Cell services. I note that the MEGAWATT TV transmitters don't get 'investigated' by the paranoid though!

**
“We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!”
― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

 

[voipio]

The iPhone 12 test failure margin, apparently revealed by the French tests, is by a factor of 1.5dB, which is not huge. It's largely panic mongering.

RF testing is notoriously difficult to perform. Whilst RF patterns are relatively repeatable in the far field, they can be markedly affected by "things" in the near field. Just a slight change in the grip position of a mobile phone in the hand can make a huge difference to the RF absorbed by the body's tissue next to the phone.

 

[ajlelectronics]

Yeah it's not like the authorities take three years to test devices that might be emitting potentially dangerous levels of radio waves or anything ,

Here is the current information for Crystal Palace, which transmits RF at similar frequencies to that used for cell services...

The station carried the London regions of BBC One, BBC Two, ITV1 and Channel 4 in analogue, each with an effective radiated power of 1 MW, before digital switchover took place during April 2012, as well as all six digital terrestrial television multiplexes. These had an effective radiated power of 20 kW before switchover and 200 kW after, with considerable beam tilt to the south and east.

 

[ajlelectronics]

The iPhone 12 test failure margin, apparently revealed by the French tests, is by a factor of 1.5dB, which is not huge. It's largely panic mongering.

RF testing is notoriously difficult to perform. Whilst RF patterns are relatively repeatable in the far field, they can be markedly affected by "things" in the near field. Just a slight change in the grip position of a mobile phone in the hand can make a huge difference to the RF absorbed by the body's tissue next to the phone.

Quite, that and the 'testers' who assume that warmth is coming from the aforementioned "death rays frying their tiny brain", rather than inefficiency of the energy conversion.