Sidewalk is Amazon’s Latest Creepy Service
- Paul Thurrott
- Nov 24, 2020
-
43
Amazon alerted users of its Alexa-powered devices that it will soon enable a potentially dangerous new service called Sidewalk. You may want to disable it.
“Amazon Sidewalk is a shared network that helps devices work better,” an Amazon email reads. “For example, if your device loses its [Wi-Fi] connection, Sidewalk can simplify reconnecting to your router and help set up new Echo devices. Sidewalk can also extend the coverage for Sidewalk-enabled devices, such as Ring smart lights and pet and object trackers, so they can stay connected and continue to work over longer distances.”
Windows Intelligence In Your Inbox
Sign up for our new free newsletter to get three time-saving tips each Friday — and get free copies of Paul Thurrott's Windows 11 and Windows 10 Field Guides (normally $9.99) as a special welcome gift!
"*" indicates required fields
That all sounds fantastic. But read a bit further, and you’ll find that Sidewalk “uses a small portion of your Internet bandwidth to provide these services to you and your neighbors.” That’s right: Amazon is going to siphon off a portion of your Internet bandwidth—during a pandemic, when we’re all working from home and need that connection—so that your neighbor’s Echo and other compatible devices will work better. And yes, this setting will apply to all of the supported devices that are linked to your Amazon account.
No, it’s not that much bandwidth—80Kbps, Amazon says, and it’s capped at 500 MB per month. But still. Does anyone else have a problem with Amazon silently creating a public mesh network in your neighborhood?
Here’s the good news: You can disable it, and you can do so now. To disable Sidewalk, open the Alexa app on your mobile device and navigate to More > Settings > Account Settings > Amazon Sidewalk.
Still curious? You can learn more about Amazon Sidewalk here.
Tagged with
Conversation 43 comments
-
christianwilson
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<p>I read the email I received this morning. You are right. I thought it was a clever idea when I started reading it until I got to the siphoning of my internet connection for neighbors. That is a turn off. And turning it off is exactly what I am going to do. </p>
-
Paul Thurrott
Premium MemberLog in to ReplyI bet most people don’t read past the first sentence or two and that that was what Amazon was counting on.
-
billd12848
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<p>Which way do you set the setting to disables the service, it seems a bit misleading.</p>
-
SvenJ
Log in to Reply<blockquote><a href="#595410"><em>In reply to BillD12848:</em></a><em> </em>To the left, as you normally would turn something off. If you turn it on, right, you get more settings. These gray out if you turn it back off.</blockquote><p><br></p>
-
Mcgillivray
Log in to Reply<p>I guess the mentality going on here is that the last thing anyone needs during this time is : To be nice and help others. </p><p><br></p><p>So I read this as : Hoard what is yours. Don't share. How dare others not have devices and services capable of helping themselves!</p><p><br></p><p>Which is par for the course in this day and age I guess…</p><p><br></p><p>Still, the best way Amazon could implement this is by notifying everyone and letting them know that if they would like to contribute to this – they can go and enable it – but it will be disabled by default.</p>
-
proftheory
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#595411">In reply to Mcgillivray:</a></em></blockquote><p>Sounds like a Commune mentality. With the likelihood of it opening up a security hole I'd prefer it not be there.</p>
-
SvenJ
Log in to Reply<blockquote><a href="#595411"><em>In reply to Mcgillivray:</em></a><em> </em>It's not about not helping others. It's about the security aspects of the feature. Do you have your home Wifi open to all with no password required? When I had Comcast, I had no issue with their router establishing an independent network that others could use. It was however, independent from my home network, only using the same physical connectivity back to the servers. It did not provide access to my network. It is unclear what Sidewalk does in this respect. Imagine if I could have a battery powered Echo, walk up to your house, have it connect via your network, and say 'Alexa, open the garage door'.</blockquote><p><br></p>
-
Paul Thurrott
Premium MemberLog in to ReplyUm.
I agree we should be nice and help others. But that should be our choice, not the choice of the world’s third-largest corporation, just because I bought one of their $49 smart speakers.
-
christianwilson
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#595411">In reply to Mcgillivray:</a></em></blockquote><p>This has little to do with giving your neighbors a helping hand. It has everything to do with Amazon trying to make their products work better. That is fine, but the way they are going about it brings up some important concerns regarding security that none of us outside of Amazon have the answers to.</p>
-
sherlockholmes
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<p>Amazon itself is creepy. </p>
-
jmhartman
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<p>After listening to the podcast and reading the email I went into the Alexa app to disable it and was surprised to see it was already disabled. Didn't comcast implement this same concept years ago?</p>
-
SvenJ
Log in to Reply<blockquote><a href="#595413"><em>In reply to jmhartman:</em></a><em> </em>Careful. Mine says coming soon. It may be loaded as an option and when Soon happens, it will be activated. Check back now and again.</blockquote><p><br></p>
-
Paul Thurrott
Premium MemberLog in to ReplyRight.
-
derekabraham
Log in to Reply<p>Well it is disabled by default and seems to be an Opt In rather than an Opt Out. It is not clear what is the concern – the possibility of it using 500 MB if someone opts in to do that or something else altogether.</p>
-
remc86007
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#595416">In reply to derekabraham:</a></em></blockquote><p>Knowing how the tech giants operate, this is the sort of thing that starts out being off by default, then later they make it on by default, then later they make it mandatory.</p><p><br></p><p>The problem I see with it is not the small bandwidth siphoning, but rather the significant new vector of attack it provides for hackers. </p>
-
Chris_Kez
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#595416">In reply to derekabraham:</a></em></blockquote><p>I interpreted the email as "it will be enabled once it is officially rolled out". For now it is not on by default.</p>
-
Philotech Mueller
Log in to Reply<p>I fail to see the issue either. Over here in Europe where Wifi isn't as ubiquitous as it apparently is in the US, there are may services that work exactly like it. If I open my private WLAN to the public (using a special guest access), I get to use similar WLANs of other people for free. Unfortunately, it's provider-specific and you need the provider's own router, so I think a few 0.0000% of the people use it.</p>
-
Chris_Kez
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#595419">In reply to Philotech:</a></em></blockquote><p>You can choose to do that, and the public benefit is reciprocal WiFi usage when you might not have it for your phone or laptop or tablet. That is not what Amazon is really offering here; the bandwidth is too little for a mobile device.</p>
-
Paul Thurrott
Premium MemberLog in to ReplyThe issue is that people pay for bandwidth in many places. The other issue is the potential security and privacy problems that occur when a device on one network silently connects to another network or devices on another network.
-
michael_babiuk
Log in to Reply<blockquote><a href="#595583"><em>In reply to paul-thurrott:</em></a><em> When I first read about this new "feature", I immediately opted out of enabling Sidewalk for my generation 1 Echo device – specifically over security and privacy concerns.<span class="ql-cursor"></span></em></blockquote><p><br></p>
-
Paul Thurrott
Premium MemberLog in to ReplyThis was why I raised the issue in the first place. I feel like many will read the first two lines of that email and then just delete it without really understanding what Amazon is doing.
-
endoftheroad
Log in to Reply<p>Alexa is a very capable Trojan Horse, and this new idea is just another example. I would not let it in my gateway. Assistants should be on device. That is the direction both Google and Apple are moving.</p>
-
Juraj Kováč
Log in to Reply<p>Over here, a major ISP called UPC provides a similar "service" to its subscribers. They would automatically enable a secondary guest SSID on your router and, in exchange, you'd get to connect to the same SSID on other peoples' routers. If only it were configured properly not to occupy the same set of channels for every single router…</p>
-
Chris_Kez
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<p>I think my ISP was doing something similar, carving out a bit of everyone's bandwidth to make a wifi network you could connect to anyplace they had customers.</p>
-
tghallin
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#595458">In reply to Chris_Kez:</a></em></blockquote><p>Comcast xfinity does this. The cable modem they provide sets up an xfinity access point in addition to any that the user creates. This does not come out of the user's bandwidth. but uses the same cable back to the access node and Comcast's cable modem sitting in your house. In the early draft specs, the user's bandwidth got priority.</p><p><br></p><p>This is why you see xfinity wifi access across Comcast service areas.</p>
-
peterc
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#595458">In reply to Chris_Kez:</a></em></blockquote><p>BT in the uk did this. </p>
-
Daekar
Log in to Reply<p>I feel like this is yet another validation of our decision not to purchase smart devices. The whole sector has been such a dumpster fire since the beginning, and now this to top it off? </p><p><br></p><p>I don't mind sharing, but this isn't the kind of thing that I want to have on my network. Security is porous enough as it is. </p>
-
nine54
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<p>I definitely see the use cases for things like Ring cameras, which might be far from an access point or have interference from building materials. But for people to gain any benefit, wouldn't their neighbors also have to enable it and "share" their bandwidth? </p>
-
SvenJ
Log in to Reply<blockquote><a href="#595461"><em>In reply to nine54:</em></a><em> </em>The brilliance here is it is turned on by default, and unless you follow tech sites, or really read your e-mail, you'll never know. So your neighbor's will likely be on. Much like XFinitiy's thing.</blockquote><p><br></p>
-
JH_Radio
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<p>I could care less. For me ease of use is the name of the game. but then I do not care about Comcast having the wifi point for Xfinity customers either. Its a separate network, and I already have way more bandwidth than i'll ever use as part of my package. </p><p><br></p>
-
SvenJ
Log in to Reply<blockquote><a href="#595474"><em>In reply to JH_Radio:</em></a><em> </em>I see nothing about this Sidewalk thing that indicates it is a separate VPN-ish network as XFinity's thing is advertised to be. </blockquote><p><br></p>
-
ianceicys
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#595474">In reply to JH_Radio:</a></em></blockquote><p>You say that now….soon you won't have enough bandwidth without paying for it. </p><p><a href="https://www.theverge.com/2020/11/23/21591420/comcast-cap-data-1-2tb-home-users-internet-xfinity" target="_blank">Comcast to impose home internet data cap of 1.2TB in more than a dozen US states next year – The Verge</a></p>
-
jwpear
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#595474">In reply to JH_Radio:</a></em></blockquote><p>Putting aside the security implications, I have a big problem with it when I'm paying for their bandwidth and ISPs are implementing data caps. No company gets to use my internet without my permission. The default should be opted out, not opted in.</p><p><br></p><p>Charter, my ISP, has been slowly working to undermine the TWC merger conditions so they can implement data caps.</p>
-
wright_is
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<p>The bigger issue is that it is opening up your network to strange devices you have no control over and are an additional security threat to you and your devices. </p>
-
Chris_Kez
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<p>I think Amazon is using this as a play to get into the tracker market, and perhaps also to help somehow with their delivery/logistics data. Having a massive, low-bandwidth network could be of strategic value. But of course they say "hey, this will let you set up that Ring security light out back". It just feels creepy and disingenuous. Gross.</p>
-
Paul Thurrott
Premium MemberLog in to ReplyExactly. You can cite a clear user benefit but you need to look beyond that for the real purpose.
-
lwetzel
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#595577">In reply to paul-thurrott:</a></em></blockquote><p>They are also setting up more divisiveness. From their FAQ….</p><p><br></p><p><strong style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); color: rgb(17, 17, 17);"> "What happens if there are not a lot of Bridges in my neighborhood?</strong></p><p><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); color: rgb(17, 17, 17);"> Amazon Sidewalk coverage may vary by location based on the number of participating</span></p><p><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); color: rgb(17, 17, 17);"> Bridges in a location. The more Sidewalk Bridge customers who participate, the better the </span></p><p><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); color: rgb(17, 17, 17);"> network becomes."</span></p>
-
Ironworker16
Log in to Reply<p>Is it any different than Comcast Xfinity. They use your bandwidth also have been doing it for years. </p>
-
tghallin
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#595513">In reply to Ironworker16:</a></em></blockquote><p>Comcast is not using your bandwidth. When you install the cable modem you are renting from Comcast, they create an Xfinity WIFI access point in addition to any other WIFI or wired connections you setup. They do not use your bandwidth, but they share the cable modem and the cable back to the access node. In early draft specs, the user's data had priority up to the subscribed bandwidth.</p><p><br></p>
-
nbplopes
Log in to Reply<p>Aside from another bad technical design decision don’t see for much of a problem with this.</p><p><br></p><p>What is the problem of having a small portion of our network shared with others so that the collective and each one work better?</p><p><br></p><p>Amazon is already siphoning your network to get an intimate view of your life down to your personality.</p><p><br></p><p>I think the base of discontent is basically … “what? I’m paying for my neighbor to use my network … no no …, I work really hard to allow the slob …. This network is for me and mine alone”</p><p><br></p><p>People being people.</p><p><br></p><p>Personally I would disable not because of this but because… “ Why do these devices need a Internet connection to Amazon servers to simply turn my lights on and off automatically? I feel it shouldn’t, there is no technical justification for that. So its decision justified by … well you know. I prefer to have no part of that, my lights work fine. Don’t even buy these devices to be honest ”</p>
-
UK User
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<p>As of yet there are no Sidewalk setting on my Android phone in the UK, so is this just an American roll out at the moment? </p>
-
Paul Thurrott
Premium MemberLog in to ReplyNo, this is coming to the UK at some point as well.
-
JerryH
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<p>Amazon alerted WHO? I just shut down (powered off; it is still linked in my account) my last Echo yesterday. We had two and are now down to 0 as they are not anywhere near as useful to me as the Google ones (which are all over our house). But I certainly did NOT get any notification from Amazon about this.</p>