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

361–370 of 468 posts

Re: Google Home

#361

Post by ocdtrekkie »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #244
unusximmortalis wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why I think an open source distributed & end to end encrypted social platform to replace facebook and google plus is needed too.

I think we need to go even further - we need to reduce the cloud back to being dumb piece of infrastructure, compute for hire, paid by the hour. The only thing it should do is abstract away computation - not centralize data and processing under control of some companies (big or small, startups are actually the most annoying entities in the cloud ecosystem, IMO). So for instance, I want my calendar or e-mail to be sto…

Classic web hosting still seems to do this job. In many cases, your data isn't insanely secure, unless you do the work to ensure it is yourself. But it's unlikely to be mined on a large, automated scale.

Re: Google Home

#362

Post by dredmorbius »

dredmorbius wrote: post #321
notspanishflu wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Erm, meant mics not speakers.

Input devices should be clearly and unambiguously disableable, or external.

Re: Google Home

#363

Post by dredmorbius »

eva1984 wrote: post #336
dredmorbius wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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% of the population consciously avoids online activities already due to privacy and surveillance concerns citation needed.

Actually I got that wrong, the number is 29%. The 20% figure applies to those who are aware of fraudulent credit card activity.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/05/13...

"Nearly one in two Internet users say privacy and security concerns have now stopped them from doing basic things online — such as posting to social networks, expressing opinions in forums or even buying things from websites, according to a new government survey released Friday.

This chilling effect, pulled out of a survey of 41,000 U.S. households who use the Internet, show the insecurity of the Web is beginning to have consequences that stretch beyond the direct fall-out of an individual losing personal data in breach. The research suggests some consumers are reaching a tipping point where they feel they can no longer trust using the Internet for everyday activities."

More: https://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2016/lack-trust-internet-priva...

Re: Google Home

#364

Post by dredmorbius »

api wrote: post #328
dredmorbius wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

Actually higher, see my follow-up above.

Re: Google Home

#365

Post by kalleboo »

FmrAMZN_TA wrote: post #298
deprave wrote: post #28

A company that makes money by collecting and selling access to personal information about people is offering to put a microphone in your home. If you need a product like this, for the sake of your privacy, buy an Echo.

Amazon makes $3B a year selling ads. You think they're just guessing about personal information? Please. They lay cookies everywhere (including off site) to target you properly.

And they're doing a crap job of it - all they ever try to sell me seems to be something I just already bought.

Re: Google Home

#366

Post by dredmorbius »

pacala wrote: post #354
dredmorbius wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you choose them in the home of a friend you're visiting? Do you choose them in the office you work in? Do you choose them in the store you're shopping in? Do you choose them in the cafe you're talking in? Do you choose them at the bus stop you're waiting in? Do you choose them in the transit you're riding in? Do you choose them in the car-share you're riding in? That element of choice can close very quickly. Senso…

Are you speaking with the window open? Bad choice, your neighbor's advanced far field microphones are picking up every word you're saying.

And laser mics can be aimed against glass.

Both have to be specifically placed, however. Common devices with location tracking and audio monitoring capabilities already exist. They can be targeted for monitoring, and to the best of my knowledge, are.

Some are actively monitoring activity on an ongoing basis -- e.g., someone's voice-enabled TV sets. I really can't even keep up with all this crap any more.

All of which is moot to the original point: that people can choose whether or not this equipment is in their environment or not. Effectively they cannot.

Re: Google Home

#368

Post by enibundo »

Does anyone else feel as this kind of stuff (I'd put it in the same bag as the apple Watch, and the amazon something) is completely useless?

Personally, I feel we need to use less technology in everyday life.

Re: Google Home

#369

Post by tempodox »

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…

Victim blaming is always an option.
Post reply on HN