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

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

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 573 posts

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

#41

Post by throw_xyzyz »

XJ6 wrote: post #12
LudwigNagasena wrote: post #2

>"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 hav…

[dead]

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

#42

Post by bilbo0s »

hardwaresofton wrote: post #5
LudwigNagasena wrote: post #2

>"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's the wild west -- corporations are just doing what they want while governments are asleep at the wheel. Also, having an army of lawyers is exactly what allows for this -- you need to know which areas are gray in order to exploit them without risk of retribution/regulation. A basic minutes-long conversation would have likely arrived at the point of how recording of the owner themselves/third parties would affect t…

>corporations are just doing what they want while governments are asleep at the wheel.

That assumes the governments aren't in on it. They probably want the data more than the corporations.

I mean, you know, "security" and all.

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

#43

Post by madez »

nebulous1 wrote: post #25
madez wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Why are you carving out Android instead of all smartphones? Also, you can turn off OK google in Android, although they don't make it as easy as they should.

I assume you ask that because you are aware that any device with the capabilities of a smartphone can be made into a powerful surveillance device by whoever the entity is that has control over it.

I see variations of that argument very often. Its essence goes like this:

A: This is a proven threat.

B: But so could be this and that.

A: Right, could be.

B: But we can't get rid of them all, so let's just do nothing.

Here person B somehow convinced themselves that doing anything in that regard to be futile because they can't solve this class of problems once and for all.

There is a distinction between possible threats on one side and an existing threat based on evidence on the other side.

Any device with the capabilities of a smartphone can be nefarious, but doesn't have to be. Any Android device certainly is.

So I'd like to tell people to turn off their Android devices, but may they keep using their open hardware and software phone, because I don't see them as the threat, but the entity that controls their Android device.

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

#45

Post by paulcole »

vegardx wrote: post #28
throwaway13337 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a good question. I hope that the law comes down on these devices such that it only makes sense to keep and analyze all recorded data locally. If recorded data is never the property of the corporations but of the private owner of the device, a lot of the issues with them could be defanged. On the flip side, the value proposition for these devices may then be reduced - both for the corporations that produce them a…

Not really, in many places you're not allowed to record conversations you're not actively engaging in, even on private property.

Can you give an example of those places?

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

#46

Post by peteradio »

edoo wrote: post #21
DJHenk wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wi…

I'm pretty sure the burden would fall on the end user. They don't have to activate those features in an environment where using them would be against the law. Having them activated at your home and failing to inform visitors would be on the user.

Who is the end user of that data?

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

#47

Post by kaffeemitsahne »

soulofmischief wrote: post #35
madez wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I have voice-activated assistant on my droid turned off, meanwhile Siri is active on all iDevices, and everyone with a laptop at your place is a mole. Do you expect to altogether prevent people from bringing computing devices into your home? If you are not a state target, then that is just silly. Focus your malcontent on the real bad actors, not their victims.

The various states would love to have as much data as they can on every citizen. Therefore, we're all state targets.

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

#48

Post by akiselev »

edoo wrote: 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…

I highly doubt many judges in California or the Ninth circuit will look at this situation and blame the user, especially when they aren't the ones with access to the recordings.

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

#49

Post by pintxo »

XJ6 wrote: post #12
LudwigNagasena wrote: post #2

>"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 hav…

In case you are in the EU, this is a pretty clear case of a GDPR violation [1], you might want to raise this with you data protection agency. (They might have no resources to assists you though)

[1] https://gdpr.eu/gdpr-consent-requirements/, https://gdpr.eu/Recital-42-Burden-of-proof-and-requirements-...

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

#50

Post by bilbo0s »

wmeredith wrote: post #18
LudwigNagasena wrote: post #2

>"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.

You're wrong. They are not arguing in bad faith, because they are not arguing with you at all.

They are informing you of what their products do, and what the products should likely do in the future.

Debate, or argument, implies, at minimum, a two way discussion. That's not what's been going on. And I'm not sure that a debate ever will happen? The only politically palatable people even concerned about their loss of privacy are a few activists and people in the tech industry. (Can't really count on the pedophiles and the terrorists to be of any help in gaining the support of the larger populace.)

Even worse, it's not even like the moms, grandmoms, grandpas, teenage girls, hell raising ex convict uncles, etc don't know that they lose their privacy to google, facebook, and youtube. They do know that they lose their privacy, and they just don't care anymore.

Actually, maybe they never did care? I don't even know?

It's sad.

Post reply on HN