Then perhaps in their current form, they shouldn't exist. It's already illegal to record people without their consent in many states. We shouldn't give up this right to privacy for a bit of convenience.
Realistically though don’t a lot of stores have cameras and mics lawfully recording for security purposes? Are they all legally obligated to post warnings?
Yes, at least here in the UK.
Smart speakers are not telephone calls, and even if they were, federal law only requires consent of one party to record (11 states require all-party consent).
In public spaces, you generally lose any right to consent to recording. If you're in someone else's home and they record you with their smart speaker device, then your beef is with that person whose private property you're being recorded on. Same as if they were recording you with their phone's camera in their private residence, vs recording you in a public space.
A dumb recording device can’t do something illegal without its owner’s/user’s affirmative action. If the homeowner uses the recording thing illegally they’re liable for that use.
In contrast, Alexa and similar devices operate on rules built-in by their builders. They do what their builders intend, not what applicable law or their owners require. Liability should rest with the builders.
Not at all, it's how you use it. Cars can run over people but cars can exist; driving over someone is a crime committed by the operator. A machine with a microphone need not be, of itself, illegal.
There is an issue of a secret microphone, as with Google's camera that secretly included microphones. That seems fraudulent because the user is not able to knowledgable decide if she can trust the device.
Are Alexa and others designed to reasonably ensure only consenting users are being recorded?
Should I be allowed to buy a vehicle without a clear view of my surroundings if I only intend to use it on private land? Should I be allowed to buy a recording device with no privacy features if I intend to use it only in private? Does the potential harm produced by the availability of tools without bells and whistles for public safety outweigh the desires of users who would gladly pay for the bare-bones version and use it private?
You _should_ absolutely be allowed to buy a non-street legal vehicle to operate on private land. You _should_ be able to buy a recording device that has no privacy features. You should _not_ be able to sell a recording device that by default is streaming all audio all the time for common consumers without a big label saying "everything this device is within hearing distance of is now public data and you agree you are in violation of the law, where applicable, for using it".
We are no longer in the days where consumers can be expected to know what their devices are even capable of, let alone what rights are being trampled.
This basically would outlaw ANY device that is voice activated, because it has to constantly be 'recording' to be able to be activated.
Tell me, which of these do Alexa and the like perform?
Would it be more difficult? Yes! This is the reality for any company where rights and laws actually matter. If you can't abide, you can't release. Very simple.
I was thinking that in order to fingerprint a voice, you have to "record" it to a digital format that you can process to determine if it is the user who has consented. Even if it is deleted after processing, it was still "recorded" for a few milliseconds at least.
Does the law as written make that distinction? Would recording locally to check a fingerprint not still break the law?
It's the same with phone and security cameras - the manufacturers are not the ones at fault when the devices are incorrectly used by owners in states with specific legal laws regarding recording.
I'm not suggesting the device be made illegal, but I do think a ton of common applications should be... and without those applications, the device loses viability.
The issue at hand is that if the manufacturer is the one who turns on the device, then yes, it is 100% them breaking the law.
If my phone is hacked and the microphone is remotely enabled to record a conversation and ends up violating the law, I'm not at fault, the hacker is.
So how is it different if the "hacker" is just the manufacturer using a private channel that they built for themselves?
That's not privacy.
> private property
When you actually meant:
> personal property
Why do you want to impose this on the rest of us? Why can't I just let people give me this useful service in my own home?