Attorney Daniel J. Siegel's Legal Tech Podcast · 2024-03-22 · 6 min
Key moments - from our scoring
Substance score
23 / 100
Five dimensions, 20 points each
Attorney Dan Siegel makes a straightforward case against smart speakers in legal settings, focusing on the privacy and security risks that Google and Amazon devices pose to confidential information. Both Google Home and Amazon Alexa are designed to listen continuously for wake words, but they frequently activate unintentionally and record voice interactions by default. While these companies claim the devices only activate when summoned, real-world behavior shows they often listen and record when not explicitly triggered. For attorneys handling client information, this poses an unacceptable risk - once recordings reach Google or Amazon's servers, they become accessible to third parties. Siegel emphasizes that while smart speakers are convenient for weather queries at home, the moment confidential or sensitive data enters the conversation, the risk calculus changes entirely. The episode is essential listening for solo practitioners, small firm attorneys, and any legal professional considering smart home devices in work spaces.
They are designed to listen when activated by wake words, but they frequently listen and record unintentionally, and all voice interactions are saved by default unless manually deleted from your voice history.
No - attorneys should not use smart speakers in offices or spaces where client information is discussed because the devices listen continuously and recorded data becomes accessible to third parties once it reaches Google or Amazon servers.
Google's privacy policies are difficult to find on Google's site, but the reality is that Google does record voice interactions when the Google Assistant is active and you have granted microphone access, and it's unclear when it stops listening.
Amazon's Voice History section in Alexa Privacy settings shows all voice interactions, which can be filtered by date, device, and profile - and these recordings are saved by default unless you manually delete them.
Our reviewer’s read on each dimension, with quotes from the episode.
The episode consists almost entirely of repetitive warnings about smart devices listening in law offices without substantive legal, technical, or business analysis. The core message - don't use Alexa or Google Home if discussing confidential information - is stated multiple times with minimal new information added after the initial claim. There is no discussion of compliance frameworks, risk assessment, alternatives, or actionable solutions.
No, just now you have to say no. Absolutely not. Don't do it.
No, don't do it. No, absolutely not. Don't do it. This has been Dan Siegel from the Law Offices of Daniel J. Siegel, LLC
The episode recycles well-known public concerns about smart speaker privacy (Amazon Alexa always listening, Google recording) that have been covered extensively in mainstream media since 2017-2019. There is no original framework, contrarian insight, or novel analysis. The guest (the host himself) adds no fresh perspective beyond stating the obvious risk.
The New York Times said the Alexa speaker, like the Echo or a dad is always on listening device
If you've got the Google doc or any other Google device, it is listening to you.
The episode features the host (Daniel J. Siegel) discussing his own firm's general practice without demonstrating specific expertise in privacy law, compliance, or data governance. No actual guest appears, and the host provides no credentials, case studies, or evidence of deep operational experience with these issues in law firms.
I'm Dan Siegel, and I'm going to be taking you on a relatively short but important discussion
I know because one attorney recently said to me, he keeps it in his office
The episode provides almost no specific evidence: one vague anecdote about 'an attorney recently,' a reference to a New York Times article without citation or detail, and general statements about privacy policies without concrete examples, numbers, or actual legal consequences. No specific compliance standards, regulatory frameworks, or real incidents are discussed.
I know because one attorney recently said to me, he keeps it in his office
The New York Times said the Alexa speaker, like the Echo or a dad is always on listening device
This is a monologue, not a conversation. There are no follow-up questions, no pushback, no exploration of nuance or counterarguments, and no guest to challenge or probe. The host simply repeats the same warning in slightly different ways throughout, making no attempt at engaging dialogue or critical examination of the issue.
So without further ado, let's get right to the point.
No, just now you have to say no. Absolutely not. Don't do it.
Computed from the transcript - who did the talking, and the words that came up most.
We love Amazon Alexa, Google, Siri and all those listening devices. They are fun, great at home, but an absolute no around offices. Lawyers, and any other profession handling confidential or sensitive information, simply can't have them around. In this episode of the Legal Tech Podcast, Attorney and privacy expert Daniel J. Siegel explains why those devices are simply not for use in an office.
Transcribed and scored by The B2B Podcast Index.
Hello and welcome back to the Legal Tech podcast sponsored by the Law Offices of Daniel J. Siegel, LLC and Integrated Technology Services LLC. I'm Dan Siegel, and I'm going to be taking you on a relatively short but important discussion about assistance like the Alexa, the Google doc, and all of those items. So without further ado, let's get right to the point.
No, just now you have to say no. Absolutely not. Don't do it. What am I talking about?
I'm talking about those smart devices that you have in your home and maybe in your office. I know because one attorney recently said to me, he keeps it in his office and he uses it all the time as an attorney or anyone else who has confidential information. That's not a good idea. What do I mean?
Well, you can do it this way. Let's just look at what Google and Amazon say about their privacy of those entire thoughts, etc.. Google, go find the policy on it. That's the first point.
If you have to really search and when you do searches for does Google listen or does the Google dot listen? You find lots of answers, but what you don't find are the answers on Google's site very often. Why? You can wonder.
But really, you know that Google actually does record not everything, but it is recording. So you have to think about that. If you've got the Google doc or any other Google device, it is listening to you. If you've granted it access to your microphone and the Google assistant is active, Google is probably listening.
It may not be recording, but if you have said any of the code words that make it active, it is listening and you don't know when it's going to stop. So Google, when is it listening? Well, who knows? But for an attorney who's discussing confidential information, sensitive information, that type of information, you can't take that chance.
Because if it in fact goes to Google, then it is free game for anyone to look at it. Amazon, Alexa, what does that say about listening to you? The New York Times said the Alexa speaker, like the Echo or a dad is always on listening device, although it's only designed to listen when called upon. Sometimes it doesn't play by its own rules, and sometimes it as well as Amazon behaves in ways that would just overly viably make anyone worry about their security and privacy.
The fact is that those devices are there to eavesdrop. This isn't anything surprising. We know that they're there to answer on the spot all kinds of questions. Maybe.
What is the weather? It may be something more complicated and it gets that information because it's listening and then it records it. So you have to be careful. And anyone who uses a smart speaker, like a smart phone or a device posts on social media or otherwise acts interacts with the Internet, has also experienced these situations when, oops, the device turned on, even though you didn't say any of those words because it thinks so.
And Alexa or the Google or any of the other items, they collect information on how users interact from it, from what they say. They ask what they do and which third party skills they interact with. That's how they develop the product and make them better. So you have to be thinking about that very carefully and understand.
The Amazon voice. History says that the review voice industry section of the Alexa Privacy settings shows your voice interactions. You can filter by date, device and profile and choose and an entry to see what it heard and to see how you respond it. All of those recordings are saved by default.
You can change how long your voice recordings are saved or choose to delete them, but they're there. So the real answer on this question of should attorneys or anyone with sensitive information be recording on these devices? No, it's not a great idea in theory, and it's terrible in practice. It's very simple.
Those companies are listening all the time or could be listening all the time. And when it comes to confidential and sensitive data, you should not partake in their listening to you. They want a market. They want to sell.
They can sell you whatever you want when you're at home and you want to have find out what the weather's going to be. But they can't be selling. They can't be listening. When you are recording or you are talking about client information that is confidential or sensitive.
In other words, no, don't do it. No, absolutely not. Don't do it. This has been Dan Siegel from the Law Offices of Daniel J.
Siegel, LLC, and Integrated Technology Services LLC. This has been the podcast that we sponsor periodically, the Legal Tech Podcast. So I hope you've enjoyed today's episode and you'll listen some more in the future. Thank you very much.
Other episodes covering the same guests and topics, from across The B2B Podcast Index.
Estate Planning Kerfuffles: Why DIY Wills and Living Trusts Go Wrong41 / 100Vote Smart: Understanding Pennsylvania’s Judicial Retention Elections32 / 100How Legal Research and Legislative History Led to a Landmark Victory: The Story Behind Steets v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Pa. 2025)55 / 100The Myth of the 90 Day Rule - Why Injured Workers in Pennsylvania Almost Never Have to Treat With the Company Doctor61 / 100Spouses Don't Get It All - In Pennsylvania, If You Die Without a Will, Your Spouse Doesn't Get Everything61 / 100
