Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Home

home.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 468 posts

Re: Google Home

#321

Post by dredmorbius »

notspanishflu wrote: post #312
dredmorbius wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I like about the tablet is the size, the battery life, the switching between landscape (generally: composing w/ keyboard) and portrait (generally: reading long-form content) modes. A 10" form factor plus bluetooth keyboard is sufficient for some Real Work (though that's hugely crippled by system and software limitations). As a comms device, on a sufficiently fast WiFi/broadband connection, it's also useful. I've…

Have you tried Bq Aquaris M10 Ubuntu tablet [0]? I've got one and although it is not ready for the general public yet, it's a little gem for us free software fans. [0] http://www.bq.com/uk/aquaris-m10-ubuntu-edition

No, I haven't, though that looks interesting. Quick thoughts:

16 GB storage is far, far, far too little. That should be upgradeable. The problem with microSD expansion is vfat. That's crippled on both capacity and permissions. I'd also prefer encryptable removeable media.

Speakers. I want my devices to NOT have them. I'll attach via Bluetooth or a wired headset/mic combo. I'd also prefer cameras be shuttered. That's both for protection (lenses get scratched) and privacy.

Other than that, yes, it's headed the way I'd like things to go.

Re: Google Home

#322

Post by dredmorbius »

hc07 wrote: post #305
chinathrow wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That having been said, if Google chooses to release the data to the government, it has an obligation to tell us about that or it will be behaving unethically. No, as far as I know that would be incorrect with NSLs in place. Gag order and such.

Every sensor can have a "canary" mode indicator. It bypasses NSL by claiming the negative: "Nope I have not been served by an NSL yet". This has been successfully used by companies to indicate that "the canary has died" in a surveillance order.

Now that is an interesting suggestion.

Re: Google Home

#323

Post by dredmorbius »

hc07 wrote: post #305
chinathrow wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That having been said, if Google chooses to release the data to the government, it has an obligation to tell us about that or it will be behaving unethically. No, as far as I know that would be incorrect with NSLs in place. Gag order and such.

Every sensor can have a "canary" mode indicator. It bypasses NSL by claiming the negative: "Nope I have not been served by an NSL yet". This has been successfully used by companies to indicate that "the canary has died" in a surveillance order.

Now that is an interesting suggestion.

Re: Google Home

#324

Post by ap22213 »

dguaraglia wrote: post #291
Analemma_ wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This entire keynote just keeps highlighting that one sentence from the end of Maciej's wonderful http://idlewords.com/talks/internet_with_a_human_face.htm "Yesterday ... I realized how long it had been since I looked at a new technology with wonder, instead of an automatic feeling of dread." EDIT: Speaking of Maciej, if you're not already following him on Twitter, today is the day to do that. He's having a field day…

I'm amazed that people still feel this level of paranoia about stuff, when they have a clear option: do not use the product. Concerned about the privacy implication of Google Home? Don't get one. Don't like the fact that Apple Watch reads biometric data? Get a Casio watch. Don't like the fact that Facebook knows who your friends are? Go out more. The very fact that someone is watching the keynote and going "oh my Gaw…

Except soon one's environment will be enveloped by a cloud of such devices, each monitoring, tracking, and associating without consent.

And, please don't think this is hyperbole. Independently, over the past year, I've caught parts of this same vision from two separate (large) companies. This is the low hanging fruit. The rewards are too high, the costs are low, and there are very few downside (to the companies).

Re: Google Home

#325

Post by grownseed »

xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #293
grownseed wrote: post #95

The page linked here is basically an ad with no content (yet it manages to have a scrollbar no matter the window size...). Tried to look for actual specs but couldn't find anything, does anybody have anything more substantial? On another note, is there a way to just get some sort of remote microphone array (I think that's what it's called on the Echo) and set up Alexa/Google/Cortana/... directly on a PC?

Amazon provided this, which doesn't necessarily have to run on a Raspberry Pi, and could be used to build what you want: https://github.com/amzn/alexa-avs-raspberry-pi

Thanks! One of the points for me is also to be able to customize the software, so that looks like an excellent start.

The hardware is still a problem, I've tried to find microphones like the one on the Echo, but the few that seem to meet the requirements basically cost half of the Echo. I'm not particularly knowledgeable when it comes to microphones, so I may very well be looking in the wrong places.

Re: Google Home

#326

Post by dredmorbius »

api wrote: post #303
cheald wrote: post #19

When I was younger, I dreamed of something like this. Voice control for my home! A Star Trek computer that I can interact with conversationally! I just say what I want and it happens! Now, I just see an internet-connected microphone in a software black box which I can only interpret as a giant frickin' security liability. I want this, but unless it's open source top-to-bottom, I won't ever actually put one in my home…

Never EVER under any circumstances would I put a closed-source cloud-connected always-on microphone in my house. Google's entire business model and value as a company revolves around their ability to maximize the accuracy of their consumer profiles. They have no incentive to do anything other than maximally invade privacy. A device like this from them is even creepier than the Amazon Echo. While it's not released yet…

To the advantage of society, Google's value also lies in not alienating people to the point that they shun its products and services.

Google cannot sell advertising based on my eyeballs if I won't use Google Search, block ads, avoid Google Maps, and download video via yt-download vs. watching it on the far-less-convenient YouTube website or application.

Google have lost me to search, and several other products, for precisely this reason. I don't know the segment of the population I represent, but it is a segment.

A US Department of Commerce survey release this past week reveals that 20% of the population consciously avoids online activities already due to privacy and surveillance concerns. This isn't fully attributable to concerns over Google (and that almost certainly poses a subset of those dissuaded), but it is a surprisingly large effect of privacy concerns.

The trust factor you mention is a huge one. Cognizability is a wonderful word I've run across recently (from William Stanley Jevons' discussion of money). It refers to the ability to instantly and unambiguously recognise a characteristic or trait. Electronic devices lack cognizability of privacy.

Glass didn't do so well as I recall.

Re: Google Home

#327

Post by PavlovsCat »

dguaraglia wrote: post #291
Analemma_ wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This entire keynote just keeps highlighting that one sentence from the end of Maciej's wonderful http://idlewords.com/talks/internet_with_a_human_face.htm "Yesterday ... I realized how long it had been since I looked at a new technology with wonder, instead of an automatic feeling of dread." EDIT: Speaking of Maciej, if you're not already following him on Twitter, today is the day to do that. He's having a field day…

I'm amazed that people still feel this level of paranoia about stuff, when they have a clear option: do not use the product. Concerned about the privacy implication of Google Home? Don't get one. Don't like the fact that Apple Watch reads biometric data? Get a Casio watch. Don't like the fact that Facebook knows who your friends are? Go out more. The very fact that someone is watching the keynote and going "oh my Gaw…

> I'm amazed that people still feel this level of paranoia about stuff, when they have a clear option: do not use the product

People say that about stuff like Googlemail and Facebook. "Don't use it", except that doesn't always help when friends use it, and feed it with info about you as well. But hey, your fault for liking people who use Facebook or something. Now you can simply choose to not be friends with people who put this "home product" in their home, right? Or you can wear a disguise and talk with a false voice when visiting them, or ask them to turn it off whenever you're over. It's all voluntary, so no biggie.

At what point will all these small things combine into one big "You don't have to read or write anything, or communicate with any other person, or buy anything, or ever leave your house"? That's not even a slippery slope in my mind, more like taking 15 points which are in a straight line and extrapolating the line further. So when you talk of "this level of paranoia", I'd say the flipside of that is considering your stance a certain "level of apathy and/or short-sightedness".

Re: Google Home

#328

Post by api »

dredmorbius wrote: post #326
api wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never EVER under any circumstances would I put a closed-source cloud-connected always-on microphone in my house. Google's entire business model and value as a company revolves around their ability to maximize the accuracy of their consumer profiles. They have no incentive to do anything other than maximally invade privacy. A device like this from them is even creepier than the Amazon Echo. While it's not released yet…

To the advantage of society, Google's value also lies in not alienating people to the point that they shun its products and services . Google cannot sell advertising based on my eyeballs if I won't use Google Search, block ads, avoid Google Maps, and download video via yt-download vs. watching it on the far-less-convenient YouTube website or application. Google have lost me to search, and several other products, for…

20% -- I hope it's that high. That's a high enough number to get peoples' attention and challenge the prevailing meme of "nobody cares about privacy or security."

(Privacy IS security. There's not really a distinction.)

Post reply on HN