Amazon’s surveillance drones violate FCC rules | Hacker News Reader

Amazon’s surveillance drones violate FCC rules

vice.com

49 pointsg_p18 comments

Title is clickbait, actual article is about the fact that installing microphones in your home, that are always recording, violate FCC rules if you don't get consent from your visitors.

That is hilarious, they're actually going for the whole recording consent angle. Jesus Christ. VICE has always been sensationalist and desperate, but this is a whole new level.

And it’s pretty much legal as long as Amazon makes it (1) clear that it’s always on[a] or (2) puts it in the contract[b]. Basically, the FCC could try, but my understanding of the law puts Amazon in the clear. (Of course, IANAL; ask a real lawyer for a better answer).

EDIT: They’re also throwing in the “us vs them” trash by mentioning that Ajit Pai is a Republican. The article would do just fine without it. We already have enough division in this country.

[a]: A device can’t activate by a cue (“Hey, Alexa”) if it’s not listening

[b]: As bad as burying terms in the contract is, it’s still legal

> They’re also throwing in the “us vs them” trash by mentioning that Ajit Pai is a Republican.

That's just how American journalism works. You can always tell the party of a corrupt politician by how prominently and frequently the press mentions their party. Since Republicans are assumed by journalists to be in league with the actual Devil, their party affiliation will be front and center; Democrats, not so much.

A Republican is caught accepting bribes. Headline: "GOP Lawmaker Implicated in Bribe Scandal". Front page.

A Democrat is caught accepting bribes. Headline: "Lawmaker Implicated in Bribe Scandal". The story begins on page three, but the actual party affiliation of the corrupt official isn't mentioned until the story continuation on page six.

I noticed this with newspaper stories about Massachusetts state legislators about twelve years ago.

Just because it's how American journalism works doesn't mean I can't complain about it. And your reverse is also true; just look at any conservative news site.

> [b]: As bad as burying terms in the contract is, it’s still legal

Technically not; a contract by definition (and I'm fairly sure applicable law at least pretends to support this) involves a "meeting of minds" between the parties; any document that is long or unreadable enough far any of its terms to qualify as "buried" in it, is not actually a contract.

Practically, though, the courts are useless and will refuse to enforce the illegality of denial-of-service attacks on customers' ability to evaluate contracts.

Can you explain how Smartphones with always listening virtual assistants like OK Google and Siri do not violate this also if you take them in public?

The area with potential for innovation is drone surveillance for large rural plots. A farmer with 1000 acres and a herd of cattle may have to spend a day or two searching for a lost head. A drone could methodically surveil the plot, seeing through tree cover and working through the night with IR.

I can imagine "cow tippers" of the future being tailed by a drone.

The legality of this seems already settled to me. If it is legal to have fixed surveillance cameras anywhere on your private property, why wouldn't it be similarly legal for that camera to take flight, assuming it adheres to any applicable FAA regulations?

Both of this article's authors are activists. They aren't journalists-- they are activists.

Of course you will never get to the truth of anything if you don't have both sides of a topic in the same room.

> Of course you will never get to the truth of anything if you don't have both sides of a topic in the same room.

Fair enough, in this case, but the both-sides-ism is responsible for some horrible stuff, from climate change denial to anti-vax.

It is absolutely a fallacy that you always need "both sides of a topic" to be reported / given a platform.

If you have two sides at the table, then the 'correct' side should be able to articulate how their point is correct.

Here is where I am coming from: NPR used to have a great show (Diane Rehm) where she would get both sides of a hot topic and through great moderation allow both to speak and then to debate the issues. More times than I could count the first person would speak and I would think "Wow, this person has a rock solid argument" and then the second person would speak and tear it all down. I would sit there stunned thinking "I would have been so mis-informed if I had only heard the first person in a vacuum."

When something is still an active topic, it's extremely important to have all the sides at the table.

There's an important difference between having all sides at the table and having two sides at the table. Most issues are not simple binary decisions and there are many more sides than just two. Even if a binary decision is forced (e.g. yes-or-no vote on legislation), both supporters and detractors will be heterogeneous groups, with everyone having their own reasons for their stance. So if you get representatives from "both sides" to debate, they might both share the same incorrect view, just disagreeing on whether that's a good thing or a bad one.

I don't think that's a problem journalism can easily solve.

> There's an important difference between having all sides at the table and having two sides at the table.

> I don't think [more-than-two-sides]'s a problem journalism can easily solve.

Very true, but having only one side at the table is even worse.

We must give the flat-earthers the same exact airtime, down to the minute. Because reasons.

It isn't a fallacy, and there is plenty of good discussion that can be had by questioning our proposed response to climate change, or COVID vaccinations.

The mistake is calling the extremist view points "the other side". People who think the government is using vaccinations to control the population using microchips are not the other side and should not get a serious platform. People who demand evidence that a vaccine developed in a rush during a pandemic is safe probably should.

You're saying there are more than two sides. IOW, you appear to agree that it is a fallacy.

There's a reason this is "fair enough, in this case." The headline and article are both highly sensationalized and engage in highly dubious reasoning to make baseless accusations. The authors clearly have an axe to grind and it's strongly influencing their output in this article.

So this article is the anti-vaccination side of your "both-sides-ism," concept. And according to you, that's "some horrible stuff."

> Hackers have broken into home surveillance cameras like Ring to harass kids and threaten families.

Hasn't it been shown that the majority of these "hacks" are just poor password habits by end-users, ie- password reuse and not changing of shared passwords following breaches?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com