254
A 12-year-old girl is accused of smothering her 8-year-old cousin over an iPhone (apnews.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/news@lemmy.world
77 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

A 12-year-old girl in Tennessee has been charged with murder, accused of smothering her 8-year-old cousin as the younger girl slept. A relative said they had been arguing over an iPhone.

A security camera recorded the killing, inside the bedroom they shared on July 15 in Humboldt, Tennessee, the county prosecutor said.

The recording shows the older child using bedding to suffocate her cousin as the younger girl slept in the top bunk, Gibson District Attorney Frederick Agee’s statement said. After the child died, “the juvenile cleaned up the victim and repositioned her body,” Agee said.

A relative told WREG-TV in Memphis that the girls had been arguing over an iPhone after coming from out of town to stay with their grandmother.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 58 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Some people are surveillance'd out. I personally find it weird when people have fuckin Alexa or Google assistant in their house. Like u really want Bezos listening to your every word so u don't have to walk 3 feet to the light switch? Different strokes I guess, but I don't want a doorbell cam n I for sure don't want cam(s) inside my fucking house especially ones connected to multinational conglomerates that are going to use it to spy on me n sell me ads.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 32 points 2 years ago

    "after coming from out of town to stay with their grandmother."

    I'm assuming this means this was the grandmother's house they were staying at?

    I work in hospice and and it's not uncommon for a family member to have multiple cameras set up in an elderly loved ones house for safety reasons. Maybe she wants to remain independent, but is a fall risk. We've had patients refuse in home caregivers, but allow family to put in cameras to watch for falls.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    They don't need to listen to your every word. They have so much information on you that they can pinpoint you pretty well. They would like to, but it's too risky. However making it easy for you to give them information willingly, yes please they are on board.

    There is no evidence they are actually always processing everything, and people have been trying to prove it for a long time now. But it seems like they do what they say they are doing: listening for wake words.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    I wonder if say a country with some less scrupulous agencies with names like "NSA" and "CIA" and "FBI" could pay or force amazon to also key in at trigger words like "bomb" or "protest," or even just in an effort to get the ads that much closer to inside our brains Chevy pays them to key on "Truck" and "Ford" to attempt to sway customers who discuss it.

    Who knows if the trigger words you know are the only trigger words, there's no reason it would need to alert you, it could do it quietly in the background.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You can always go and test this instead of just assuming it's true because it's what you already believe is true.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    No I can't, because I don't allow google on my phone much less in my house. GrapheneOS 4 life.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    You can, you're just unwilling.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Nope, can't. Physically incapable of subjecting myself to spyware intentionally. I'll continue the inconvenience of typing it myself when I have to search something on a google alternative, no use for those dumb machines for me anyway.

    My TV is a 2007 LCD dumb tv, I still have a VCR, an OG xbox, and an NES hooked up to it. Take yer technologies, I don't need em.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Noone is saying you have to put anything in your house or get any type of device.

    I'm just saying that you can actually test this, in a way that does not jeopardize your privacy, such as in a controlled lab environment, but you're unwilling to do this. You certainly do not lack the ability to do so.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Ok buy me a lab. Sounds like you have the money to spare with suggestions like that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    I could, but I won't.

    I believe you would just come up with another reason you "can't" do it, just like being "physically incapable" of it. Add to that I've seen other people already do it and I have no reason to not trust their findings that I think it would be a waste of money to try and convince someone who would probably just ignore their own eyes anyway.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    See? Can't.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I aways get “but it only listens when you say the trigger word” when I talk about how much I hate spy speakers

    That makes no fucking sense

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Only if you choose to ignore the explanation.

    The device listens locally for the trigger word. When it hears it, it wakes up and starts processing what you're saying, sending that to Google or whoever and getting a response back. It isn't constantly processing or what you're saying beyond "was that 'hey Google'?".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago

    That’s because the explanation is often a bit disingenuous. There’s practically no difference between “listening locally” and “constantly processing what you’re saying”. The device is constantly processing what you’re saying, simply to recognise the trigger word. That processing just isn’t shared off device until the trigger is detected. That’s the claim by the manufacturers, and so far it’s not been proved wrong (as mentioned elsewhere, plenty of people are trying). It’s hard to prove a negative but so far it seems not enough data is leaving to prove anything suspect.

    I would put money on a team of people working for Amazon / Google to extract value from that processed speech data without actually sending that data off device. Things like aggregate conversation topic / sentiment, logging adverts heard on tv / radio for triangulation, etc. None of that would invalidate the “not constantly recording you” claim.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent