Live data from Hacker News

Google chief: I'd disclose smart speakers before guests enter my home

bbc.com

11–20 of 573 posts

Re: Google chief: I'd disclose smart speakers before guests enter my home

#11

>"Gosh, I haven't thought about this before in quite this way," Osterloh said. "It's quite important for all these technologies to think about all users... we have to consider all stakeholders that might be in proximity." How much do they not care about privacy that a chief exec with an army of lawyers and advisors "haven't thought about this before"?

Of course they know, they just need to cover their asses sue to the litigation risk.

Re: Google chief: I'd disclose smart speakers before guests enter my home

#12

>"Gosh, I haven't thought about this before in quite this way," Osterloh said. "It's quite important for all these technologies to think about all users... we have to consider all stakeholders that might be in proximity." How much do they not care about privacy that a chief exec with an army of lawyers and advisors "haven't thought about this before"?

All "big tech" are at it, I tried to go to "My Pictures" the other day and microsoft asked me to run my pictures through facial recognition.

They said that by consenting I was asserting I had the consent of anyone who appeared in any of my photos or might appear in future which is insane to ask of anyone, no-one can really give that third party consent.

Then when I refused they showed me a nag screen which didn't have that warning.

Then just yesterday I opened google camera and it really wanted to run face recognition on my photos. I refused.

I wanted to try the google podcasts but it was a brick because I had disabled "youtube & web activity" in google account settings. There was no way to subscribe to podcasts without web activity, the application said. And without subscribing there was nothing the app could do.

We have a company claiming that because I don't consent to have my web and youtube activity tracked that there's no way I could subscribe to a podcast that I explicitly choose to subscribe to in an application designed for subscribing to podcasts.

They don't stop trying, everyone is trying to hoover up all data, all the time.

Re: Google chief: I'd disclose smart speakers before guests enter my home

#13
This happens to be a good example of how there are so many laws you likely break some all the time. California requires consent from all present who have vibrated the air while you record the air vibrations (but not with your ears and brain storage!). That means if the google phone in your pocket listens to people at a restaurant or your alexa listens to your delivery man for a second you are a criminal under California penal code.

Re: Google chief: I'd disclose smart speakers before guests enter my home

#14
post #8

I'm genuinely curious why only nest, alexa, google home[^1] devices get highlighted - aren't they all use the same tech as the Google App on android? Why are android phones not flagged as well? [^1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21262521

I wish it were socially accepted to tell people to turn their Android device off while they are in company. I wish I could tell people that visit me to turn their device off or put it into rf and sound shielded containers.

I don't mind people using computers and their powers to ease their lives. I don't want to deny them that just because they are next to me or in my home. I just don't want them to use that power to collect and track and surveil everything at all times around them, wittingly or unwittinlgy.

Re: Google chief: I'd disclose smart speakers before guests enter my home

#15
post #6

>"Gosh, I haven't thought about this before in quite this way," Osterloh said. "It's quite important for all these technologies to think about all users... we have to consider all stakeholders that might be in proximity." How much do they not care about privacy that a chief exec with an army of lawyers and advisors "haven't thought about this before"?

It is a scripted response tailored to convey a specific, albeit less than truthful, narrative Much like the Juul CEO telling the public not to use their product right before the next announcement they were under investigation. Hopefully, a similar investigation will be announced presently. Edited.intentiin > narrative

> Hopefully, a similar investigation will be announced presently.

This will never happen.

Re: Google chief: I'd disclose smart speakers before guests enter my home

#17
post #14
post #8

I'm genuinely curious why only nest, alexa, google home[^1] devices get highlighted - aren't they all use the same tech as the Google App on android? Why are android phones not flagged as well? [^1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21262521

I wish it were socially accepted to tell people to turn their Android device off while they are in company. I wish I could tell people that visit me to turn their device off or put it into rf and sound shielded containers. I don't mind people using computers and their powers to ease their lives. I don't want to deny them that just because they are next to me or in my home. I just don't want them to use that power to…

This is acceptable in some circles in certain circumstances.

Re: Google chief: I'd disclose smart speakers before guests enter my home

#18

>"Gosh, I haven't thought about this before in quite this way," Osterloh said. "It's quite important for all these technologies to think about all users... we have to consider all stakeholders that might be in proximity." How much do they not care about privacy that a chief exec with an army of lawyers and advisors "haven't thought about this before"?

They don’t care. They’re arguing in bad faith. It’s also called lying or being full of shit.

Re: Google chief: I'd disclose smart speakers before guests enter my home

#20
post #13

This happens to be a good example of how there are so many laws you likely break some all the time. California requires consent from all present who have vibrated the air while you record the air vibrations (but not with your ears and brain storage!). That means if the google phone in your pocket listens to people at a restaurant or your alexa listens to your delivery man for a second you are a criminal under Califor…

In this case it's not the fault of the law though. Everyone with a basic level of intelligence and awareness of cultural norms, i.e. everyone working at Google developing and marketing these kind of products, is aware that this might cause an issue. But blinded by money and optimistic technobabble they do it anyway and make it near impossible or very unpractical for the user to turn it off.

I would have no problem with some legal action against those people.

Isn't here some law against tricking other people into breaking the law?

Post reply on HN