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

51–60 of 573 posts

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

#51

Post by wongarsu »

have_faith wrote: post #34
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"?

> stakeholders that might be in proximity I didn't realise visiting a friends house made me a stakeholder in all of their technology choices.

It does. If their light switch doesn't work when I press it I'm annoyed. The fact that I care makes me as stakeholder.

It's just that traditionally my opinion didn't matter much and my stake was tiny.

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

#52

Post by tssva »

madez wrote: post #43
nebulous1 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

They are most likely asking because the main competitor to Android devices also has an always listening assistant.

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

#53

Post by jacobheric »

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…

I didn't even realize google had a podcast app. I just installed it and you're right, I can't subscribe to a podcast since I have disabled web activity history. That's a particularly egregious dark pattern.

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

#54

Post by nkrisc »

bilbo0s wrote: post #42
hardwaresofton wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The government itself doing the things these corporation do would generate loads of outrage. For whatever reason it's a lot more acceptable for a company to collect all this data so you can play music with your voice and then the government can secretly collect it all later if they wish.

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

#56

Post by wongarsu »

afpx wrote: post #33

How is this even legal if wiretapping is illegal in many places?

The owner of the device consented either explicitly or implicitly. For everyone else it's not immediately obvious where to assign the blame: is it the owner of the device recording you without consent, as it would be with a normal microphone, or is the smart device manufacturer at fault?

Just telling people "ask every guest for permission" ostensibly clears this up: it's the owners fault for not getting permission. Of course in many places courts are in the habit of disregarding completely unrealistic disingenuous demands.

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

#57

Post by tobylane »

soulofmischief wrote: post #40
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…

> California requires consent from all present who have vibrated the air while you record the air vibrations One-party recording laws enable us to catch bad actors. Otherwise, you can't do things like record Rob Ford smoking crack and being a racist piece of shit while the incumbent mayor. The fact that you don't have the right to record a conversation you are participating in is not a good thing .

Public interest is a defence for not having obtained permission.

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

#58

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

bilbo0s wrote: post #50
wmeredith wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pr…

Why should they care? Generally speaking, people want privacy when we fear that disclosure will cause us some harm. I'm aware that there is a spectrum of viewpoints on this issue, and that some people value privacy as an end itself. But I think for most people, if they do value privacy for its own sake at all, it can't be a very high priority. If it were, they wouldn't use Google, credit cards, or cell phones.

Google, Amazon, etc. have a pretty good track record of not using private data against users. Which makes sense, because it is generally more profitable to act as the user's agent. This is exactly how most people think of private data in the hands of these big tech companies.

There's still some data they'd rather these companies not have. Even if I trust my lawyer to act as my agent, I'd prefer they not have a video of me having sex with my wife. On the other hand, if they had access to an occasional snippet of conversation from an incorrect hotword activation, I wouldn't really care. I know, and my lawyer knows, that their economic interest is in maintaining my privacy. There's almost no value for them in disclosing my conversations, and they would lose my future business.

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

#59

Post by eloisant »

pmlnr wrote: 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 might be wrong but I don't think Android phone are always listening by default.

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

#60

Post by wowamit »

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…

I wonder why does Google need the web activity to be turned on for subscribing to the Podcasts? Is there any realistic reasoning for it?
Post reply on HN