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

431–440 of 463 posts

Re: Google employees are listening to Google Home conversations

#431

Post by blackflame7000 »

mikeash wrote: post #376
blackflame7000 wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 se…

This is a wonderfully condescending response but it answers nothing. The question was, why can’t google do it differently? This doesn’t answer the question. We can plainly see this from the fact that other companies, operating under the same conditions you describe, make different choices. This is the business equivalent of saying “because physics.” It’s not wrong, it’s just not useful.

Sorry, I didn't mean to be condescending. To answer your question, the reason Google can't do things differently is that they have already established themselves as first and formost and advertisement company and the way to do that best is to know their audience very intimately. Other businesses like Apple have established themselves as a hardware company first so they aren't dependent on user data as much so they took advantage of that and established themselves as the "Secure" phone. Google is too large and it makes too much money from its core business which is ad drive. As long as search and ads are their cash cow they cannot change in the way you hope.

Re: Google employees are listening to Google Home conversations

#432

Post by RobLach »

cronix wrote: post #307
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'm in the 5th category. 5) Understand ML; concerned - won't allow any of these things in my house period because they will always use them for things behind the scenes that they won't state. I don't care how well trained they are, or "ethical." Ethical... according to who, and at what time period in the future? Ethics change. The data they have on you won't. Look at all of the politicians and other people getting in…

Could I ask your age?

I have been casually tracking who actually owns these types of devices and have never met anyone under 25 who would even consider it whereas I go to the homes of people in their late 30's and 40's and see them all the time.

Re: Google employees are listening to Google Home conversations

#433

Post by aflag »

skybrian wrote: post #308
aflag wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I do't understand. What is "social media framing"?

Sorry, it should have been "framing your relationships". Today having a good profile in social media does have an impact on your social status. It's not difficult to imagine a future where things you say at home have an impact on how your profile gets presented to other people.

Re: Google employees are listening to Google Home conversations

#434

Post by iamnotacrook »

arien wrote: post #36
SmirkingRevenge wrote: post #28

The one thing about these stories that keep coming out about the home assistants... they kind of create the impression that this is an issue specific to home speakers, and you can avoid it, by simply not buying them. That's misleading. Any voice command you use to operate any internet connected tech gadget, from phones to smart TV's, is potentially stored and flagged for human review. You really have to avoid using v…

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?

"Isn't there a law in some US states that there needs to be consent before recording someone?"

I doubt it - there would have been a test case involving one of the millions of people who have mobile phones capable of recording video/audio. If you're in a public place you should have no expectation of (that sort of) privacy.

Re: Google employees are listening to Google Home conversations

#435

Post by iamnotacrook »

ethbro wrote: post #129
mgamache wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding of recording law is that in One Party states you need to be part of the conversation to record it. Speculation: This would mean that the device / owner would be in violation if the owner was not in the room?

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.

So I buy one of these things; install it; put it online, but i'm not responsible for it? I don't understand. Would you be happy with that defence from a hotel if your wife stayed in a hotel room and was killed by carbon monoxide from a faulty heater?

Re: Google employees are listening to Google Home conversations

#436

Post by ben_w »

Angostura wrote: post #369
outworlder wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

My acquaintances mostly reference Operation Spanner which is about 30 years old now. I don’t know if that counts as recent or not, however while the Law Commission recommended in 1994(!) that this law be altered, it appears their recommendation was never adopted.

Re: Google employees are listening to Google Home conversations

#437

Post by qwertox »

SmirkingRevenge wrote: post #28

The one thing about these stories that keep coming out about the home assistants... they kind of create the impression that this is an issue specific to home speakers, and you can avoid it, by simply not buying them. That's misleading. Any voice command you use to operate any internet connected tech gadget, from phones to smart TV's, is potentially stored and flagged for human review. You really have to avoid using v…

Any time I'm on a phone call and say "Ok, good", Google Assistant kicks in, which concerns me a lot.

I really don't understand how they don't allow setting a custom hotword.

Re: Google employees are listening to Google Home conversations

#438

Post by jaclaz »

jammygit wrote: post #166
noir_lord wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aldous Huxley got there earlier with A Brave New World as well. Speculative Fiction was ahead of the curve in that era.

Anyone want to recommend a book? Let me join in by suggesting the Asimov robot books, which I’ve just begun

What you want to read by Asimov (much more relevant to the present topic), is this story "The Dead Past", (do not click on the below link as it would spoil it):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dead_Past

However the final words by Araman (which I won't cite, again to not spoil the effect) are memorable and very, very suited for these times.

The April 1956 "Astounding Science Fiction" where it was originally published is available via Internet Archive, read the story first (it is just 40 pages):

https://archive.org/stream/Astounding_v57n02_1956-04_Gorgon7...

Link to the .pdf:

https://archive.org/download/Astounding_v57n02_1956-04_Gorgo...

Re: Google employees are listening to Google Home conversations

#439

Post by raghava »

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…

Essentially, a larger grid, involving

agent( tech, management ) # assuming management has power over tech worker

understanding-of-ML( yes, no )

concerned-about-ethics-and-privacy( yes, no )

The below combinations are worst in terms of ethics.

{ agent[tech], understanding-of-ML[yes], concerned-about-ethics-and-privacy[no] }

{ agent[management], understanding-of-ML[no], concerned-about-ethics-and-privacy[no] }

{ tech[management], understanding-of-ML[no], concerned-about-ethics-and-privacy[no] }

Re: Google employees are listening to Google Home conversations

#440

Post by blackflame7000 »

icebraining wrote: post #375
blackflame7000 wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then explain why they changed to Alphabet. Shareholders were sick of things like project loon, siphoning cash from google search. You are extremely naive if you think there are many concerns of higher importance than profit. Everything else is about maintaining and growing profit even if that means doing an ad campaign convincing people you are fighting the good fight..for profit.

> Then explain why they changed to Alphabet. Shareholders were sick of things like project loon, siphoning cash from google search. Alphabet is still spending billions from Google into "other bets" like Loon, so I don't see how this explains the change.

Because now they have to report it to their shareholders where the money is going so that if the board doesn't like it they can replace the CEO. Before since it was all google, the money went where they said it went, there was no oversight. They had this massive R&D budget that was opaque to the investors. Money that could have been paid to shareholders as a dividend or return was instead spent on projects they had no idea about.
Post reply on HN