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

101–110 of 119 posts

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

#101

Post by oh_sigh »

brandon272 wrote: post #99
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 believe that one reason it grinds people's gears is that it's symbolic of a larger problem. Dumping microphones in products and then having it not occur to you to even note the microphone in a spec represents a blind spot in how this company views privacy, and indicates how they take for granted the ability to add whatever sensors and capture hardware into their products with the purpose of collecting information a…

Does it really grind peoples gears? As in, new people who weren't upset with amazon echos, google homes, apple homepods, etc? Or is it just the same people that were up in arms about 'spy devices' being welcomed into peoples homes that are also up in arms about Nests having a microphone in them?

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

#103

Post by upofadown »

skookumchuck wrote: post #88

Cameras and microphones must come with physical switches to turn them off, not software switches.

The OpenBSD people implemented an interesting insight recently. Now a microphone attached to a OpenBSD system does not work by default. You need to actively turn on a sysctl as root to activate the microphone. So to get eavesdropping access on a default OpenBSD system you need to root the system, which makes that access somewhat harder to obtain.

The moral here is that microphone access should be treated differently than access to the rest of the audio system. You can get more protection through software than we normally get.

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

#104

Post by Pocketknife »

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 am amazed at the general level of understanding regarding this sort of thing. People simply don't know enough, on average, to even make an informed decision about this stuff.

They think the FBI is gonna sit and watch or listen to a recording. They have no idea this is gonna sit as text in a database forever to be searched against later.

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

#105

Post by Pocketknife »

PowerfulWizard wrote: post #100
pacala wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So how do I block the microphone on my MacBook?

Zuckerberg released a photo once where he had a piece of tape over the microphone hole on the size. I don't know what the effect is, but it would be easy to test.

It would muffle it slightly. It would still give an attacker perfectly usable sound.

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

#106

Post by Pocketknife »

wgjordan wrote: post #59
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? 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.cor…

You say that as if Silicon Valley is subject to the law in the same way as you or I.

They learned to pay off DC around when Microsoft was taken to the anti-trust woodshed.

Now they are beyond accountability. Especially once it's clear to everyone that they control election results to a wide degree.

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

#107

Post by mathrawka »

Pocketknife wrote: post #105
PowerfulWizard wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zuckerberg released a photo once where he had a piece of tape over the microphone hole on the size. I don't know what the effect is, but it would be easy to test.

It would muffle it slightly. It would still give an attacker perfectly usable sound.

The muffled sound is enough to prevent acoustic keylogging from working properly though.

https://www.davidsalomon.name/CompSec/auxiliary/KybdEmanatio...

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

#108

Post by skookumchuck »

upofadown wrote: post #103
skookumchuck wrote: post #88

Cameras and microphones must come with physical switches to turn them off, not software switches.

The OpenBSD people implemented an interesting insight recently. Now a microphone attached to a OpenBSD system does not work by default. You need to actively turn on a sysctl as root to activate the microphone. So to get eavesdropping access on a default OpenBSD system you need to root the system, which makes that access somewhat harder to obtain. The moral here is that microphone access should be treated differently…

Any software switches can be subverted by malware. But not physical ones. Physical switches and a light (like video cameras used to have when recording) are simple, cheap, and effective. I don't understand why companies don't add them to allay their customers' fears.

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

#109

Post by lscotte »

rhizome wrote: post #93
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?

Lenovo lets you order a ThinkPad with neither camera nor microphone, and USB webcams are small and fit easily in a bag or backpack.

My son worked in a chip fab for a couple of years. The only devices allowed in there must be certified to have no cameras, including phones. They issue modified phones with out working cameras to employees. All devices must have a big certification sticker on the back. Just thought it was interesting.

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

#110

Post by TrinaryWorksToo »

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…

There are startups that automate listening to devices. See www.deepgram.com
Post reply on HN