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

71–80 of 119 posts

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

#71

Post by justicezyx »

ehsankia wrote: post #67
ncallaway wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

What's the point of arguing who made the arguments, when we are debating how much validity do the arguments have.

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

#72

Post by gregd »

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…

Of course it matters. How many consumers honestly knew that Nest was bought by Google?

I mean laughing and experiencing schadenfreude over someone planting a hidden and previously unknown microphone in ones home, is just weird man.

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

#74

Post by arkades »

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

Consent. The difference is consent. You may get laid ten times a day for a week, but the time it happens without your permission is still a problem.

I have trouble believing folks that “don’t get this” aren’t being purposely obtuse. Consent isn’t that complicated an idea.

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

#75

Post by akira2501 »

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.

This is something I always ask people with those little "camera blockers" attached to their laptops: "How do you block the microphone?" and "Which is worse? Recording video of you all day, or recording audio of you all day?

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

#77

Post by chopin »

trimbo wrote: post #73
chopin wrote: post #46

Google should put its actions where its mouth is: can I return the device and get a full refund?

Call and ask?

I don't own one :-).

Edited to add: A bold move by Google would be a public announcement that you may return the device for a full refund.

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

#78

Post by renholder »

reaperducer wrote: post #37
renholder wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...how many people are there consciously not buying a smartphone in fear of it being used to spy on them... I'd say that the number is relatively small to non-existent but that might have more to do with the fact that cell phones are more a requirement for day-to-day life than anything else. For example, try to sign-up for paging services, as a means to replace your cellphone with a passive-only device, and see how…

try to sign-up for paging services, as a means to replace your cellphone with a passive-only device, and see how far you can actually get with that idea. Pagers are still used in some industries, like healthcare, where people can die if a message doesn’t get through. Pagers are still more reliable than text messages and cell phones in many locations and especially inside large buildings like hospitals. Though the ind…

>Pagers are still used in some industries...

I never said that they weren't, yeah?

I suggested it being a difficult alternative because of the wide-spread use of cell phones. For example, in my country, the national paging system was taken down in August of 2011; so, there's no consumer paging services. B2B (which hospitals would be inclusive of) still exist, to be sure, but that means nothing in the overall scheme of a consumer trying to not buy a cell phone.

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

#79

Post by sib »

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…

I just checked and my iPhone doesn't have a physical mic disable switch that I could find...

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

#80

Post by Gaelan »

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.

Even if the mic was never on?
Post reply on HN