Like the famous 2017 Burger King ad that deliberately hijacked nearby Google Home smart speakers. [0]
There's an argument to be made that it should be covered by cyber-attack laws. You aren't allowed to deliberately take control of someone else's computer without their permission.
Consider a hypothetical example: an author without use of their hands, who uses text-to-speech to write books and to control their computer. Imagine if they put you on speakerphone and you read out a sequence of commands to delete their work. That certainly wouldn't be covered under freedom of expression.
There's an obvious difference in degree, as spamming someone by hijacking their smart speaker isn't all that costly, but it's similar in category.
There's an argument to be made that it should be covered by cyber-attack laws. You aren't allowed to deliberately take control of someone else's computer without their permission.
Consider a hypothetical example: an author without use of their hands, who uses text-to-speech to write books and to control their computer. Imagine if they put you on speakerphone and you read out a sequence of commands to delete their work. That certainly wouldn't be covered under freedom of expression.
There's an obvious difference in degree, as spamming someone by hijacking their smart speaker isn't all that costly, but it's similar in category.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burger_King_advertising#2000s%...
reply