Amazon’s Alexa for landlords is a privacy nightmare waiting to happen
gizmodo.com.au
gizmodo.com.au
Maybe, just maybe, the landlord is listening. And we better not refuse the device because maybe they'll get the idea that we don't trust them...
What’s next? Weed detectors? War on drugs seems to be pure profiteering.
"If you wanted to have sex, you should've checked the tenancy agreement before you signed it."
Edit: this was my attempt at a joke! it's satirical
This raises the interesting question - now prevention is more practical and thus enforceable are we likely to see a tightening of behavioural standards and social norms either because the technology allows it or because that's the easiest way to avoid the technology. In either case it seems that a relaxed attitude to social behaviour may be on the way out.
woah i don't fully understand this or the [to you, interesting] question you posed, but I want to say that my post was satire...
landlords (even university campuses) have no business meddling in 'unwanted consensual activities'
as your naming suggests it is a 'consensual' activity, so there is no problem. being puritanical/prude about sex between young people is another thing.
if American universities don't want people having sex in shared dorms with single-beds, then they could create European university style en-suite bedrooms that share a common area + kitchen...
honestly American standards and customs scare the fuck out of me sometimes [1]
[1] https://qz.com/1743640/us-abortion-politics-are-affecting-gl...
> landlords (even university campuses) have no business meddling in 'unwanted consensual activities'
Agreed, and I think GP would as well. Dorms are different. That's your domicile, the relationship with a university is that of a landlord/tenant. You're paying for a place to sleep and live. There's an expectation of privacy. If you walk into someone's dorm while they're having sex, why the hell are you barging into someone's room?
That being said seeing a sex detector hanging from the ceiling would make me sad.
Or perhaps we want to limit activities that apartments weren't licensed for, like working from home, babysitting, exercise, more than 3 guests at a time, alcohol consumption... activities forbidden by the rental agreement unless you pay extra. By letting you pay a lower rent if you don't need those activities, landlords can pass the savings on to you, the consumer! You wouldn't want to forbid such practices and force higher prices on renters who don't need those perks, would you?
The above is satire for now, but it'll happen if we let it, guaranteed.
Man am I excited for the Handmaid's Tale America!
edit: I'd written a more cynical and satirical comment than this, yet unfortunately dang asked me not to write in the ways i have written before - so i've had to file it in my notes instead. if anyone knows a place or community for 'radical leftists' like me to talk about things like this, please do let me know
Twitter!
damn you got me. it is my inner sjw that likes to critique harmful systems
As for 'should'.. well it seems obvious to me they shouldn't. But I think they do.
The six figures in damages tend to be self-inflicted. The NZ government spent hundreds of millions on "meth house" remediation that by any rational analysis didn't need to be done.
https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/104287037/rental-met...
Agree that manufacture is a totally different story.
The war on drugs is total BS, but so is trashing a place and sickening neighbors just for your own selfish high. There are ways to do things that are respectful of others.
I appreciate the poetics of a rent-seeking company targeting landlords.
not overnight of course, but there will be a zoning effect at some point, as there always is, where some neighborhoods pool similarly minded people, as neither offer nor demand is really elastic.
No, you'll quickly become addicted to the peace of mind and security you feel from using Meth Minder, finding it near impossible to give up. At this point our montly rate increases to $5K/month and you will do anything to ensure your monthly fix. We've secured $100M in VC on our incredibly low churn due to the addictive nature of our product.
Can't say I've ever smelled it. Is it very distinct?
That could get really dystopian.
I'm used to rented properties where you get no control over things like the thermostat (which are all Hive managed) but that's roughly where i draw the line.
Draw whatever line you like just be prepared to sleep in the park.
I usually have the heater off except when it's below zero outside. I would be really mad if somebody heated my apartment against my will.
In what country is this legal?
In my state, landlords have to keep a property heated to a certain temperature during the winter, but there’s no law saying the landlord has to provide a thermostat. Many older buildings have a central boiler and radiators.. how do you propose thermostats in each unit with that setup?
Thermostatic or electronically controlled radiator valves (possibly z-waved to the per-unit thermostat for the electronically controlled one). Don't see why per-unit thermostat would be an issue.
And add submetering (using heat cost allocators or heat meters) to provide by-use billing.
Pretty awful at times and it leads to tenants not caring about other aspects. For instance my 1400w pc/server hybrid has 2 months uptime, why should i care?
Whenever I hear the term "smart", I associate it with the countless real-life examples of privacy violations (bordering on unconstitutional), security snafus, and the power it gives to authoritarian tendencies in private companies and public institutions.
I won't soon forget this story[0]. It listens to everything, and if it thinks it hears the start of a command it starts doing stuff with what it hears. That detection can have bugs, some of them practically unavoidable (like differentiating between a conversation about a person named Alexa and a command).
Amazon themselves have said that "[voice] data is stored remotely" as opposed to on the device[1]. So it seems likely that most Alexa users have had at least some parts of a conversation in which they did not intend to involve Alexa stored on an Amazon server, and possibly reviewed by some number of employees[2].
I think the strongest thing you can say "demonstrably" about regarding Alexa is that it does not store _all_ your conversations.
0. https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/woman-says-her-amazon-devic...
1. https://privacyinternational.org/news-analysis/2819/mystery-...
> voice data is stored remotely
No, it only sends your requests to the server after the wake word is said (so that it can process it). You can test this your self by monitoring your network traffic. It is demonstrable.
No, the story where Alexa incorrectly interpreted some part of the conversation as a wake word, then incorrectly interpreted another bit as a send message confirmation, and finally misinterpreted yet more audio as a name in the contacts list.
Alexa does screw up, and when it does it screws up in ways that are _not at all intuitive_. It bills itself as a "smart" and as an "assistant", but it doesn't fit either of these descriptions. Tech people might call it "smart", but people who employ assistants would describe it as "dangerously dumb".
> No, it only sends your requests to the server after the wake word is said...
This doesn't contradict "voice data is stored remotely". Nobody is arguing that it is storing everything you say remotely (though it's just one government-ordered software update away from doing just that). What it does store remotely, and what is given to thousands of fresh, temporary Amazon employees to listen to, is potentially anything you say that begins with the wake word or what it thinks might have been the wake word, within a confidence interval decided by Amazon.
Why? Imagine how much it would cost amazon in lost sales and market cap if some scandal broke about how thier Alexa device were leaking user data. Even a small story would be enough to wipe out millions if not billions of dollars of market cap and sales.
The way I see it, it's not really a question of whether or not they're being cavalier with private data. For me that threshold was crossed with the large human voice-to-text farms. I don't want the list of people who might hear my private conversations that maybe contained syllables sounding like "Alexa" or "Siri" or "Google" to be thousands strong. That's orders of magnitude more than could ever be reasonably expected to constitute a secure circle.
This is a great move for Amazon, but I don't really understand the benefit to renters or landlords.
"Luxury" apartments in NYC used to have ipod/iphone docks in the wall the connected to the speaker system. Every single agent talked about this great feature, but it just looked awful. Besides the fact that I'm an Android user, the connector was pre lightning so at some point I'm sure the landlord has to upgrade everyone's wall dock. A feature that only some can use, and fewer will use. Only so they can seem extra fancy to a select crowd.
The point of that antidote is that this Amazon "feature" will likely only be in "luxury" buildings as well. Most landlords don't even allow their rent to be paid online. I doubt they will get "alexa pay my rent" to work reliably.
About half the people I know will not stand have any home spy devices in their home on principal alone, and the other half already have one. Putting this in you're building seems like a way to make half your renter base dismiss you, and redundant for the other half.
I felt like I traveled back to 1990 when I moved to Canada. In Germany I've never paid anything with cheque. We've always had free wire transfers. Online or offline is not visible even to the landlord.
When I found out this doesn't work with Canadian banks I was flabbergasted.
I moved back 10 years ago. Is this still the case in US/CAN?
I've only rented in America once, but in that case the property management company had their own online system that accepted (slow non-instant) bank transfers or (with a surcharge) credit cards.
My next apartment was a condo we rented directly from the owners. We paid by bank transfer.
Then the third place I rented years later after moving across country was managed by a large management firm and they had an online portal with rental payment, maintenance tickets, and all that. We weren't in large building, it was a townhouse, but they had properties all over the region they managed.
I’m sure the reich likes the nationalism but that sort of flame bait isn’t allowed on HN
This just completely flummoxes me. The US really is a third world nation sometimes.
Here in the Netherlands it is unthinkable to pay your rent in cash. Most people pay their rent via standing order, or for the few people who haven't automated their payments, via direct wire transfer.
And I don’t know anyone else who has either.
If I were to rent another apartment, I would expect to pay by check.
Or a bit weak. Not sure any nation has phased out cash entirely, but I'd assume many developing economies have phased out general use of checks if they ever had it.
("third-world" is very much a misnomer as it meant countries not aligned with either the US — the first world — or the USSR — the second world — so the US can't be a third-world nation by definition)
For instance, elsewhere in this discussion (emphasis my own): "no landlords I talked to took cheques, thankfully."
What's so great at other people being denied their preference??
Totally your right ofc, but I'm curious about why? What makes paying by check better for you compared to an automatic or manual transfer?
They suck to receive, but I love paying with them.
I don’t even have to write them out if I don’t want to, I can schedule them to be sent by my bank automatically.
We bought some salsa from a local business yesterday and she takes Venmo, Zelle, or cash (not the app). If she took a check and it bounced (insufficient funds), then she would be out the money and probably a $12 fee besides.
https://www.bankofamerica.com/smallbusiness/resources/fees-a... It's interesting to see how business checking accounts have changed - there's no free level. You're charged a fee for every deposit past a certain number. I wonder how many small businesses are run now without a business checking account. But a credit union like Unitus https://www.unitusccu.com/business-checking/has free business checking accounts. Deposits are charged $.15 after the first 75 but if you sweep your electronic accounts (Cash app, Venmo, PayPal, etc.) in every other day you could take 5 of them.
I only converted about 2 years ago to taking pictures of checks and depositing them. It's much easier than going to the bank or mailing the deposits to Charles Schwab. Three of us did a joint purchase and I got a check from one. The other sent me payment via PayPal but PayPal took 3% as a fee. It didn't bother me enough to say something but it definitely didn't make me happy. It'd be nice to have an option that was zero-cost or $.10 fee per transaction. I bank with credit unions that don't have Zelle yet.
Presumably this was funded by a credit card. I believe it's free if it's from PayPal balance or a checking account.
I think OP might be a renter in NYC / SF where you have smaller landlords that aren't running 300+ unit complexes.
https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/9/21429635/amazon-keith-alex...
The dude is ceo of a cybersecurity company and has very unique and deep insights into global security threats. He’s definitely someone you would want to have around to advise on security especially as foreign threats are ramping up on the digital front.
Alexa, Google assistant, Siri are demonstrably not listening to your conversations, us in the tech industry should know better than to spread this sort of FUD.
This is why we should all be very worried about the move towards as-a-service economies.
For most other items, the amount of control that you need really comes down to priorities. Given my use of computers, I buy the hardware and prefer open source applications since there is a large degree of control. When it comes to entertainment (games, music, etc.) rental is fine since they are not all that important. Some product categories is a blend of the two: some books I buy, others I "rent" (rather, borrow through libraries).
As for Alexa for landlords, this may be a case where some laws need revision. Even if it is not used as a surveilance device, it must be classified as such since the potential is there. It doesn't matter whether that potential is used by Amazon, the landlord, or another authorized or unauthorized party.
That’s some high quality journalism.
If a landlord wanted to spy on you there are far less obvious ways to do it (that are also very illegal).
Amazon isn't making it possible for your landlord to spy on you -- first of all, as the article notes, the landlord would have to associate the Alexa account with their own, which makes no sense, since the point of Alexa is it's tied to your Amazon account, so you can order things from Amazon. (Unless my landlord wants to pay for all my shopping...) But more importantly, spying is highly illegal. I don't care about Amazon -- I trust the police and courts here.
Second, Amazon has zero business reason to allow landlords to spy on their tenants. It would be a huge PR backlash for virtually zero financial benefit. So I'm not even remotely worried about that, because capitalism.
Third, the idea that one day you might only be able to fulfill apartment requests through Alexa, instead of a website, is just ludicrous fearmongering. It's about as likely as requiring it all to go through an Apple Watch.
Finally, one random author's opinion about whether or not an included Alexa is an amenity worth paying for is completely meaningless. Every apartment comes with a set of amenities (or not) and the market determines the ultimate rental price for that set. Landlords aren't dumb. They're not installing amenities nobody wants. If the author thinks it's not worth the price, they're just not the target demographic for that building, which is fine, but it's not exactly news that's worth publishing.
I use this feature regularly to prevent drop-ins when I don't want them.
Still haven't seen a single reason to own one.
Is the demographic that uses these preferentially si-valley people or is it widely spread in the US?
BTW I'm not particularly against home AI assistants myself. But I'm fairly against streaming my audio to a third party that can transcribe and give everything to any snooping fourth party though :) I did read about Google doing this with their assistant's audio, it ended up at contractors doing manual transcribing.
My anecdotal examples would be mostly middle-class families and college students in the US, not particularly valley-related. In my country these type of devices are on the market but not popular (only seen a couple), but they're priced out of the range of the majority of the population anyway.
Additionally, my oldest child can put music on for herself with her voice, but can't read or spell enough to do it otherwise.
They use it to play music. Alexa play christmas songs. Alexa pause. Alexa resume.
That's all.
I know about homebrew options. I've tried some of them. The problem is convincing others. They want something that works every time all the time, not something I have to fiddle with every so often.
As for the security, it was my concern from day one, but when laypeople see the convenience and not some hidden boogeyman, you can't convince them otherwise. I lost that argument to my wife and it wasn't a hill I chose to die on. I'm just careful what I say openly, as you should anywhere. Plus we all carry phones around already.
Granted, the ease of use of their functionality is largely dependent on the microphone being on at all times.
... well, let's just say that I'm in the category of people who find the technology creepy. My tendency to avoid prying into other people's lives and desire to lead a quiet life leaves me with uneasy feelings with the massive amounts of data collection happening these days.
The thing is, not everyone is like that. If someone is okay with the noise of world intruding into their lives and are curious about the lives of other people, I can think of very few reasons why they would find these voice assistants creepy. That list includes the realists concerns about security and plain old paranoia.
Another thing is I think we don't like voice activated control in general. An American colleague used to use voice activated calling all the time on his phone. I've literally never seen anyone else use that, unless they're driving.
Just to add - per-capita as % of internet users market saturation is in the same ballpark between US/EU countries.
It was higher than I would have expected even in 2018 (17.2% of Germans with internet access reported having used one regularly)
https://contentstorage-nax1.emarketer.com/519874bbcaa13e06b8...
In 2018 (must be higher now) 22% of uk residents with internet access reported having regularly used a smart speaker.
https://contentstorage-nax1.emarketer.com/519874bbcaa13e06b8...
Obviously none of this is necessary and could be done in other ways but it's useful and relatively cheap (I got both echo dots in sales and 3 out of 4 bulbs in sales too).
Edit: I presume you're talking about Alexa in general and not this specific landlord product.
That wasn't rhetorical, the only person I know who owns and uses one regularly is a 80 year old blind lady.
https://contentstorage-nax1.emarketer.com/519874bbcaa13e06b8...
> But we all know landlords are, by default, shitty.
What is with journalists for normal/non-political publications and Marxism/Maoism, particularly recently?
I have literally never had a problem with a landlord. While I'm sure unpleasant landlords are as common as unpleasant people, I can't help but think that the only way to have had exclusively bad experiences with landlords would be where the tenant inherently sees the nature of their relationship as exploitative.
I would say it's as much of a satirically accepted ground truth as "gyms generally try to screw you into an auto-renewing yearly contract."
And my problems were pretty mild. The places I lived in were fairly well-kept. Lots of folks have issues with roaches, leaks, and a slew of other issues that fall on deaf ears. Lots of folks are actually unsafe. Lots of folks get overcharged for things that come out of a security deposit (oh, a nail hole... that'll be $300 plus paint - nevermind that we'd paint anyway). And so on.
This is, of course, because in many areas, there is little to no oversight of landlords and no one really to help a tenant with issues. Decent folks being landlords are the exception, not the rule.
This sounds like you're generalizing the experiences of you and those around you just as much as the person you responded to.
Do we have any data on this? Or is this just a "we don't know, so everyone goes with their own experience" sort of thing?
The tactic I see most often used is to get a tenant and say that they can ‘do work’ on the property to fix it up, and that will reduce their rent.
They are then evicted, and a new tenant is moved in to pay a higher rent (b/c of the improvements).
The prior renter was warned by multiple homeowners on the street this would happen.
Do you just mean they jack up the rent on the next lease renewal?
Regardless, making improvements to a rental is something that ought to always be explicitly negotiated and in writing. It baffles me anyone would be so gullible to pay out of pocket for improvements and expect the landlord to pay that back... gradually in the future in good faith?
I mean, if you want to go that bizarrely circuitous route anyways, then do it together with signing a new lease at the lower rate. And if your landlord tries to evict you, take them to court because that's illegal as all hell.
Several reasons.
1. Unemployment is at 8.5%, and was double digits until recently. Wingcuck ideologies are more popular when the economy is poor.
2. The US is going through another red scare right now. Lots of evidence for this between BLM protestors, the rise of "antifa", and (finally) a right-wing reaction to institutional left-wing post-modernism and critical theory (e.g. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-wants-white-privileg...)
3. In the early part of COVID, when there were policies put into place by the feds to prevent people from being kicked out, there were viral campaigns for people to do "rent strikes" and refuse to pay any of their rent. Such forms of economic organization are Marxist and were successful for some of the participants. This feeds into my 2nd point.
4. Trump has strong reasons for drumming up his image as the law and order candidate. He's likely instructed the spooks and glowies within the intelligence agencies to do something similar to Operation Mockingbird for manipulating public opinion to be in his favor. Maybe the intelligence agencies are doing it on their own initiative. Right-wing journalism about "google engineers who are antifa members" is shocking good at swinging undecided voters who care about law and order.
Also, I think even most Capitalists concede that landlords are shitty (unless they are a landlord) - but they don't advocate for expropriation or putting them against the wall...