@diggity There's a lot of good stuff your replies---thank you for all of the work that you and the others at @privacylab do! I will certainly stay tuned.
@diggity While this practice is expected (as the article notes, other companies do it as well), most users are definitely not aware of it and I think that many more people would be uncomfortable using these devices if they did learn that this isn't all just being processed by computers. Some of that conversation happened during the Snowden revelations---is it okay if it's just computers "listening" rather than a human being? (Of course, it's never just computers.)
It's also another example of AI capabilities being over-sold to users.
@alextee The EFF does a lot of good work that I do support them for, and I am an EFF member. But as a free software activist, I don't always agree with their stance on software or use of certain terminology.
I get it, a lot of people use WhatsApp. But this doesn't deserve applause---WhatsApp deserves condemnation. It is a proprietary, centralized service. There are better ways to go about your communication with others where you don't have to put up with company inaction by completely relinquishing control of your communications to a third party.
I wrote about this and more back in February in response to the GHCQ Ghost proposal:
@davehunt The Guix talk was actually @dthompson, but we're both young guys and may sound a little bit alike. :) I don't think we've spoken before, but my first LibrePlanet was four years ago and I don't recall all of the people that I've exchanged pleasantries with.
I'd love to chat with you sooner, certainly.
I feel I should clarify my talk suggestion: I'm not FSF staff and can't say if such a proposal would be accepted; I just meant to say that I would absolutely attend and hope that it would be.
Anyway, good to know that I have the right person in mind. :)
@mala Re: The LibrePlanet panel you were on about Australia's terrible decryption law:
I asked the first questions just before rms. I had about an hour's worth of questions but had to give others a turn. I did talk to Isa a little bit after specifically about concerns with Tor, but wasn't able to find you free. That panel made a lot of people very uncomfortable. ;)
In particular, I'm curious if you know of any prior precedent in the United States (not necessarily with regards to technology) for the aid in enforcement of laws of other countries that violate the rights of US citizens under the constitution, as they might apply in this situation.
For example, I brought up the issue of compelled speech, so one example may be a case where another country has forced the extradition of a US citizen for exercising free speech rights that aren't permissible in that country. A couple of examples as it pertains to the Australian law would be: refusing to implement a backdoor, and creating a canary.
Or, do you feel that this Australian law is such that the free speech rights established by Bernstein v. United States might be able to be subverted?
I'm asking this as someone who has never visited Australia and has no dealings there. Obviously if you have operations within Australia's jurisdiction then it's a different story.
This year, I tried to commit much more frequently than in past years (see Git history) to demonstrate how I use Org mode to track the progress of sections of my talk and outline the work I need to do. I'll write about it some time.