Voice Assistants Dying, Alexa $10 Billion Loss Expected in 2022

I'd use my Google Home a lot more if I didn't have to say "Hey/OK Google" every time. Let me change the wake words and I'll use it a lot more. I know that might seem like a silly little thing, but it is a major hangup for me.
 
Until voice assistants become like they were represented in Back to the Future Part 2, they will continue to fail again and again.
 
Die, ALL voice assistants, just friggin DIE already.....

Neva used any, neva will...PERIOD.....end of story :)

The wife got one (for free) a while back...as soon as I saw it I said "OH HELL NO, its gotzta go"... she argued & whined to keep it...., so I said ok keep it, but then promptly blocked its ports in our router (without telling her).... then she wondered why it would not work.... I made the excuse about cheap is as cheap does yada yada yada, and she ended up throwing it in the trash..... but not before I had a chance to wipe it of all our data :D
 
staknhalo said:
You guys who have Google Assistant speakers know how it fucking scolds you if you curse at it.

I decided to use the send feedback function for cursing at it instead then 💅
Click to expand...
Ahhaha... this, I have android auto in my truck and it liked to occasionally intrupt what I was listening to, deciding it had been summoned on it's own....... It intrupted my music when I was not in the mood one day and I replied "**** off" and it totally lectured me about it ... my wife was nearly dying laughing... stupid google POS.... I have all the voice stuff disabled on my phone now...
 
Aurelius said:
...making claims that are rooted in fear, not evidence of future plans.
Click to expand...

It all comes back to the principle of "zero trust".

The only way to build in security is to ensure that malfeasance is not possible. To quote Mulder, Trust no one. No person, and no company. Thus if a device has the capability of doing something, we have to assume it is maximizing that capability at all times and doing the most nefarious thing possible with the access it has been given.

And it's not just fear. Every single time the curtains get pulled back even a tiny bit on the tech giants, it is revealed that they are collecting things they say they aren't, and doing things with the stuff they have collected that they have promised they aren't going to do.

Even if you trust the tech giants to innocuous (which is a very silly thing to do) the intended use of the data isn't the only thing to worry about. It is the misuse of data by employees who have been entrusted with access, and/or the theft of that data that are even bigger problems than the stated goals of any organization.

And, we know for a fact, that once data is collected, it WILL be the target of attempted theft, because that data is valuable. The only way to assure that misuse of data does not occur is to not collect any data, and thus this should be the goal. Only collect data that is absolutely necessary in order to support the function provided to the user. NOT the advertisers or whoever else is paying the bills, but the user and ONLY the user must be the priority. Whenever there is any conflict of interest what so ever between the user and anyone else, the interests of the user must always come first.

Profitability of the organization must always be secondary to this if they are to be allowed to exist. They must have a legal duty to protect and a legal duty to act in the best interest of the user at all times.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
It all comes back to the principle of "zero trust".

The only way to build in security is to ensure that malfeasance is not possible. To quote Mulder, Trust no one. No person, and no company. Thus if a device has the capability of doing something, we have to assume it is maximizing that capability at all times and doing the most nefarious thing possible with the access it has been given.

And it's not just fear. Every single time the curtains get pulled back even a tiny bit on the tech giants, it is revealed that they are collecting things they say they aren't, and doing things with the stuff they have collected that they have promised they aren't going to do.

Even if you trust the tech giants to innocuous (which is a very silly thing to do) the intended use of the data isn't the only thing to worry about. It is the misuse of data by employees who have been entrusted with access, and/or the theft of that data that are even bigger problems than the stated goals of any organization.

And, we know for a fact, that once data is collected, it WILL be the target of attempted theft, because that data is valuable. The only way to assure that misuse of data does not occur is to not collect any data, and thus this should be the goal. Only collect data that is absolutely necessary in order to support the function provided to the user. NOT the advertisers or whoever else is paying the bills, but the user and ONLY the user must be the priority. Whenever there is any conflict of interest what so ever between the user and anyone else, the interests of the user must always come first.

Profitability of the organization must always be secondary to this if they are to be allowed to exist. They must have a legal duty to protect and a legal duty to act in the best interest of the user at all times.
Click to expand...
Eh, assuming extreme abuse is not rational and fosters unhealthy levels of paranoia.

I don't doubt that these companies are pushing harder than we'd like, and occasionally what they say they're doing. But there's still a distinction between that and believing that the Echo in your bedroom will pitch condoms because it overheard you having sex. And yes, data is a target for theft, but there's a reductio ad absurdum here — if even the slightest risk of a breach is unacceptable, we should avoid all online shopping, banking and government transactions. Whether or not you think Amazon/Apple/Google et. al. are using data correctly, it's at least reasonably secure.

I don't think it should be a matter of "zero trust" so much as "highly guarded trust." Do be very mindful about what data you transmit, and don't assume companies will be completely respectful. But also understand how the technology actually works, and don't assume they're supervillains who cackle with glee as they record your most intimate conversations. I'm comfortable sharing a moderate amount of data with tech companies because of what I know they do (or are likely to do) with it; I don't give them carte blanche.
 
dogDAbone said:
The wife got one (for free) a while back...as soon as I saw it I said "OH HELL NO, its gotzta go"... she argued & whined to keep it...., so I said ok keep it, but then promptly blocked its ports in our router (without telling her).... then she wondered why it would not work.... I made the excuse about cheap is as cheap does yada yada yada, and she ended up throwing it in the trash..... but not before I had a chance to wipe it of all our data :D
Click to expand...
Aww you could'a just let her have some fun and screw around with it to discover her own conclusions, without the gaslighting and deception that has a weird way of coming back around.
 
Last edited:
DPI said:
Aww you could'a just let her have some fun and screw around with it to discover her own conclusions,
Click to expand...
Or just ordered something really embarrassing from Amazon and then tell here she must have been talking about ____ and the Alexa ordered it.
 
Aurelius said:
Eh, assuming extreme abuse is not rational and fosters unhealthy levels of paranoia.

I don't doubt that these companies are pushing harder than we'd like, and occasionally what they say they're doing. But there's still a distinction between that and believing that the Echo in your bedroom will pitch condoms because it overheard you having sex. And yes, data is a target for theft, but there's a reductio ad absurdum here — if even the slightest risk of a breach is unacceptable, we should avoid all online shopping, banking and government transactions. Whether or not you think Amazon/Apple/Google et. al. are using data correctly, it's at least reasonably secure.

I don't think it should be a matter of "zero trust" so much as "highly guarded trust." Do be very mindful about what data you transmit, and don't assume companies will be completely respectful. But also understand how the technology actually works, and don't assume they're supervillains who cackle with glee as they record your most intimate conversations. I'm comfortable sharing a moderate amount of data with tech companies because of what I know they do (or are likely to do) with it; I don't give them carte blanche.
Click to expand...
Positions like this is how we end up with data brokers like Equifax handling tons of very sensitive data while having the databases connected to the internet and protected by the username / password combo of "admin / admin".

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/equifax-password-username-admin-lawsuit-201118316.html
 
TordanGow said:
Positions like this is how we end up with data brokers like Equifax handling tons of very sensitive data while having the databases connected to the internet and protected by the username / password combo of "admin / admin".

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/equifax-password-username-admin-lawsuit-201118316.html
Click to expand...
This is an incredibly ignorant response. This has ZERO to do with data brokering. If we had "magic" and we could remove 100% of all "malicious" data collection in the universe: bad administration of important data would still happen.
This is an admin and security issue related to hosting information. This has nothing to do with the malicious intent or "bad" uses of data collection.
 
Last edited:
UnknownSouljer said:
This is an incredibly ignorant response. This has ZERO to do with data brokering. If we had "magic" and we could remove 100% of all "malicious" data collection in the universe: bad administration of important data would still happen.
This is an admin and security issue related to hosting information. This has nothing to do with the malicious intent or "bad" uses of data collection.
Click to expand...
And yet if they didn't have the data then they couldn't lose it. Ie. It's a perfect example of why zero trust is a thing.
 
TordanGow said:
And yet if they didn't have the data then they couldn't lose it. Ie. It's a perfect example of why zero trust is a thing.
Click to expand...
Okay, and how would life work?

In order for that idea to work then get all of your money out of the bank and store it yourself. No loans of any kind, home, car, or other. (Especially since there are credit services that also track information, and those would for sure be banned).
Bills in general become a massive problem. How do you pay for electricity, water, internet? How do they even know who to bill and how, as they no longer keep those records including your mailing address?
How do mobile phones work? Certainly can no longer make calls because they can be tracked. Too much data from positioning. Can be tapped. Can activate microphones and cameras remotely. Forget regular wired phones too for the same reason.
How do you collect taxes or how is there known any information about who owes what?
How do you keep track of who is employed in a business or their history of employment?
All internet browsers also cease to exist.
Any form of entertainment that requires a login and password also ceases to exist. No e-mail, no Netflix or other streaming services.
Forget all forms of online shopping. Better close Amazon or anything else remotely convenient that allows you to shop from home.
Better never collect social security either.

Any of the above could have just as easily had a dumb person, bad password breach, and they all collect information.
Your zero sum game essentially means that a majority of the technology that we use daily that makes your life easier would stop working.
And you know what? If that's what you want you can already live that life. Since you can't get a home loans or cars, don't use banks, and give up cellphones. Go ahead and live in the wilderness somewhere because that is effectively the same alternative as "zero data collection from any source ever".
If you truly believe in zero trust, then you do not have the courage of your convictions. You're posting on a forum to the internet after submitting a user name and password. So either accept the fact that you're out of your mind unreasonable or destroy all your electronics that you own and live in the amazon jungle as a hermit.
 
TordanGow said:
Positions like this is how we end up with data brokers like Equifax handling tons of very sensitive data while having the databases connected to the internet and protected by the username / password combo of "admin / admin".

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/equifax-password-username-admin-lawsuit-201118316.html
Click to expand...
I won't rehash UnknownSouljer's position beyond pointing out that you just amplified the reductio ad absurdum to an even greater degree between this and the "if they didn't have the data they couldn't lose it" statement. You need a baseline level of trust in data handling to function in the modern world — it's just a question of where you draw that line. And while I can certainly understand some folks declining to use voice assistants knowing the full story, I also don't think trust in them by many users is completely misplaced.
 
Aurelius said:
I won't rehash UnknownSouljer's position beyond pointing out that you just amplified the reductio ad absurdum to an even greater degree between this and the "if they didn't have the data they couldn't lose it" statement. You need a baseline level of trust in data handling to function in the modern world — it's just a question of where you draw that line. And while I can certainly understand some folks declining to use voice assistants knowing the full story, I also don't think trust in them by many users is completely misplaced.
Click to expand...
Trust is a strong word. I have 0 trust in any company making money off of or trying to sell to an individual. I can't think of any company not in my small town circle I have "trust" in. I have an acceptable risk tolerance to the consumer/supplier agreement that has to be in place to use their services.
 
That_Sound_Guy said:
Trust is a strong word. I have 0 trust in any company making money off of or trying to sell to an individual. I can't think of any company not in my small town circle I have "trust" in. I have an acceptable risk tolerance to the consumer/supplier agreement that has to be in place to use their services.
Click to expand...
That may be a fairer way of putting it. Personally, I'm willing to accept the risks of using Alexa, Google Assistant and Siri, and there's no evidence they're recording 24/7 or otherwise doing dramatically more than their creators claim. There are also logical reasons why they're unlikely to go to those extremes. But I don't have unquestioning trust of those companies, and I can understand why someone would object to those assistants based on what they do now. I just don't want a "zero trust" based on fear and speculation, not facts.
 
Aurelius said:
That may be a fairer way of putting it. Personally, I'm willing to accept the risks of using Alexa, Google Assistant and Siri, and there's no evidence they're recording 24/7 or otherwise doing dramatically more than their creators claim. There are also logical reasons why they're unlikely to go to those extremes. But I don't have unquestioning trust of those companies, and I can understand why someone would object to those assistants based on what they do now. I just don't want a "zero trust" based on fear and speculation, not facts.
Click to expand...
Paranoia will never go away from some. Because something can to them means it will. One example I use when customers make small talk with me waiting for endless scanners or patch installs is about this type of topic is cameras in laptops.

First: never existed unless you physically connected through USB
Next: added as a luxury item to make a sale and be there ready for use.
Next: People got scared of them and started disabling them in the device manager.
Next: They learned it could still be turned on by a <insert scary word [hacker]>. Therefore some physically destroyed the lens with drills.
Next: Laptop companies put a nifty slider on the camera to block it.
..... Here I pause and ask the person I'm talking to: Why would they do that? Whatever answer they give me tells me their thought process, I never say if they are right or wrong, cause I don't know.

Is it to appease the customer who is paranoid? Or Do manufacturers know what the camera is doing and protecting the customer? Again to those some people, you will never get them to agree to either answer based on any fact. Emotion takes over and all is lost.
 
My mom has electrical tape on the laptop camera and her tablet camera, yet not her phone lol. I just let it go cuz she also has an echo in the house.
To me it makes me think her fear comes from random 'hackers' more so than an corporate info collecting. Probably stems from some CSI show she watched lol
 
I worry about the person having to sift through all my spied on data

Hope they're doing alright and haven't killed themselves because of me :(
 
  • Like
Reactions: noko
like this
dogDAbone said:
Die, ALL voice assistants, just friggin DIE already.....

Neva used any, neva will...PERIOD.....end of story :)

The wife got one (for free) a while back...as soon as I saw it I said "OH HELL NO, its gotzta go"... she argued & whined to keep it...., so I said ok keep it, but then promptly blocked its ports in our router (without telling her).... then she wondered why it would not work.... I made the excuse about cheap is as cheap does yada yada yada, and she ended up throwing it in the trash..... but not before I had a chance to wipe it of all our data :D
Click to expand...
Devious!
 
1670255683664.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top