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

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

blog.malwarebytes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 119 posts

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

#61

Post by unionpivo »

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's possible that google does it differently than other electronics devices manufacturers that I worked for, but I can't imagine someone putting something like this on device without some concrete plans on how it will be used.

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

#62

Post by sneak »

pdkl95 wrote: post #38
iamrobschiavone wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, it's "only" a microphone, but it's still an inexcusable breach of trust.

The breach of trust is bad enough, but the fact that it is a microphone opens the possibility of criminal wiretapping charges.

The rules for you and I are not the same rules for Google.

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

#63

Post by specialist »

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…

Some people want to receive what they pay for, nothing more, nothing less.

If you had a peanut allergy, wouldn't you want to know if the candy bar has peanuts?

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

#64

Post by ncallaway »

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…

> People buy crap like Amazon echo left and right

People know the Amazon echo contains a microphone.

> have been carrying little computers with microphones and an internet connection around all day for even longer

People know that their phones contains a microphone.

Surely the difference of being able to make an informed choice is still significant?

> I might be an asshole for it and rightly so get down voted, but I really feel schadenfreude from this story

I don't understand the schadenfreude here. Because some people make privacy choices that you disagree with, then we should take pleasure when companies stop presenting a choice at all?

I guess I just fundamentally don't understand how you can equate the two categories of products together.

In one category people make a knowing choice. In the other category they do not, and the company has outright lied to them to prevent them from making a knowing choice.

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

#65

Post by ncallaway »

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?

I absolutely think it does.

I have also bought an Amazon Echo, but I unplug it when it's out of use for extended periods of time.

I wouldn't purchase a similar product from Facebook, because I trust Amazon with my personal data more than Facebook.

I've never purchased a Smart TV that contains a microphone.

Just because I make some decisions you disagree with in balancing my privacy and convenience trade-offs doesn't mean I should be prevented from making those decisions at all.

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

#66

Post by ehsankia »

jstanley wrote: post #11
baxtr wrote: post #5

I have said this before: the reason why people find a hidden camera much worse than a visible camera is simple. People aren’t dumb, they make trade-off choices . Of course they could spy on you with a visible camera, too. But either you know and don’t care and still buy the damn thing or you don’t. Knowing means in this case being able to make an informed decision. Not informing customers about a camera inside a home…

I agree with you in principle, but I think the Nest actually only includes a hidden microphone, not a hidden camera.

Many other Nest products, such as the Smoke alarm, doorbell and camera have microphones too. I agree that not disclosing that one was bad, but realistically if you have a Nest home, you probably have at least one microphone somewhere.

It also comes down to much you trust them that the microphone was disabled. If you don't, then you probably also shouldn't be carrying a smartphone with you either.

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

#67

Post by ehsankia »

ncallaway wrote: post #64
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…

> People buy crap like Amazon echo left and right People know the Amazon echo contains a microphone. > have been carrying little computers with microphones and an internet connection around all day for even longer People know that their phones contains a microphone. Surely the difference of being able to make an informed choice is still significant? > I might be an asshole for it and rightly so get down voted, but I…

I don't understand the shadenfreude either, but for the opposite reason. I think most people who have Nest products also are in the Google ecosystem, and are probably happy that they now have a Google Home for free.

Considering half of the other Nest products contain microphones already, I don't think anyone who truly is worried about this stuff would've gotten a Nest ecosystem to start with.

I agree, it's important to have all the facts so you can make informed decision, but this specific case has been way overblown, mostly by people who don't use Nest nor ever will. Almost anyone who's outraged probably would've never bought the product anyway.

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

#68

Post by code_duck »

milkthefat wrote: post #24
Zelphyr wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think yours is an important question that few people realize which is; these companies are legally required to tell you when they are listening to you, or even potentially listening to you. Google "accidentally" forgot to tell people that they included a mic in those devices. That's still illegal.

What happens if i created a device that has multiple speakers and through a software update I make one an (albeit)poor quality mic? Do I need to tell you before hand that this was possible? Are they still considered speakers?

Obviously that change would be made in order to use the new microphone capability, and of course that would require informing consumers when you’re using the mic and why.

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

#69

Post by [deleted] »

ehsankia wrote: post #66
jstanley wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you in principle, but I think the Nest actually only includes a hidden microphone, not a hidden camera.

Many other Nest products, such as the Smoke alarm, doorbell and camera have microphones too. I agree that not disclosing that one was bad, but realistically if you have a Nest home, you probably have at least one microphone somewhere. It also comes down to much you trust them that the microphone was disabled. If you don't, then you probably also shouldn't be carrying a smartphone with you either.

[deleted]

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

#70

Post by notatoad »

scarejunba wrote: post #60

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.

Yeah, this doesn't seem like a big deal to me, and i haven't seen any outrage from actual customers of the product. All the outrage seems to be coming from bloggers who are taking this as justification for their existing "google is a privacy threat" stance.
Post reply on HN