Google employees are listening to Google Home conversations

Breaches was probably the wrong term to use in my example, as it brings attention to the wrong issue. The point I am trying to make is not that we shouldn't trust large companies to be secure as you say (although based on my experience with enterprise infosec I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of companies handling/storing personal data don't have appropriate security controls enforced).

The point I am making is that many large organizations such as Google and Facebook are performing worldwide, largely unchecked mass surveillance with data collection and analytical capabilities far beyond what is available to the majority of the world, and people simply don't care despite how knowledgeable they are about technology. There's also little to now way to escape it as Google and Facebook technology is so ingrained in the existing internet. While Google may not have poor security practices and may never experience a breach where data is stolen (although again I highly doubt that), as far as I'm concerned Google itself, as well as Facebook, are malicious actors in my own life and personal opsec as a huge portion of their business model is based on collecting and monetizing user data by any means possible with little to no concern for the negative impact on users such as mental health problems.

Frankly, I don't like companies that make money spying on people, particularly those that abuse psychological techniques that make it more difficult for people to make informed decisions or choices about the technology they're using.

Beyond that, these technologies are sold/rented or otherwise provided to governments, law enforcement and intelligence agencies, dictators, authoritarian regimes, and others that can and are being for personal gain.

So no, I don't believe we should trust Google, but not because other companies have experienced data breaches. That is just one of the many reasons I believe people should value their data and personal privacy far more than most do

Privacy is not a Industrial Age stuff... I could be private in Rome, just as I'm now, just a random dude working... A small cog, no one gets to know me, no on cares to gossip about me... Be it now, be it on Renascence in Venice, be it on Rome just before the senators kill Caesar, be it on Luoyang as the tensions rose between the Warring States...

At any point in time, I could have a private conversation, write and hide a document, like some stuff that was socially unacceptable and keep it a secret, meet someone in secret, and, in general, lead a private life... Stop comparing urban life as if it is something modern... Of course it is much more prevalent now, as the ratio vs rural residents shifted, and sure, it is much harder to hide something on a small village of some dozens of people, or at a farm with a huge family, but in any major city of any era, you could be as hidden and private as today, if not more...

Can you imagine how valuable voice data could be if it could be mined to show what products, politics, opinions are being discussed in the real world?

Can you imagine how valuable your voice data would be to a marketing campaign which you didn't even know you had participated in?

Can you imagine how much valuable information is contained in the vocal enunciation of A/B testing? Every little "hmmm" or "how do I go backwards?" or "what does this button do?" that people don't even realize they're saying.

Can you imagine how much that violates someone's privacy?

> other then by selling devices that use voice recognition

That's one way but what's the actual question? My point is they are not doing this as a favor to the user (as GP seemed to suggest), they are doing it for a profit by getting the user's data far too cheaply. And for this they rely on the user staying unaware of the value of their data, how it will be used, and how much is collected in the first place.

The voice recognition tech itself (and any ancillary parts) can be sold/licensed to so they can build similar systems. The actual data obtained by the voice recognition can be used exactly like any other data Google collects. They literally have access to what you say around their microphone. You can't not see any way they could make money from this.

20 years ago monetizing the free search was just as much of a mystery for many, including seasoned investors.

Anyone remember the 3d printed gun stuff from a few years back? I think this isn't very different from it. You can take these raw pieces and explain how they are simple and good and draw these simple ethical conclusions from them, but then you add it up and the bigger picture doesn't feel quite the same way. 3D printers are good, sharing 3D printing plans is good, it's good to help your neighbor, no regulations and we're experiencing tremendous growth in the 3D space, people are inventing new stuff, starting new businesses, etc.. all good stuff. but letting any jackass off the street print a working gun when we have how many mass shootings a year? People don't feel the same way. All the pieces are totally okay until you've got a more questionable global intention, and how can you regulate intention?

Google using the data to train models is just a tool, it's a baby step, they aren't doing that to sell the models or in and of itself, they're doing it so that they can generate data that they might consider theirs and not yours from your voice data and then feed that in to other systems which generate tremendous profits for them in ways you don't even know. They have intended uses already. Is it a remotely fair question to talk about ethical training in this context without some idea as to the intended use and distribution of the meta data?