Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google employees are listening to Google Home conversations

translate.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 463 posts

Re: Google employees are listening to Google Home conversations

#361

Post by michaelmrose »

basch wrote: post #356
pdonis wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On my smartphone I can at least turn off the apps that would automatically listen for voice commands; I can use the phone just fine without them. And if I thought there was enough of a threat that Google or someone else was listening in using my phone's microphone without my knowledge, even with the apps turned off, I would switch to a rooted phone that would give me more control. For the Echo/Google Home/etc. device…

Theres a mute button on the echo. You can turn voice off just the same as you can on a phone.

Turns out the NSA has an implant for smart tvs that among its features is keeping the tv on and recording you while turning the indicator light that indicates its on status off.

You don't own the device despite paying for it. It updates itself when it feels like it and does whatever its actual owner says including compromising itself if told to.

Re: Google employees are listening to Google Home conversations

#362

Post by clebio »

viklove wrote: post #291
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.

This is such a specious argument and yet repeated ad nauseam. Please stop. For one, it doesn't make the listening and harvesting of data ok, just because it may already be happening. Also, it's just condescending. You don't think the parent or other people of reasonable intelligence and valid concern haven't thought about that? Then, it also just misses the point anyway -- no, I'm not OK with my cell phone harvesting anything and everything it can get (cadence of my walk, say). Yes, I like having access to maps on the go. These concerns aren't mutually exclusive, and most of us choose not to live like Stallman. We still live in a rich and complex ecosystem of law and precedence, highly dependent on where we are on a given day, what nationality we are, etc. None of that invalidates the quite reasonable expectation to privacy (not to mention that solutions exist such as opt-in, but cavalier people working in tech choose instead the race to the bottom of privacy and chasing cost-per-click).

Re: Google employees are listening to Google Home conversations

#363

Post by clebio »

espeed wrote: post #34
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.

Your phone has more sensors on it than these devices and most people have their phones on them 24/7. And most phones have the same voice-controlled features too. Why people are concerned about narrow scoped voice-devices more than their phone is a curious thing. Is it because it talks back to you that makes it more apparent?

No one said we were (_more_ concerned).

Re: Google employees are listening to Google Home conversations

#364

Post by Iolaum »

rurban wrote: post #346
pdonis wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On my smartphone I can at least turn off the apps that would automatically listen for voice commands; I can use the phone just fine without them. And if I thought there was enough of a threat that Google or someone else was listening in using my phone's microphone without my knowledge, even with the apps turned off, I would switch to a rooted phone that would give me more control. For the Echo/Google Home/etc. device…

Even a rooted phone will not help, since the monopolistic baseband processor will do it. The big ARM CPU is just for the users, the baseband is for control of the public masses and mass surveillance.

The surveillance problem is not black and white. A rooted phone may not help you if a state actor is after you, but it will help against companies that make money by building an invasive profile of who you are and what you do. Again how much a rooted phone helps in that depends on how many ties you want to cut with the digital-advertising ecosystem.

Here's a paper describing the privacy invasive and potentially harmful properties of pre-installed apps [1]. I specifically saved this paper in my files so I can have a comprehensive answer when people ask me why I go through the trouble of rooting my devices.

P.S. People who know more than me are saying that the baseband processor can be restricted with hardware practices such as IOMMU [2]. I don't really know how effective that can be.

[1]: https://haystack.mobi/papers/preinstalledAndroidSW_preprint....

[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20151431

Re: Google employees are listening to Google Home conversations

#365

Post by misterprime »

rurban wrote: post #346
pdonis wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On my smartphone I can at least turn off the apps that would automatically listen for voice commands; I can use the phone just fine without them. And if I thought there was enough of a threat that Google or someone else was listening in using my phone's microphone without my knowledge, even with the apps turned off, I would switch to a rooted phone that would give me more control. For the Echo/Google Home/etc. device…

Even a rooted phone will not help, since the monopolistic baseband processor will do it. The big ARM CPU is just for the users, the baseband is for control of the public masses and mass surveillance.

I tend to believe you, but I'd love to see some material to back up your suspicions.

Re: Google employees are listening to Google Home conversations

#366

Post by vincent-toups »

Rapzid wrote: post #180
vincent-toups wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand ML and I'm concerned, but my position isn't "how can we train models/collect data in an ethical way?" Its more like "Do we really need to train models like this?" I continually come back to the same thought: The Amish (to take a random example) consume probably thousands of times less than I do. They do without the conveniences of technology which I "enjoy". They have neither computers nor an endless str…

I'd like to offer a counterpoint to romanticizing the Amish way of life. Love it or hate it, our current world would not have developed the way it has if everyone was following the Amish way of life. They enjoy a massive number of benefits that were born out of alternative-to-them life styles. For example we may have "an endless stream of distracting media" but we also have a hugely increased life span and reduced mo…

You're not wrong, but also, I doubt it makes much of a difference in absolute happiness levels.

Re: Google employees are listening to Google Home conversations

#367

Post by wybiral »

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…

Even if I trust them to do what they say they're doing with the data I may not trust every party who comes to possess that data. And I may not trust their possession/use of it in all future contexts - as their privacy policy slowly drifts into the unknown year after year.

If they're collecting it in a way that can be requested by governments (for instance) or could be leaked by hackers that's another layer of valid "concern" not related to my understanding of the ML aspect of this.

Re: Google employees are listening to Google Home conversations

#368

Post by arien »

tinus_hn wrote: post #289
arien wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In terms of GDPR: https://gdpr-info.eu/art-4-gdpr/ > ‘personal data’ means any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person (‘data subject’); an identifiable natural person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data, an online identifier or to one or more factors specific to the physi…

So you’ve identified a person. What information has been revealed about that person?

Anything that falls in that 'personal data' segment above that belongs to me has to be obtained with my prior, explicit consent. And these bits of data with my name or other details in them must be included if I send Google a "right to be forgotten" or "show me all the data you've got about me" request. That's GDPR in a nutshell.

This might be a grey area for now, as both GDPR and listening devices are both quite new. But Google, Amazon & co aren't super popular with EU regulators and governments, so they might side with users' rights on this one.

Re: Google employees are listening to Google Home conversations

#369

Post by Angostura »

outworlder wrote: post #343
ben_w wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here’s an entirely plausible scenario: The person in the story said they thought they heard domestic violence in some of the recordings. I know some people who are into “consensual nonconsent“, a form of BDSM which I do not understand, but as these acquaintances tell me they like being on the receiving end I have reason to trust them. Any system or person which incorrectly identifies one of these groups as the other,…

> Note that in the UK, some forms of consensual BDSM have been prosecuted as serious assault, and the person on the receiving end has been prosecuted for conspiracy to commit assault because they consented to it. Can someone versed in UK law clarify how such a stupid system emerged out of their laws? I'd guess that's an unintended consequence of how laws were worded, but it is mind boggling.

I'm not versed in UK law, but live in the UK and am aware of a few cases. Bottom line - British law does not recognize the possibility of consenting to actual bodily harm.

I'm not aware of any recent case where the person on the receiving end was prosecuted for consenting, perhaps the OC can cast some light on that.

Re: Google employees are listening to Google Home conversations

#370

Post by blackflame7000 »

vkou wrote: post #265
blackflame7000 wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

> I can just as easily say that the best way to maximize shareholder value is to minimize public scandal, scrutiny, and potential for legislature.

Scandals can get free marketing, for example, Nike and Colin Kaepernick. Attention is always better than no attention at all for a business. Every single decision is made to increase profit but there might be many things that need to be accomplished first so its hard to see the big picture. For example, a developer might want to improve a feature because they want more people to use their product. A manager gets approval to pay that developer because the investment is deemed a profitable one. What does the person who gave them that money care about the number of users. It's not their invention and they don't even use the service? They give the money because they know that More users = more market share = more ads to sell = a return greater than the initial investment. Until a business can run with people working for free, the person paying for things always dictates what is bought and thus the direction the company is headed.

Let's say that direction is contrary to the direction of another prominent member of the business wants it to go. Whether you want to believe it or not, the same calculus goes on in every person's mind: Is this the potential payoff of Option A greater than the potential loss of Option B given the risk?

Post reply on HN