Google’s Nest fiasco harms user trust and invades their privacy • Hacker News Board

Re: Google’s Nest fiasco harms user trust and invades their privacy

#51

Post by iforgotpassword » Sat, Mar 16, 2019, 4:13 PM UTC

ignoramous wrote: post #28

iforgotpassword wrote: post #19

I suspect this is going to be an unpopular opinion, but I still don't get the fuzz. People buy crap like Amazon echo left and right, and have been carrying little computers with microphones and an internet connection around all day for even longer. Apart from the fact that any sane person shouldn't trust any google product value their privacy in the first place, how many people are there consciously not buying a smar…

Couple of reasons why I think the fuzz is approp: 1. The fact that things are already bleak doesn't justify a more bleaker tomorrow. The fact that a large section of humanity is oblivious to privacy breaches doesn't mean the select few who do care about it should stop protesting against it, regardless of behaviour of the masses [0]. 2. The law makers (governments) and the king makers (tech conglomerates) shouldn't be…

Fair points. And I didn't intend to say google should go unpunished for this, in case it came across as defending them.

Added those vids to my queue, thanks.

Re: Google’s Nest fiasco harms user trust and invades their privacy

#52

Post by wurst_case » Sat, Mar 16, 2019, 4:14 PM UTC

HALtheWise wrote: post #49

iforgotpassword wrote: post #19

I suspect this is going to be an unpopular opinion, but I still don't get the fuzz. People buy crap like Amazon echo left and right, and have been carrying little computers with microphones and an internet connection around all day for even longer. Apart from the fact that any sane person shouldn't trust any google product value their privacy in the first place, how many people are there consciously not buying a smar…

I agree. Remember Amazon's little dash buttons they sold to allow quick reordering of products? They contain a microphone. I'm pretty sure they didn't mention that in their public documents, and it never seems to have been used for anything except an ultrasonic pairing procedure with some iPhones, but it definitely exists. HN didn't get mad because Amazon has never claimed to be a morally good company, so they aren't…

They did? You are wrong, I find that equally concerning. I do make choices on electronics based on their hardware. I do not have any devices like he echo or homepod because I find them intrusive. Maybe you two don't but I definitely do. I have two devices with microphones and cameras connected to the internet as far as I know and I have taken the necessary precautions to ensure that those are safe. Now I have to open up my other Google products to check if they've been bugged. You bet your butt I'm a bit miffed.

Re: Google’s Nest fiasco harms user trust and invades their privacy

#53

Post by HALtheWise » Sat, Mar 16, 2019, 4:14 PM UTC

hgjwq wrote: post #2

>“The on-device microphone was never intended to be a secret and should have been listed in the tech specs,” a Google spokesperson said. “That was an error on our part.” I don't know, it sounds believable. Maybe they put it there "just in case", but didn't want to put it in the list of specifications because it had no software support, and having it there would've mislead customers who could've thought the microphone…

The obvious reason for it existing is to serve as a glass breaking alarm, something that might have been part of the planned specs, and listed on the spec sheet, when they finalized the hardware design but they couldn't get working for launch. That's a very real feature people want their security systems to have, and forgetting to add "a disabled microphone, IMU, bluetooth and FM radios, and probably some other random chips privacy-obsessed people will care about" back onto the spec sheet is a really easy mistake to make, especially a few years ago when Nest mostly had user trust.

To be clear, I don't know exactly what chips modern electronics contain that we will worry about in a couple years, but all of the above seem like plausible things.

Re: Google’s Nest fiasco harms user trust and invades their privacy

#54

Post by wurst_case » Sat, Mar 16, 2019, 4:18 PM UTC

iforgotpassword wrote: post #50

reaperducer wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

little computers with microphones and an internet connection around all day for even longer The difference is that we know our phones have microphones and cameras and internet. The reason people are upset is because there was no way anyone would know they added an internet-connected microphone to their home with this device unless they opened it up and reverse engineered the firmware. If anyone can prove that these m…

> The difference is that we know our phones have microphones and cameras and internet. The question is, does that really matter? Isn't that just something you tell yourself to feel like you're still in control, ahead of the game? I have two colleagues who in general are pretty concerned with privacy, data protection etc. but still bought an echo. Then countered my surprise with the same argument: at least I know it's…

Yes it does matter. I have camera covers for my phone and laptop. In terms of microphones I keep the phone and laptop away from me when I have conversations about politics. Call me paranoid but we know that the potential for listening in is there and I just don't know who is recording what. Remember that only two generations ago my German jew grandparents were put in camps. I don't live in a constant state of fear or anything like that, these precautions have just become habit.

Re: Google’s Nest fiasco harms user trust and invades their privacy

#55

Post by 013a » Sat, Mar 16, 2019, 4:23 PM UTC

hgjwq wrote: post #2

>“The on-device microphone was never intended to be a secret and should have been listed in the tech specs,” a Google spokesperson said. “That was an error on our part.” I don't know, it sounds believable. Maybe they put it there "just in case", but didn't want to put it in the list of specifications because it had no software support, and having it there would've mislead customers who could've thought the microphone…

It is believable. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be reamed like crazy for it, including fines. There's a difference between "this was an act of god accident" and "we created the environment where this accident was allowed to happen".

Let me throw this at you. They shipped hardware with an incomplete spec sheet. Probably by accident. What's the probability that they ship software with incorrect behavior? Like, say, the software on the device? Software which could engage the microphone and send it to a remote server? At their scale, this is possible to mess up, with all of the abstraction layers and number of customers they're dealing with.

Google is the most careless company to ever reach the level of success that they have, possibly tied with Facebook. They need to be slapped, HARD, by some government, or else we'll never see the true institutional change necessary for a company of their power.

Re: Google’s Nest fiasco harms user trust and invades their privacy

#56

Post by starky » Sat, Mar 16, 2019, 4:34 PM UTC

Are these Nest products sold worldwide? I recently worked on a product that included a microphone as an integral feature and we were told that in order to sell it worldwide we had to include a physical disable switch for the microphone in order to be able to sell it in multiple countries. Even though nobody who ordered the product would ever disable the microphone. How does Google get around selling their devices without even announcing there is a microphone in it?

Re: Google’s Nest fiasco harms user trust and invades their privacy

#57

Post by abootstrapper » Sat, Mar 16, 2019, 4:40 PM UTC

iforgotpassword wrote: post #19

I suspect this is going to be an unpopular opinion, but I still don't get the fuzz. People buy crap like Amazon echo left and right, and have been carrying little computers with microphones and an internet connection around all day for even longer. Apart from the fact that any sane person shouldn't trust any google product value their privacy in the first place, how many people are there consciously not buying a smar…

If a stranger comes in your house uninvited and without your knowledge, what’s the big deal? You’ve let other people in your house, and your father in law is a terrible house guest!

Re: Google’s Nest fiasco harms user trust and invades their privacy

#58

Post by dawnerd » Sat, Mar 16, 2019, 5:00 PM UTC

starky wrote: post #56

Are these Nest products sold worldwide? I recently worked on a product that included a microphone as an integral feature and we were told that in order to sell it worldwide we had to include a physical disable switch for the microphone in order to be able to sell it in multiple countries. Even though nobody who ordered the product would ever disable the microphone. How does Google get around selling their devices wit…

No different than a lot of products with microphones that are sold worldwide with no disable switch. Sounds like you had a product manager or someone that just really wanted a switch.

Re: Google’s Nest fiasco harms user trust and invades their privacy

#59

Post by wgjordan » Sat, Mar 16, 2019, 5:02 PM UTC

iforgotpassword wrote: post #50

reaperducer wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

little computers with microphones and an internet connection around all day for even longer The difference is that we know our phones have microphones and cameras and internet. The reason people are upset is because there was no way anyone would know they added an internet-connected microphone to their home with this device unless they opened it up and reverse engineered the firmware. If anyone can prove that these m…

> The difference is that we know our phones have microphones and cameras and internet. The question is, does that really matter? Isn't that just something you tell yourself to feel like you're still in control, ahead of the game? I have two colleagues who in general are pretty concerned with privacy, data protection etc. but still bought an echo. Then countered my surprise with the same argument: at least I know it's…

> The question is, does that really matter?

Legally speaking, it really does matter (18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d) [1]) [my emphasis]:

> It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person [...] to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception [...].

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2511

Re: Google’s Nest fiasco harms user trust and invades their privacy

#60

Post by scarejunba » Sat, Mar 16, 2019, 5:04 PM UTC

I am quite convinced that consumers don't care all that much. I certainly am not. I trust Google not to fuck with stuff. When they do, I'll kick up a fuss.

The degree of "you should be panicking" around this is annoying to me.