Amazon Sidewalk to go Live on 08 Jun

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by Froide

FYI:
"Amazon has started switching Sidewalk settings from OFF to ON, without asking, to share your Internet WiFi with the public"
by Elias Saba on November 29, 2020

The easy solution is to stay away from Amazon's spy gadgets altogether — unless this "Sidewalk" privacy invasion can also access non-Amazon products.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by PeterT

You do realize that it's not making wifi available to others; it's actually just allowing certain Amazon devices to inter-connect via Bluetooth or other non-wifi protocols so that IoT functionality (Tile devices, Doorbells etc) to continue functioning if their native wifi connection fails.

It's not allowing someone to surf the net via your Internet connection.

One thing to ask users to opt-in. Totally different when opting them in without asking.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by DNSB

I'm more worried about Amazon saying it might share Sidewalk information with 3rd party developers. Shall I say Amazon's record at protecting private data is not overly inspiring.

Exactly.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

It's an account setting. Turning Sidewalk off in your Alexa app on one device will disable it for any device registered to that account.

Unless they decide to turn it back on.

[DiapDealer]

Oh for gods sake. My point was there's no need to turn it off in multiple places to disable it. The same would apply even if they did "decide to turn it back on." Disabling it again would only need to be done from one device's Alexa app.

[Raptwithal]

My ignorance amazes even me, but I'll ask anyway. Is an Amazon-branded ereader device (kindle or whatever) associated with the sidewalk software in any way?

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Raptwithal

My ignorance amazes even me, but I'll ask anyway. Is an Amazon-branded ereader device (kindle or whatever) associated with the sidewalk software in any way?

No - see post 26 for a list of devices affected.

[Raptwithal]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

No - see post 26 for a list of devices affected.

Oy, missed it, but good to know.

If I were to ask anything else, it would be why the 'kindle family devices' are not like the sidewalk devices (and is it because kindle devices can work -- with limitations -- without internet access). Just a curiosity.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Oh for gods sake. My point was there's no need to turn it off in multiple places to disable it. The same would apply even if they did "decide to turn it back on." Disabling it again would only need to be done from one device's Alexa app.

Provided you knew they turned it back on. And providing that turning it off actually turns it off. And providing they continue to give you the option to opt-out in the future. I don't have a lot of faith in corporations on privacy issues. When it comes to making money they don't seem to have a lot in the way of scruples.

[Skydog]

After receiving an email from Amazon regarding Sidewalk some weeks ago, I immediately followed their instructions for disabling the feature and that was that. However, I checked today and where there was previously "Amazon Sidewalk" listed in my settings it had vanished. Gone. So I updated the app (Android) to the lastest version and magically "Amazon Sidewalk" has reappeared in settings. Happily, it was still disabled as I had originally set it.

Very strange.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by PeterT

You do realize that it's not making wifi available to others; it's actually just allowing certain Amazon devices to inter-connect via Bluetooth or other non-wifi protocols so that IoT functionality (Tile devices, Doorbells etc) to continue functioning if their native wifi connection fails.

It's not allowing someone to surf the net via your Internet connection.

Xfinity does something similar (share a fraction of WiFi with others) and in that case it does allow someone to surf the net via my internet connection. I've not disabled it and have never seen an impact on my internet speeds.

On its face, it sounds bad. There was all sorts of consternation when it was announced. But in practice it has negligible impact and on a couple of occasions has been a benefit to me.

Amazon Sidewalk sounds very similar, but even safer than the Xfinity deal. Maybe making it an opt out was a little sleazy. I'd wager that if it were an opt in, very few people would sign up for it. But in practice, I'm guessing there will be no real world impact on people's lives.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Maybe making it an opt out was a little sleazy. I'd wager that if it were an opt in, very few people would sign up for it.

And that would kill the program.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

And that would kill the program.

I'm guessing you're right. And if your customers don't like your "feature" enough to want to use it, maybe you shouldn't force it on them.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by rcentros

I'm guessing you're right. And if your customers don't like your "feature" enough to want to use it, maybe you shouldn't force it on them.

Or you know that your customer will fundamentally misunderstand what the program is and will knee-jerk opt-out.

I'd be wiling to bet that Echo users who don't opt out and become Sidewalk 'hosts' or whatever the term is won't notice any difference at all.

In general, I'm not an Amazon booster. I don't have a Kindle, I hated the cheap Fire tablet I bought and I prefer Google's Home speakers to the Echo.

But I can't get too bent out of shape about Sidewalk. If Google did something similar with my Google tech, I wouldn't opt out.

[Uncle Robin]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Maybe making it an opt out was a little sleazy. I'd wager that if it were an opt in, very few people would sign up for it.

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

And that would kill the program.

Which is as it should be. Opt-out is not "a little sleazy", it's VERY sleazy, indefensible and should be automatically illegal. ANY data-gathering ploy like this is should only be allowed as opt-in. It's very hard for anyone to claim they're supporting users' freedom of choice if they defend a program that does not actually give users the choice to use it, but instead forces them to actively choose not to.