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

81–90 of 119 posts

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

#81

Post by iforgotpassword »

arkades wrote: post #74
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 c…

> 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.

Interesting choice of analogy.

Lets assume that you actually consented to your smartphone recording you at any time without telling you, and then google use that recording for whatever they like. That is most probably not true: you only want the mic to record you in very specific moments, and you also probably want to know exactly where any data that leaves your device is stored and how it's being used.

You have to trust google (or any other company who's app you gave permission to access the mic) to comply with this.

If you do, then the nest case shouldn't be an issue to you at all. You never consented to this mic being used for anything, so legally they can't use it for anything, and since you trust them in the smartphone case, you do here too. End of story.

If however you wouldn't even trust google with the mic in your smartphone, then why would you buy anything from them at all? "Oh it doesn't have a mic so they'd only abuse all the other data they can collect from it."

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

Common sense isn't either. Google is evil, and not just since yesterday. I wouldn't even buy a Chromecast.

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

#82

Post by smelendez »

akira2501 wrote: post #75
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.

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?

That's a good point. I think it varies from person to person.

Part of my reason for blocking video is I can never figure out when videoconferencing tools will default to transmitting video, which I never want, before I have a way to turn it off.

Also, I don't think I'm a high profile enough target that somebody would bother sifting through everything I say in front of my laptop for something interesting.

Capturing images every minute or so and looking for something embarrassing (someone showing lots of skin) seems much easier for malware to automate.

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

#83

Post by trevyn »

smelendez wrote: post #82
akira2501 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That's a good point. I think it varies from person to person. Part of my reason for blocking video is I can never figure out when videoconferencing tools will default to transmitting video, which I never want, before I have a way to turn it off. Also, I don't think I'm a high profile enough target that somebody would bother sifting through everything I say in front of my laptop for something interesting. Capturing im…

>I don't think I'm a high profile enough target that somebody would bother sifting through everything I say in front of my laptop for something interesting.

The threat model is closer to automated transcription, global history search, and parallel construction.

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

#84

Post by smelendez »

trevyn wrote: post #83
smelendez wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a good point. I think it varies from person to person. Part of my reason for blocking video is I can never figure out when videoconferencing tools will default to transmitting video, which I never want, before I have a way to turn it off. Also, I don't think I'm a high profile enough target that somebody would bother sifting through everything I say in front of my laptop for something interesting. Capturing im…

> I don't think I'm a high profile enough target that somebody would bother sifting through everything I say in front of my laptop for something interesting. The threat model is closer to automated transcription, global history search, and parallel construction.

I think that would be hard to pull off in the US, where I live. There are enough paranoid infosec people that would spot the data transmission or CPU usage.

But certainly no harm done in muffling or ripping out a mic if you're concerned!

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

#85

Post by reaperducer »

ncallaway wrote: post #65
iforgotpassword wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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

I was given a Google Home for Christmas, and won't even take it out of the box. I'd give it away, but that not really solving the problem.

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

My LG has one in the remote control. But I disallowed the TV from my home wifi about a year ago. I don't trust LG, and looking through the 53 screens of Terms of Service LG thinks need to agree to just to watch TV, I probably did the right thing.

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

#86

Post by nabakin »

IshKebab wrote: post #76

There was a perfectly good reason for the microphone to be there, and there was a good reason why it wasn't mentioned (though it probably should have been). I'd hardly call the event "trust shattering".

I agree they were being dramatic, but Google still violated the trust of many people. Accidentally or not.

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

#87

Post by glennpratt »

reaperducer wrote: post #85
ncallaway wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I have also bought an Amazon Echo, but I unplug it when it's out of use for extended periods of time. I was given a Google Home for Christmas, and won't even take it out of the box. I'd give it away, but that not really solving the problem. I've never purchased a Smart TV that contains a microphone. My LG has one in the remote control. But I disallowed the TV from my home wifi about a year ago. I don't trust LG, and…

> I'd give it away, but that not really solving the problem.

This implies that your moral judgement must apply to whoever you gave it to. Why?

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

#89

Post by skookumchuck »

reaperducer wrote: post #35
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…

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 camera and microphone on a phone is severely limited by battery life (and your data plan). But one connected to the electric grid and LAN can run 24/7 without being noticed.

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

#90

Post by skookumchuck »

ncallaway wrote: post #65
iforgotpassword wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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

I'd buy an Echo if it had a physical switch to enable the microphone, along with a light that says its on. Software switches are worthless.

Post reply on HN