The inside of a lawmaker's house? A general's? A CEO's? Why would anyone ever want insider information, including possible blackmail evidence, from them?
Also I would assume it's a lot more dangerous and expensive to send someone in when you can just put an innocuous robot into a room which has cameras and microphones that can watch + listen 24/7 and auto-recharges when the battery is low (unlike surveillance devices).
(So why get a roving camera in the first place? We judged that one from a historically and currently aligned state would be safe enough, even though it's not ideal.)
I will reference a quote I originally heard on HN years ago, though: the audio surveillance is magnitudes more valuable than the video.
To be clear, I'm not saying footage can't be captured, but some of these examples are just bat shit crazy well beyond paranoid
You seem to assume that they have somehow physically disabled access to any kind of remote activation. That seems extremely unlikely given the overall selling points of the roomba.
The roomba doesn't have to "run" in order to be using its microphone, which as noted is likely the more valuable data acquisition source here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_persistent_threat#Chi...
It's very easy to think other people are being paranoid when you're ignorant about the topic.
https://blog.avast.com/what-do-security-cameras-know-about-y...
Data brokers love this data, dont play with me I know you better than that
https://www.cloaked.com/post/the-data-broker-economy-will-hi...
X now gets monthly checks from Y. Done.
