German Government Tells Parents: Destroy This WiFi-Connected Doll (theverge.com) 142
It's illegal in Germany now to sell a talking doll named "My Friend Cayla," according to a story shared by Slashdot reader Bruce66423. And that's just the beginning. The Verge reports:
A German government watchdog has ordered parents to "destroy" an internet-connected doll for fear it could be used as a surveillance device. According to a report from BBC News, the German Federal Network Agency said the doll (which contains a microphone and speaker) was equivalent to a "concealed transmitting device" and therefore prohibited under German telecom law... In December last year, privacy advocates said the toy recorded kids' conversations without proper consent, violating the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act.
Cayla uses a microphone to listen to questions, sending this audio over Wi-Fi to a third-party company that converts it to text. This is then used to search the internet, allowing the doll to answer basic questions, like "What's a baby kangaroo called?" as well as play games. In addition to privacy concerns over data collection, security researchers found that Cayla can be easily hacked. The doll's insecure Bluetooth connection can be compromised, letting a third party record audio via the toy, or even speak to children using its voice.
The Electronic Privacy Information Center has said toys like this "subject young children to ongoing surveillance...without any meaningful data protection standards." One researcher pointed out that the doll was accessible from up to 33 feet away -- even through walls -- using a bluetooth-enabled device.
Cayla uses a microphone to listen to questions, sending this audio over Wi-Fi to a third-party company that converts it to text. This is then used to search the internet, allowing the doll to answer basic questions, like "What's a baby kangaroo called?" as well as play games. In addition to privacy concerns over data collection, security researchers found that Cayla can be easily hacked. The doll's insecure Bluetooth connection can be compromised, letting a third party record audio via the toy, or even speak to children using its voice.
The Electronic Privacy Information Center has said toys like this "subject young children to ongoing surveillance...without any meaningful data protection standards." One researcher pointed out that the doll was accessible from up to 33 feet away -- even through walls -- using a bluetooth-enabled device.
Re:Holocaust 2.0 (Score:5, Funny)
Dude, how could you miss the opportunity?
This time, it's the Dollocaust!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Please tell me that you have some Jewish in your blood line... 1/64th on your sister-in-law's mother's side is good enough. Unless you happen to be either a Jew, Gypsy, or.. well a plastic toy doll that sends everything children say to American servers for logging, it's just outright offensive that you would make such a comparison.
Also, I fear the
Re: (Score:2)
Surely you can do both? Public ridicule is one of the most effective responses to offending events.
And then you can use the fence for something useful.
Distraction (Score:1, Funny)
The real reason the doll was banned is because talking dolls are haram.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Too bad the German government isn't as vigilant against the far more serious threat of the invasion of third world criminals.
Re: (Score:1)
Seeing as the refugees are on average as law-abiding as Germans, there's no real problem to speak of. Of course if you refuse to look at scale and cherry-pick some events you could spin it any way you wanted, but that's incredibly transparent and only lapped up by those wanting to lap it up.
Re: (Score:2)
While Egypt may be close to third world status now, I'm sure Saudi Arabia and UAE are far from it. I mean, those three countries alone have created many known terrorists. Even the French bombing was an Egyptian national in Saudi Arabia who got a travel visa from Dubai. Perhaps we should increase the "muslim blockage" to include countries known to harbour terrorists? But no, UAE, Saudi
Echo (Score:5, Funny)
If they can do that to a mere doll, what would they do to an Echo?
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
The issue is that it's a "disguised" recording device. It's in the same category as teddy bear surveillance cameras.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Leave pedobear alone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Echo (Score:4, Interesting)
Which, of course, is only partially true, as 99.99% of all adults will not have the slightest clue (or ability to verify) when Echo records something, and whether or not that recording goes to some remote 3rd-party.
Re: (Score:2)
That is why I don't have an Echo, or such a doll :D
Re: (Score:1)
But you have a smart phone?
Re:Echo (Score:5, Insightful)
This.
When I look at my smartphone I see the fucking Eye of Sauron.
Scary little fucking things.
Re:Echo (Score:5, Funny)
When I look at my smartphone I see the fucking Eye of Sauron.
Good choice of background pic!
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a problem as long as you're aware that it's a spy. It's all the people that think it's just a phone. People trust the damn thing they take it with them to murder someone. On the drive to hide the body and then back to the house. When they get picked up they say, "No officer, I was home all night." Then they find out the phone told the police where you were every minute of the night. I'm amazed how often this shit happens. If I was going to do anything illegal I'd throw the fucker into a neigh
Re: (Score:1)
When I look at my smartphone I see the fucking Eye of Sauron.
Scary little fucking things.
Easily fixed. Just use an Android phone and wait until it gets into the inevitable state of running the battery down in a couple of hours, regardless of what's on it and what's enabled. Deniable privacy!
Damn but I miss Symbian S60.
Re: (Score:2)
On my Smartphone are no interesting apps.
Everything has internet access disabled, except google maps and Safari unless if I have WiFi ofc.
If anything would spy on me, I most certainly would notice that due to network activity and bandwith consumption.
Re: (Score:2)
The Echo animates a bright blue light rimming the top of the device when it hears the trigger keyword and begins recording. The required Alexa app contains a complete history of everything recorded right on the home screen, and what it thought you said, allowing you to give feedback on each item. Given this, I'd wager that most people that own one have a pretty clear idea of what its doing. Granted, Amazon could modify this behavior at any time, but given that it would be possible for a security research
Re: (Score:2)
The Echo animates a bright blue light rimming the top of the device when it hears the trigger keyword and begins recording.
The English language reports on this case unfortunately leave out quite a few details.
The doll has some LED light that is supposed to show when it is recording, just like the Amazon Echo. But this LED on the doll is unreliable and often does not worke. Plus, the LED can even be deactivated in the app used to control the doll. And that is against a law here in Germany that makes concealed recording devices illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
The theory about Echo and such is that those are not disguised eavesdropping devices.
Which, of course, is only partially true, as 99.99% of all adults will not have the slightest clue (or ability to verify) when Echo records something, and whether or not that recording goes to some remote 3rd-party.
Well, they wouldn't in Europe since reselling collected personal data is illegal. Amazon can use it themselves, but they can't send it on or resell it.
Re: (Score:1)
Amazone terms of use: all services are 18 years and up or require parental supervision to use. Not even the best lawyer will manage to convince anyone that children are not the target audience of the doll and extensive data mining of children is not legal in Germany and many other countries.
Would this apply to Alexa and Google Home too? (Score:2)
Since some people in the home might not know it was there or what it did?
Or does the fact that Alexa or Home only respond when a keyword is spoken mean it's somehow ok under these laws?
The Alexa or Home device is still listening and transmitting the voices to a server right?
Re: (Score:2)
The Alexa or Home device is still listening and transmitting the voices to a server right?
It only transmits what it hears immediately after "Alexa" (or "Echo" or "Amazon" depending on settings), and it lights up on doing so to let you know it's listening.
You also can't connect to an Echo via Bluetooth from next door and use it to listen in on conversations, which you can with this doll.
Re: Hiding of recording abilities is crucial (Score:2)
Is the theory that the parents don't know that this doll has these features, or that they might take the doll somewhere outside their house and use it as a question-answering surveillance device there?
Frankly, outlawing this seems like a boneheaded decision.
Re: (Score:1)
I think is more to do with being a concealed recording and playback device, that is hack-able at a distance, and is placed in a child's bedroom, where they interact with it unsupervised.
If you cant see that providing a means by which completely unknown strangers can have unsupervised sessions with your underage child, in a place they feel safe, so have their guard down, is not unbelievably dangerous, then its you who is the bonehead.
Re: (Score:2)
What can they actually do? Apart from inserting random extraneous commas, I mean.
Re: Hiding of recording abilities is crucial (Score:1)
"Cayla wants you to meet the candyman by yourself at the bus stop. Will you help Cayla out? It's a secret so let's do it quietly!"
Re: Hiding of recording abilities is crucial (Score:2)
The problems you outline have nothing to do with the electronics being hidden inside a doll, and everything to do with them having lousy security. Banning it for being hidden when the problem is insecurity is, as I said, boneheaded.
Re: (Score:1)
Frankly, outlawing this seems like a boneheaded decision.
Frankly, not understanding how "the law" works is a pretty bonehead attitude.
The law is clear. What do you expect the judge to do? Say: "well, lets make an exception, because it is just a doll!"?
It does not change the fact that the doll obviously can be used by third parties to hack into and listen to conversations in the house of the doll owner.
Re: Hiding of recording abilities is crucial (Score:2)
If parents know about the capabilities, they aren't hidden. That's why I was asking about the theory of this thing being a covert surveillance device.
Re: (Score:2)
How I understand it, every stranger can connect to the Doll. And as I understand it: it is a bug that the device can be activated without activating the 'recording light'. I doubt parents know that.
Re: (Score:2)
Then the problem isn't that the audio recording is "hidden" in the usual sense -- it's that it is insecure. How many smart TVs and other devices have similar security holes? Would they be illegal under the same law?
Re: (Score:2)
The point it is using Bluetooth.
So it is a "wireless communication device".
I did not check the law, as there was no real case in court. It was only a "recommendation" by the agency that gives licenses to radio operators and telecommunications etc.
Look at it from this point of view: it is illegal to place a "bug" into your rooms for private persons, regardless if relatives etc. And this doll comes Close to a bug.
Re: Hiding of recording abilities is crucial (Score:2)
Your phone uses Bluetooth. If you leave it in your pocket, does that make it a hidden surveillance device?
You're not making a coherent point, or distinguishing this doll from hundreds of other products that no one seems to think should be considered illegal under this law.
Re: (Score:2)
Well,
if you think I don't write coherent, then let me ask 2 question:
a) did you even read the summary?
b) did you read the article?
My phone can not be used as mobile radio to pick up your phones microphone input and transfer that microfone input as "wireless signals" that happen to be BT and then play them back as audio on my phone.
If I gift you such a doll, and you think "what a silly gift" and put it on your desk: I can spy on you. Such spying and using such devices for spying is illegal. It is exactly the
Re: (Score:2)
Your phone uses Bluetooth. If you leave it in your pocket, does that make it a hidden surveillance device?
No. If you set it to record, it does make your jacket the illiegal device and you the manufacturer of an object that contains a hidden recording or transmission
device.
As long as the phone is clearly recognizable as a phone, there is no problem with the phone or for the phone manufacturer.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I read the summary and the article. I posted my original comment because neither of them make much sense.
This doll is no more capable of picking up my phone's microphone input than your phone is. Almost all phones have Bluetooth -- usually with more features, and easier programmability, than this doll has. If the doll's Bluetooth functionality is inherently a problem, so is your phone's.
Your example of putting this doll on another person's desk is frankly stupid. That is not a typical way to use a
Re: (Score:2)
I will try to elaborate on why I don't think the law, as described in the article and by most of the comments here, makes much sense.
What makes the device illegal? That a microphone and either a storage device or a transmitter are inside some other object (I will call this the hardware rule), or that the software on the device allows third parties to capture audio (I will call this the software rule)?
If we use the hardware rule, what qualifies it as a "hidden" device? Is a Smart TV a hidden surveillance
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry,
you are either the stupids nitpicker I have ever heard of or simply don't want to grasp it. ... and that was the point.
This doll is no more capable of picking up my phone's microphone input than your phone is
Facepalm, no one said this. However my phone is able to pick up what you are talking if the Doll sends it to my phone
What you say about our phones is irrelevant anyway, but I give you a hint: a phone is a device that is PURPOSELY designed to allow wire less COMMUNICATION via radio waves. It has a
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, to distinguish a phone from this doll, you wrote:
This is factually wrong. This doll doesn't work like that, and a phone can capture audio and transmit it to another phone even more easily than this doll can. So the facepalm is because you said the thing that "no one said".
The FCC is a US regulato
Re: (Score:2)
I did not say or meant to say that the law makes. I tried to explain what the law is.
The law divides devices that use radio waves for transmission of voice into two big groups:
A) allowed, partly with restrictions, like requiring a license e.g. for VHF radios on boats
B) not allowed
As the law right now is, the interpretation of "Die Bundesnetzargentur" is: such devices fall into category B. The mentioned agency is the agency that grants licenses for A) if the person passes the tests (in case a license is need
Re: (Score:2)
You have only explained that the regulatory agency somehow finds this particular doll to be a hidden surveillance device now, but apparently did not find it to be one before.
This is like so much under civil law: An arbitrary, idiosyncratic decision that does not provide any real insight into how the next decision about a similar example should be made. Do voice-over-IP applications on your phone make your phone fall under the "not allowed" group, or are all such applications allowed with certain restrictio
Re: (Score:2)
This is factually wrong. This doll doesn't work like that,
The argument in the article is: the doll works like that. It gets activated by someone else and then sends the audio that it captures to that one else.
phone can capture audio and transmit it to another phone even more easily than this doll can.
No it can't. No idea what is so difficult to grasp. My phone can not use BT to activate the microphone on your phone and convince it to sent all audio it picks up to my phone via BT. For that to happen you woul
Re: (Score:2)
Trying to understand what distinguishes a legal device from an illegal one is not nit-picking. It is trying to understand the law. Asking someone to explain the difference between two similar things, where one thing has a trait (legal device, even number, whatever) and the other does not, is a very common approach to learn about a topic.
The stories I have seen say the doll is illegal because it has a hidden microphone (perhaps because journalists are too lazy to write more than 200 words about this story)
Re: (Score:2)
Juist because it is not clear to you what is allowed or not does not make it unclear for the people making the decisions.
This is like so much under civil law: An arbitrary, idiosyncratic decision that does not provide any real insight into how the next decision about a similar example should be made.
And how is case law or if you aim more for criminal law different?
Why you hint VOIP Apps could or should fall under the "not allowed" category is beyond me. Especially as the rules are made for devices, not fo
Re: (Score:2)
No, but when there are conflicting explanations and nobody seems to be able to clearly explain why this thing is not allowed but similar things are allowed, it suggests that the criteria are unclear.
Re: (Score:2)
In Germany, the BNetzA licenses such devices. Why did it approve this doll for sale in the first place? What changed between then and now?
I don't think anything has changed.
It was never licensed in Germany, but if it us sold anywhere in the EU, it can be imported into Germany without problems. And even radio equipment that was licensed and tested to behave to its standards (like Wifi, Bluetooth, LTE...) in one EU country is legal to be used everywhere in Europe. (Assuming it is correctly operated according to additional national regulations and instruction manual. Example: Operating WiFi is legal only if the channel selection is set to your c
Re: (Score:2)
In that case, then two results obtain:
Re: (Score:2)
Then what is the precise definition of an illegal hidden surveillance device? You apparently disagree with angel'o'sphere's conclusion that this doll is illegal because its security bugs void its license to transmit voice over a radio. Would the examples I have given elsewhere in this thread be legal or illegal?
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, it has nothing to do with any radio licensing or bugs or hijacking, The description [bundesnetzagentur.de] of what is forbidden is pretty clear:
die ihrer Form nach einen anderen Gegenstand vortäuschen oder die mit Gegenständen des täglichen Gebrauchs verkleidet sind und auf Grund dieser Umstände oder auf Grund ihrer Funktionsweise in besonderer Weise geeignet und dazu bestimmt sind, das nicht öffentlich gesprochene Wort eines anderen von diesem unbemerkt abzuhören oder das Bild eines anderen von diesem unbemerkt aufzunehmen.
Let's start from the back: The device has to be capable to record or transmit non-public speech or image unnoticed. Check. But that would be true for any phone or mp3-player, so there are some other required features: The device has to be either a) pretending to be another class of object or b) to be disguised with an everyday object or c) suitable and meant to facilitate se
Re: Hiding of recording abilities is crucial (Score:2)
Thank you. I greatly appreciate your citation to the law, your translation of it, and explaining that disclosing the recording capabilities does not make it not "hidden". I think my fundamental disagreement with the law is based on that last part, but my opinions do not change German law :)
Re: (Score:2)
:-) While not being that old I guess that law just predates the idea that anyone in his sane mind could even have the idea to use a hidden microphone and a radio transmitter as a toy.
Re: (Score:2)
Well,
I try to summarize, your last posts and answer.
The laws for telecommunication regulate devices that use the radio spectrum.
The laws regarding "spying" on someone are a subset or associated law as we have something like "secrecy of letters", no eavesdropping on privacy without warrant, no eavesdropping at all by non law enforcement.
No, but when there are conflicting explanations and nobody seems to be able to clearly explain why this thing is not allowed but similar things are allowed, it suggests that
!Creepy at all (Score:1)
Well that isn't creepy at all.
WiFi-Connected Dell (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon Echo is not "disguised", I think.
Re: (Score:2)
Echo isn't aimed at children. And it's hardly a secret how it works, basically the whole internet connectivity is the selling point.
Manufacturers intent: Collect/sell data/ads (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just how expensive do you think the hardware (and databases) necessary to do to real-time speech recognition on a non-internet connected device is going to be? Do you think a toy company can do that in a doll? I think not.
Re: (Score:2)
The hardware is probably expensive...the databases, not so much so. To correct that, building ONE database is quite expensive. Copying it to lots of dolls makes the incremental cost cheap.
The question that might make this wrong is "Does the doll understand human speech, or the speech of one particular person?". If each doll needs a separate specialized database, then it would, indeed, be expensive, but then one wonders "Who's paying for all these customized databases?".
Should have known... (Score:5, Insightful)
The entire point of internet enabled devices is to collect your data. They are all surveillance devices.
Re: (Score:1)
No more cell phones!
Surveillance device!
Destroy the Doll (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The refund idea probably won't work, as you had to buy that doll somewhere where they are legal, so there's no need for a refund there.
But I like the idea with the witch burning. Just imagine telling little girls "Yes sweetheart, Cayla was a bad doll.. se what we do with bad dolls here....? Muahaha..."
Maybe Talky Tina (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When they said that hackers could have the doll speak anything they wanted, I was thinking of Talky Tina [youtube.com] as well.
New product ... (Score:2)
One way to solve the problem (Score:2)
Microwave on high. 15 seconds should be enough.
I call Bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
I've NEVER had a Bluetooth device maintain connection at 30 feet WITHOUT walls.
I've never had one work through a door much less drywall...
Re: (Score:2)
I've NEVER had a Bluetooth device maintain connection at 30 feet WITHOUT walls.
I've never had one work through a door much less drywall...
I have had a few unexpected conversations with my mother-in-law while taking my wife's car out of the garage. I suspect not all Bluetooth devices are created equally, and the one in my wife's Ford is very good. It will connect to her phone from well over 30 feet, with several walls in between.
Re: (Score:1)
My Favorite (Score:2)
That's my question, too (Score:1)
What is a baby kangaroo called in German?
What will the toy answer? The higher ranked answer from one of those cloying 'hot network questions' on stackexchange?
It was illegal all along (Score:2)
In Germany, covert listening devices are illegal to operate and own (exceptions for law-enforcement apply). That is why these dolls were illegal all along, because it is not readily obvious what they do. The "Bundesnetzagentur" has just pointed that out.
Why my Bluetooth setting do not DISPLAY? W10 (Score:1)
Re: Money back (Score:1)
Citizen, report to jail immediately.
Re: (Score:3)
I know, right? Why can't I put a concealed, Internet-connected surveillance device in my daughter's bedroom? This is a clear violation of my freedoms!
Re: (Score:2)
Why can't they just stitch "I record audio and upload it to the Internet" on a replacement shirt for the doll and call it done?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't have a problem with a government ordering someone to respect someone else's privacy. Not that I don't find some things governments do repulsive. I do have a problem with governments illegally invading their citizen's privacy, and then imprisoning whistle blowers. Jesus bloody Christ, worry about something that actually matters.
Re: (Score:2)
Betas? Grow up. But at least you didn't use "cuck" that is so popular with the extreme right nowadays, presumably describing themselves and their fantasies...
For us that can read German (and those that have the intelligence to use a translation service for that matter) can differentiate between orders and advise.
Re:Money back (Score:4, Insightful)
The article is wrong. The state didn't ORDER it, they RECCOMMENDED it.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, that depends on how you interpret it.
The German agency could be ordering people to destroy the doll because they are 'protecting' the child from her parents.
The parents are likely in all cases completely innocent, but that doesn't preclude a Government Agency from assuming the worst and prosecuting the parents.
Re: (Score:2)
But those approvals concern electrical safety - which hasn't been challenged. Whether the CC company would take the manufacturer/ importers failure to realise that data protection laws apply .... much more dubious. But you're better positio
Re: (Score:2)
Dolls have had eyes and ears for as long as they existed. Until now, though, those eyes and ears weren't telling someone what they see and hear.
The Elf on the Shelf (Score:2)
A doll that reports to some corporate database is not ok.
Yet a doll that pretend reports to some corporate database is perfectly OK. They sell them around Thanksgiving, called "The Elf on the Shelf".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It seems the issue here really isn't the doll spying on children... it's that some unauthorized third party could take advantage of the manufacturer's bad design and make use of that spying ability themselves.
But we like to pretend we're protecting our kids, even while simultaneously letting Google or Amazon monetize them.
Re: (Score:1)
What about Mattel's Barbie doll?
Klaus? Not a big seller.