Google employees are listening to Google Home conversations

Post by jancsika » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 4:40 PM UTC

ethbro wrote: post #118

gringoDan wrote: post #95

I think the responses to this can be broken down into a 2x2 matrix: level of concern vs. understanding of technology. 1) Don't understand ML; not concerned - "I have nothing to hide." 2) Don't understand ML; concerned - "I bought this device and now people are spying on me!" 3) Understand ML; not concerned - "Of course, Google needs to label its training data." 4) Understand ML; concerned - "How can we train models/c…

I like that matrix! One thing that I think gets lost in engineers (and humans) is scale. Googazon doing {thing} might be "meh" for 10 people. But the implications look very different when it's doing {thing} for 10%+ of a country's population. At 10 people, I may find out Ted likes to eat Italian. At 10%, I may find out an Italian chain has a sudden health issue and short their stock. Which is in essence their origina…

Post by arien » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 4:41 PM UTC

pessimizer wrote: post #141

bastawhiz wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You already consented by agreeing to the terms of service. If someone else is talking to their smart device while you're talking, it's ostensibly their responsibility. There's no reasonable laws that prevent you from being overheard in the back of a recorded phone conversation

I find this reasonable; you wouldn't sue the manufacturer of a recording device if someone made a secret recording with it. I do think this means that the smartphone owner is liable, and should be fined or jailed.

Post by inetknght » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 4:41 PM UTC

monkeynotes wrote: post #154

arien wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And not to be anywhere near anyone else's listening devices. Isn't there a law in some US states that there needs to be consent before recording someone? How does this fit in and who would be held responsible, the owner of the listening device or the company behind it?

I think when you buy a Google Home you basically accept some terms and conditions in the app to set it up. Buried in there is probably your consent to analytics etc.

Post by mikeash » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 4:43 PM UTC

ovi256 wrote: post #117

gringoDan wrote: post #95

I think the responses to this can be broken down into a 2x2 matrix: level of concern vs. understanding of technology. 1) Don't understand ML; not concerned - "I have nothing to hide." 2) Don't understand ML; concerned - "I bought this device and now people are spying on me!" 3) Understand ML; not concerned - "Of course, Google needs to label its training data." 4) Understand ML; concerned - "How can we train models/c…

This classification is very useful to discuss this issue. The difference between 3 and 4, noble as it is, can be caused by feasability concerns that push people into 3, not just ignorance of the privacy impact. Human labelling of training data sets is a big thing in supervised learning. Methods that dispense with this would be valuable for purely economic reasons beyond privacy - the cost of human labelling of data s…

Post by thekyle » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 4:46 PM UTC

will_brown wrote: post #55

gtirloni wrote: post #23

From a computer science perspective, what should Google do to train its models in a privacy conscious way?

>From a computer science perspective, what should Google do to train its models in a privacy conscious way? Install these devices in the homes of google employees, executives and offices and allow the public to listen in. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander and all. Maybe when google has trained the systems enough to not need to train them by collecting and listening to customers conversations, then they…