Google employees are listening to Google Home conversations • Hacker News Board

Re: Google employees are listening to Google Home conversations

#251

Post by mLuby » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 5:35 PM UTC

lovetocode wrote: post #108

I own 4 Home Minis, 1 Home and 2 Home hubs I honestly don't care so long as my data is used to improve the functionality and stability of my investment. It is quite another thing if they are selling my conversations to third-party vendors.

1. If the company has recordings, governments can hoover them up. And once one govt agency has them, sometimes other agencies get access.

2. Sounds like you're okay with Google using your private communication to enhance its products. So they can target you with ads based on your conversations with your spouse, children, or colleagues.

3. I just hope the algorithms understand context:

Your spouse: son, put down the gun and come to dinner. [jokingly] Oh no, don't shoot! Argh you killed me, now eat your peas.

You: we're going to kill it this quarter. They'll never know what hit them.

TV in background: "kept their body chained in a basement. That and more at 11"

Siri: O__o

Re: Google employees are listening to Google Home conversations

#252

Post by brlewis » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 5:41 PM UTC

testvox wrote: post #204

ethbro wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(IANAL, but) Not accurate in the US. Most states are either one party or two party consent states. One party = you can unilaterally record anything (not sure this includes things you're not actively involved with, e.g. spying). Two party = you must have consent of everyone in the recording. By a plain reading of two party consent statutes, people are in violation if their home speaker records a guest without obtainin…

Know that even in all party consent states, if you continue talking after being made aware that the conversation is being recorded implies consent. This is why devices like google home are legal, they make a loud warning sound before they begin recording. For example in CA the law states that: > (a) A person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, uses an electronic…

> they make a loud warning sound before they begin recording

This contradicts my personal experience last week with a google-controlled music player. Music was the only response to a voice command to play music, and silence was the only response to a voice command to turn it off.

Re: Google employees are listening to Google Home conversations

#253

Post by ggggtez » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 5:41 PM UTC

GVIrish wrote: post #20

duxup wrote: post #2

This falls into the category of: I bugged my house... NOW MY HOUSE IS BUGGED! Not to dismiss the value of the news here, it is important for folks to know, but the overall situation is both concerning, and amusing.

I mean, I would assume that humans are used to improve the speech recognition capabilities of voice assistants. Accents alone are a big challenge to voice recognition, not to mention regional dialects, and the more complex languages. People listening to what is said to a voice assistant after the prompt doesn't really alarm me. What would be alarming is if the voice assistant was secretly recording normal conversatio…

What is usually shown, time and time again, is that the voice assistants aren't secretly recording. They are triggered because they heard something that sounded like a hotword.

Maybe you were talking about what dog you want you buy. Someone asks if a Greyhound would be alright and you said "No way, Poodle!". Well, the device picked it up as "Ok Google" and begins listening for a command. It makes a bleep, and lights up and you start talking about dogs or whatever.

You maybe didn't notice, so it picks up 15 seconds of a conversation, has no idea what to do, and probably just does an image search for dog pictures or even just the "I don't know how to help with that".

Not to say you shouldn't be annoyed that it picks up unrelated stuff... I just always think "secretly recording" is such a misnomer.

Re: Google employees are listening to Google Home conversations

#254

Post by kevin_thibedeau » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 5:41 PM UTC

whatshisface wrote: post #147

ovi256 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's not wrong for humans to label training data. It's wrong to let humans listen to voice recordings that users believed would be between them and a computer. The solutions are obvious: sell the things with a big sticker that says, "don't say anything private in earshot," revert to old fashioned research methods where you pay people to participate in your studies and get their permission, or ask people for permissio…

Just give participants the choice to opt in for a chance to get early access to new products. Make it invite only to feel exclusive. They will have millions of willing test subjects.

Re: Google employees are listening to Google Home conversations

#255

Post by blackflame7000 » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 5:41 PM UTC

joey_bob wrote: post #146

ovi256 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Handling the data in an ethical way doesn't need to be handling the data in an completely anonymous fashion. That would be one solution, but you can also create a tust-based system for how the data being labeled is handled, similar to HPAA. In addition, there are simple operational methods that could help ensure the data is processed as close to anonymously as possible. For example with voice data, you could filter t…

In trust-based systems like HIPPA or Clearances, there is a fundamental aspect of requiring 2 conditions to access data: privilege, and the necessity to know. Taking data and mining for valuable insights isn't a "need to know" it's a "need to discover something unknown". This is where the security breaks down. In a conventional HIPPA system, only your doctor needs to access your info. You don't have to worry about some other doctors accessing your information in bulk to try and conduct a study on cancer rates. They don't NEED to know your info, they just WANT to know. When you WANT to know how to accurately fingerprint people by their voice, then obfuscating it is counterproductive.

Re: Google employees are listening to Google Home conversations

#256

Post by blackflame7000 » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 5:43 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #207

ovi256 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Is it feasibility, or just laziness? My car has a little blurb that explains that they collect data to use for training and gives me the choice to participate or not. Opting out doesn’t affect any functionality. Why can’t Google do the same thing?

Because Google's first allegiance is to the shareholders and data has value so it's not in their best interest to make it easy not to share your data.

Re: Google employees are listening to Google Home conversations

#257

Post by brlewis » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 5:44 PM UTC

fwip wrote: post #193

ethbro wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironically, if the owner were not in the room, I'd expect the device manufacturer would be more directly liable. How can a homeowner be responsible for a device for which they (a) don't control the operation of & (b) don't control the software of? At that point, whether a device captures incidental recording seems entirely under control of the manufacturer.

Sorry for the extreme analogy, but a gun owner is responsible if their nephew accesses their gun when they're not home. It is not farfetched to imagine that, to be in compliance with the law, you would need to unplug your listening devices to avoid them accidentally going off.

The owner of a listening device might be ignorant of audio being stored and audited by human listeners. It's farfetched to think a gun owner might be ignorant of a gun's dangers because they didn't read the terms of service in detail.

Re: Google employees are listening to Google Home conversations

#258

Post by jgroszko » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 5:44 PM UTC

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #226

okmokmz wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>To me, category 3 is the most dangerous. Tech workers have a responsibility not just understand the technologies that they work with, but also educate themselves on the societal implications of those technologies. And as others have pointed out, this extends beyond home speakers to any voice-enabled device in general. Yes I'm frequently amazed how many coworkers I have that are still completely plugged into Google,…

"... I think there needs to be a massive breach or abuse of power from one of these organizations/services that has severe real world consequences for those that utilize/support them..." One of my greater fears is the knowledge that, should this happen, there's a nonzero chance that no one would care.

I suppose it hasn't had mass real world consequences for folks yet, but the Equifax breach pretty much proves this?

Re: Google employees are listening to Google Home conversations

#259

Post by gringoDan » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 5:49 PM UTC

mejari wrote: post #200

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…

>To me, category 3 is the most dangerous. Tech workers have a responsibility not just understand the technologies that they work with, but also educate themselves on the societal implications of those technologies. Do you think its possible to be educated on the societal implications of these technologies and still not be concerned? Seems like you've written your own viewpoint into the only "logical" one here.

That's a fair point. I do think it is possible to be educated on the societal implications of these technologies and still not be concerned. I would disagree with that opinion, but it is certainly valid.

Maybe these philosophical debates are going on behind closed doors. If so, this should be communicated to the public/end consumers. Much like in legal proceedings, the process itself is just as important, if not more so, than the outcome.

That being said, based on conversations that I've had with people working on these very products, the interest level and incentive structure for engaging with the tech side of things far exceeds that of engaging with the broader societal implications. Creating the tech earns your salary, questioning its morality may get you fired. So many choose simply to not engage in the philosophical discussion, which to me is a big problem in the industry.

Re: Google employees are listening to Google Home conversations

#260

Post by joshuamorton » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 5:50 PM UTC

isostatic wrote: post #232

delecti wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's group 4. How is worrying about informed consent not just a subset of concern about the ethics of collecting training data?

No, group 4 is "we must collect training data, how do we get arround the ethical questions" Group 5 is "We must be ethical, can we still collect training data" Different priorities, different outcomes.

I don't see the distinction between "if we wish to do a thing, we must do it ethically when doing so" (4) and "we must act ethically if we do a thing" (5).

If training data can't be collected ethically, do you think group 4 still would, or something? That just seems like trying to out yourself on an ethical high horse without a real distinction in action.