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

161–170 of 573 posts

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

#161

Post by nvrspyx »

indigochill wrote: post #93
throwaheyy wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That kind of user-hostile bullshit is why I avoid anything and everything associated with Google. Still use search, but trying to break that habit.

I gotta be that guy and recommend DuckDuckGo. No, it's not always as good as Google search, but it's still usually good enough and when you -really- need Google you can simply add "g!". Every other time, you can rest assured your searches aren't feeding some AI. DDG is at least a reasonable way to ween yourself off Google search rather than needing to go full cold turkey.

As I always do when this is suggested, I recommend using “!s” for Startpage instead of “!g” for Google.

Similar to DDG, Startpage provides results in a privacy respecting way, but it uses Google instead of Bing (and Oath), which DDG uses. There’s a common misconception amongst some that using !g on DDG is private, but it’s just a redirect, so Google can gather information from that search. Using !s as the fallback instead will keep your searches private.

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

#162

Post by kareemm »

neon_electro wrote: post #152
kareemm wrote: post #98

Since cameras and mics are embedded in all kinds of consumer devices these days, it makes me think we need a site that recommends devices that DONT include surveillance as a “feature”. Sort of a Wirecutter for privacy. Does this exist?

Mozilla Foundation has a site called *privacy not included that I think attempts to accomplish what you're asking for: https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/privacynotincluded/

This is pretty helpful. In a perfect world it picks a category (eg. smoke detectors) and recommends a privacy-aware product along with trade offs.

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

#163

Post by SlowRobotAhead »

irishloop wrote: post #141

I know it puts me in the minority, but I honestly do not care that much. It's obfuscation by volume. If Google wants to hear me and my roommate argue about Red Dead Redemption online or the new Bill Burr comedy special, good luck with that. When I worked in IT, people always used to say oh you can read my emails? Nobody wants to read about your boring-ass life. My understanding is they are using our speech to create…

> It's obfuscation by volume.

Not even sort of. They know EXACTLY who you are, and have the ability to determine EXACTLY what you say, or when you are home, or who is home with you, or meta data about your habits like sleep or TV, or in a very realistic possibility monitor for words beyond “Alexa”... like let’s say “Sanders” or “Trump” and upload number of times those trigger words were said every 24 hours.

There is no part of this that is obfuscation by volume. Specifically you get specifically tagged.

How could it not be within reason that a door to door political volunteer is sent to your specific door with their tablet saying “Don’t mention guns, Do mention tax reform”?

There are arguments I can make for personal assistants esp for elderly or disabled. But obfuscation by volume definitely isn’t the case here.

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

#164

Post by vageli »

vonmoltke wrote: post #79
tobylane wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Public interest is a defence for not having obtained permission.

I'm not sure that's universally true. Even where it is, that doesn't mean the recording will be admissable as evidence in a legal proceeding.

> I'm not sure that's universally true. Even where it is, that doesn't mean the recording will be admissable as evidence in a legal proceeding.

Unless the recording was made by police, illegally-obtained evidence is often admissable if presented by non-law-enforcement.

> Evidence unlawfully obtained from the defendant by a private person is admissible. The exclusionary rule is designed to protect privacy rights, with the Fourth Amendment applying specifically to government officials.

[0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule

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

#165

Post by jklinger410 »

Also time to start asking people to leave their phones in their cars, taking them as they walk in your door, or warning them that you have your phone on as well.

Anyone who uses a voice assistant should be warning others of this at all times.

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

#166

Post by DaniloDias »

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"?

If you are a privacy advocate, how could you work at google and sleep well?

Why sign up for that kind of pain?

To me- its more interesting that this exec is so clueless as to utter something so damning in such a cliched way. Gosh- was he really this earnestly naive? Or is it possible that this is sarcasm? How can you be a vp exposed to press and say something this unguarded or sarcastic IN FRONT OF PRESS?!? What is going on at Google that people like this are promoted/hired?

“Our customers should consider warning guests and family that they use our products” -a google exec

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

#167

Post by fyfy18 »

Aunche wrote: post #159
saluki wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

of course I do, it's alluded to in my comment: "(beyond what smartphones are already capable of)" I agree, smart phones provide the same surveillance capabilities of 'smart' speakers and more. But supposedly phones aren't always on and listening to all your audio like the 'smart' speakers. This might just be a divide in society, some people accept surveillance as not an issue and are fine with it. Would you place a s…

If you believe that your smartphone isn't always on, wouldn't it make sense that your smart speaker is also off until you give it a wake word?

No, because it's a small step from having a smart speaker - which is specifically designed to pick up someone speaking quietly from the other side of the room - to go from "requiring a wake work" to "listening to every conversation". Especially when the companies involved (Google and Amazon specifically) have direct interests in knowing what you are talking about.

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

#168

Post by vageli »

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 .

> > 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.

That doesn't stop illegally obtained recordings from being presented as evidence, so long as the recording was not performed by law enforcement, at least in the United States.

Sure you might be open to civil liability but that's a different story.

[0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule

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

#170

Post by 52-6F-62 »

saluki wrote: post #115

I was a huge Google Fan but this is becoming lunacy. I understood trading some data and privacy for great search results, maps and free quality email. But people willingly bringing always on listening devices in to their homes (beyond what smartphones are already capable of) I just can't comprehend it. Why would people voluntarily do this in exchange for being able to ask for weather, play a playlist, add a todo and…

The new version of Fahrenheit 451 (film w/ Michael Jordan) does a fantastic take of this. I highly recommend it unless anyone is a Fahrenheit 451 originalist.
Post reply on HN