Why someone wants a smart home assistant is beyond me

[TWPonKubuntu]

Snowhog, found it, thanks

[TWPonKubuntu]

dequire: Well said, thank you.

[TWPonKubuntu]

And, not to have the last word, but this is apropos:

https://xkcd.com/1938/

I found the explanation of the vulnerability to be at least close enough to work with...

[Snowhog]

The very best information and explanations come from https://xkcd.com

There stuff makes me laugh every time I visit!

[oshunluvr]

Me? Paranoid? Well, that depends on who is making the diagnosis...

While I can see the point of view that "I'm not doing anything illegal, so I don't need to worry"... The problem is that what is legal today can become "illegal" tomorrow, after we're already done whatever is deemed to be illegal...

I give you:
Feeding pigeons in the park.
Feeding the homeless.
Driving without a drivers license.
Driving without registration.
Driving without insurance.
Holding "incorrect" religious beliefs.

I could go on, but I hope you see the way this does work, today.

Paranoia is your friend...

Technology is a wonder and I do use it every day. I'm also paranoid about how my actions are being tracked, recorded and cataloged.

And, no, I'm not offended and did not take it as aimed at me.

Well, I seriously doubt that Homeland Security will issue a subpoena for people feeding pigeons. And I lived in California for 28 years, so if you don't have a licence, registration, and insurance I don't want you on the street - but even then, a court order and due process would be needed. I guess I've missed the point here. You have a cell phone? Then yes, you're being tracked. Last I checked, cell phones were neither a right nor a necessity, just a convenience. I would bet any amount of money that no one in any government agency cares a fig what you are doing. Unless of course, there's some reason why they might, which only you would know.

It's good to be informed. It's good to be aware. It's ridiculous to assume every shadow is someone following you and every news story is about you.

EDIT: and I don't see paranoia or any other psychosis as a "friend". As you said in your earlier post, awareness is paramount, but paranoia is not the same thing. Awareness is paying attention. Paranoia is creating something that does not exist. For me, I am a true skeptic. About everything. If your belief does not hold up to questioning or you can't defend it, it's not justifiable and I dismiss it. And also true as you stated, the database is the issue. So why is Amazon being attacked for doing something that's legal, allowed, known? Why is the justice system attacked for applying laws and utilizing the tools they are allowed to use? If things are to change, the focus has to change. Laws can be changed. Government is changeable. Corporations cannot be trusted because their goal is to profit, but that doesn't make them the enemy. Vilifying an institution who's motivations are clear makes no sense to me. Choose to not participate. It's free and easy. If you want change, focus on what needs to change. Not Amazon, but the law, the rules, and those making them.

[oshunluvr]

Testing to see if ‘my’ quoting results in the formatting of the quoted text being ‘changed’; Uppercase first letter of a sentance changing to lowercase, and the second smilie being changed to it’s text value. Why? These changes are present in the quoted content made by oshunluver.

Previwing this post shows that the formatting is intact.

My post is weird. While your emoji appears my does not. Maybe the ++1 did something to the code interrupter?

[TWPonKubuntu]

[QUOTE=oshunluvr;408731... I guess I've missed the point here...[/QUOTE]

My point was that making an action retroactively into a criminal offense is a very real possibility... If there are records being kept, now, about your actions, then those could (might, maybe, perhaps) be used against you in the future...

As examples of this; not having an auto license, registration and insurance, USED (past tense) to be legal. Not any longer. In other words, legalities change, usually on the whim of politicians who want a cut of the action... I know, shocking right?

If you trust that this will not happen, then continue with your current usage of online tools which are known to track your activity... I trust that you won't choose to do this.

Yes, I am advising a degree of paranoia with respect to TPTB and those who have decided that your privacy is not important.

I do make an effort to obfuscate my online trail-of-breadcrumbs. I use tools which are intended to block such tracking. I avoid using tools which are created by known "bad actors" and businesses with low moral standards on privacy. I'm NOT saying these are 100% successful, but anything is better than nothing... The list is too long to even begin to include here...

Finally, if my use of the word "paranoia" does not convey the needed degree of urgency, then by all means use whatever term gets you to think about this. "Awareness" is a good word, but may be too limited in scope. I don't have a phobia about the clinical definition of "paranoia" as being a negative attribute. It expresses my very strong feeling of urgency with respect to the direction being taken by the online community.

I hope this makes my position more clear, without pushing you to ignore that position because of the language used.

[Snowhog]

My point was that making an action retroactively into a criminal offense is a very real possibility...

Actually, it's not. There is a very fundamental principle within U.S. Law that prevents making a 'past act' illegal and punishable based on a 'new law' making that act (now) illegal.

[oshunluvr]

Actually, it's not. There is a very fundamental principle within U.S. Law that prevents making a 'past act' illegal and punishable based on a 'new law' making that act (now) illegal.

Excellent comment. To whit: U.S. Constitution, Article 1 (The Legislative Branch), Section 9 (Limits on Congress), Clause 3: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

"Ex Post Facto" means after the fact. In this case, meaning Congress cannot pass a law making past behavior illegal. Settled in Supreme Court case law, they can't even make past illegal behavior more illegal. Like increasing the punishment for something now illegal and then applying the new punishment retroactively.

[Snowhog]

Excellent comment. To whit: U.S. Constitution, Article 1 (The Legislative Branch), Section 9 (Limits on Congress), Clause 3: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

"Ex Post Facto" means after the fact. In this case, meaning Congress cannot pass a law making past behavior illegal. Settled in Supreme Court case law, they can't even make past illegal behavior more illegal. Like increasing the punishment for something now illegal and then applying the new punishment retroactively.

And this is just one example of what makes the United States such a GREAT Country.

[TWPonKubuntu]

Actually, it's not. There is a very fundamental principle within U.S. Law that prevents making a 'past act' illegal and punishable based on a 'new law' making that act (now) illegal.

We'll probably need to agree to disagree here. Yes, there is this principle in US law. How honored that principle is, in practice, is my point of concern. I give you the volumes of law being created to adjust how existing laws are to be handled...

As this applies to the thread topic (did we get too far away from that? ), privacy is becoming progressively ill defined... Massive databases with (IMO) very personal data, on very many people, are a serious breach in privacy.

I'll be willing to let this thread return to our regularly scheduled programming if I've managed to really offend enough people, but this seems like an important topic. It's not personal to anyone in this forum and I hope I've managed to point to some problems...

[Snowhog]

I give you the volumes of law being created to adjust how existing laws are to be handled...

Doesn't matter. The United States Supreme Court already ruled on this (potential) abuse, so such enacted laws are already un-enforceable under existing U.S. Supreme Court rulings.

[oshunluvr]

With respect to Amazon, specifically, they created the database in the first place.

True and undeniable.

I'll agree that they then found themselves between the rock and the hard place and but then chose to acquiesce to the demand for disclosure.

A mis-characterization of the facts in evidence IMO. I did not see where the article states they "just decided" to turn over data. NOT responding to a subpoena or court order is really not usually a choice. "Acquiesce" does not equal following legally processed orders within the confines of the law.

The problem, IMO, lies in the original choice to keep a database which, again IMO, is an invasion of privacy.

Totally disagree. Clearly stated here: https://aws.amazon.com/agreement/ . It is the consumers responsibility to NOT use Amazon if you don't agree with this document, specifically paragraph 3.2. Actually, compared to digital licenses like Microsith demands, Amazon's is unusually concise.

We are not going to solve this here. Nor do I see a solution on the horizon. All I can recommend is to be aware that this is happening and avoid writing a potentially negative profile into those databases.

Walks away, polishing his solid brass halo using his shirttails.

I can't imagine saying this better

[oshunluvr]

Doesn't matter. The United States Supreme Court already ruled on this (potential) abuse, so such enacted laws are already un-enforceable under existing U.S. Supreme Court rulings.

..and a long time ago. From usconstitution.net:

In U.S. Constitutional Law, the definition of what is ex post facto is more limited. The first definition of what exactly constitutes an ex post facto law is found in Calder v Bull (3 US 386 [1798]), in the opinion of Justice Chase:
1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2d. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3d. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender.

Boldface added. Note "More limited..." meaning more limited than the normal translation.

[Snowhog]

..and a long time ago. From usconstitution.net:

In U.S. Constitutional Law, the definition of what is ex post facto is more limited. The first definition of what exactly constitutes an ex post facto law is found in Calder v Bull (3 US 386 [1798]), in the opinion of Justice Chase:
1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2d. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3d. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender.

As much as so may espouse the decline of the Unites States, it is such as this which (still) makes us the greatest country on the planet.