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

Re: Google employees are listening to Google Home conversations

#291

Post by viklove » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 7:32 PM UTC

paganel wrote: post #131

I grew up as a kid in a country ruled by Securitate [1], one of the few institutions that rivaled the East-German Stasi when it came to spying on its own citizens, and as such I'm very, very perplexed of why would anyone bring in a listening device in his/her own house out of his/her own volition. And those people even pay for the privilege of having their home-lives actively monitored and listened to almost all the…

Do you have a smartphone? Why would you bring that listening device (the smartphone) into your own house out of your own volition? Please explain, because I am very perplexed.

Re: Google employees are listening to Google Home conversations

#292

Post by rando444 » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 7:36 PM UTC

numbsafari wrote: post #30

TheAdamist wrote: post #3

"The man, who wants to remain anonymous, works for an international company hired by Google. " So not a Google employee at all, a probably low paid contractor who is in possession of thousands of audio files. Your privacy matters, except when the bottom line is involved.

What is doubly concerning here is that the contractor was in a position to demonstrate how the system worked to the reporters. That would seem to indicate they have access to that data in a non-secured environment. I'm not familiar with EU law around these things, but I would imagine there is some kind of whistleblower mechanism available, and a right for authorities to audit/inspect such activities?

I can guarantee you that 99% of every company that has a copy of your PII has employees that can connect to work resources via VPN.

Re: Google employees are listening to Google Home conversations

#293

Post by aflag » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 7:37 PM UTC

I've been toying with the idea that companies that use user data passively (while the user is not interacting with the system in a way to expect that data usage) should have to notify the user about the usage. For instance, if data you produced was randomly selected to be listened to by someone, you should get a notification somewhere about it.

I think something along these lines would help increase user awareness.

Re: Google employees are listening to Google Home conversations

#294

Post by Hongwei » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 7:40 PM UTC

How big is this GDPR fine going to be?

Re: Google employees are listening to Google Home conversations

#295

Post by blackflame7000 » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 7:40 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #269

vkou wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The shareholder value theory is rubbish, because it has no predictive or descriptive powers for why one decision was made over another. I can just as easily say that the best way to maximize shareholder value is to minimize public scandal, scrutiny, and potential for legislature. Nearly every single decision, including contradictory ones, made by every single company, everywhere, can be retroactively justified to hav…

Right! All the companies doing it differently are also trying to satisfy their shareholders.

That's what is so great about capitalism. If one company starts to take advantage of its users for profit, it opens up a niche for another company to take a different approach.

Re: Google employees are listening to Google Home conversations

#296

Post by PeterStuer » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 7:41 PM UTC

Alex3917 wrote: post #239

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…

The reason companies use lots of live data is because people get upset when facial recognition doesn't work on people with different skin colors, voice recognition doesn't work for people with accents, etc. Doing #3 is literally the result of #4.

This is in no way 'the reason'. THE reason is that using live data without having to bother with consent is 'fast, easy and cheap'. Having to get consent is seen as a nuisance, and num's the word as we don't want to wake sleeping dogs. And we don't want to pay for generating training data, so yeah, we basically just steal the data from our uninformed users without their consent. I hope the GDPR will pursue this as a landmark case.

Re: Google employees are listening to Google Home conversations

#297

Post by rurp » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 7:41 PM UTC

tzakrajs wrote: post #18

r00fus wrote: post #13

My biggest frustration is going to a friends house which is blanketed with Echo/Google coverage and realizing that all my words could be used against me at a later time. How does one approach this situation?

Tell the truth or remain silent. Try not to incriminate yourself.

Telling the truth about your religion or sexual orientation can get you beaten or killed in many parts of the world.

That's not likely to happen in the present day US, but there are plenty of less dramatic but definitely undesirable things that can happen when your home audio gets passed around to a bunch of random contractors.

Re: Google employees are listening to Google Home conversations

#298

Post by aflag » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 7:46 PM UTC

skybrian wrote: post #178

duxup wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Frank Herbert hit it a bit more on the nose: “Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.” Frank captures the motivation, the fact that it is desirable is the scary part. Akin to the genetic engineering scene from Gattaca.

So what's the threat model for being enslaved by Google Home?

Everything you say counts towards your profile. It's the threat of social media framing or relationships, essentially.

Re: Google employees are listening to Google Home conversations

#299

Post by tgsovlerkhgsel » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 7:47 PM UTC

asciident wrote: post #63

kypro wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Explicit op-ins? "Google would like to use the last 15 minutes of voice data to improve Google Home. This may contain sensitive information. Do you approve?"

Everyone would just decline because there's no incentive to agree, and their product would die. Plus it would annoy users and cause stress.

You underestimate how many people are willing to take altruistic actions when the (perceived) cost is sufficiently small.

The main downside is an extra question during an onboarding flow.

Re: Google employees are listening to Google Home conversations

#300

Post by yellowapple » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 7:51 PM UTC

joshuamorton wrote: post #260

isostatic wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The distinction (from how I'm reading the GP's comment) is that Group 4 presupposes that data collection is necessary, and seeks to minimize unethical means of collecting that data, while Group 5 presupposes that ethics are paramount, and seeks to establish whether or not data collection can actually be ethical at all.

That is: Group 4 would be more willing to compromise ethics if absolutely necessary to get the data said group needs, while Group 5 would be more willing to compromise data collection if there's no ethical way to collect that data.