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

211–220 of 573 posts

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

#211

Post by chenning »

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…

I don't think this is just a Google issue. Osterloh just happened to be the first one to come right out and say, yeah, maybe you should tell your guests.

Personally, I thought the bigger news (insult) was when he said, "Gosh, I haven't thought about this before in quite this way."

Give me a break. You knew it. I knew it. We all knew it. Maybe the right thing to do is have the device recognize there's an unknown voice in the room and announce that it's listening. That hasn't happened for some reason, but I highly doubt the reason is that no one ever thought of it.

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

#212

Post by lukifer »

raxxorrax wrote: post #204
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…

People just don't know how valuable this data actually is. Sure it only gets value if a critical quantity is reached. There is just a disconnect in understanding. With huge efforts they will create archives of 5% special price coupons, but how tech companies extract free money from them is beyond their comprehension. The implications of having every deed and word quantified is perhaps too abstract a danger to underst…

> People just don't know how valuable this data actually is.

Jaron Lanier has an interesting plan for renegotiating the "paying for services with data" relationship we now have with tech companies: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/23/opinion/data-...

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

#213

Post by cptskippy »

bluedevilzn wrote: post #155
saluki wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

y, I agree it's not just Google. I think allowing any company or government having an open mic/'smart' speaker, essentially bugging your own home/business is just a bad idea. "I actually am less worried about those (since I turn them off)" - are you sure they are off, had to ask. I'm not as worried about Netflix/Amazon knowing every movie I watch, product I order or am interested in. I'm more worried about private co…

Nest/Google Home devices have a hardware mute button. They are off when they are off.

> Nest/Google Home devices have a hardware mute button. They are off when they are off.

Can you cite where Google says that the mute switch is a hardware kill switch for the mics? I've only read where they say that it doesn't listen but never that it physically disables the mics which means it's done in software and the device could be "muted" and still able to listen.

Unless the mute switch is a physical disconnect for the microphones then it's no different than the Alexa's mute button.

And don't forget Google's Nest Secure contains/ed undisclosed microphones and not physical mute button and Google wanted you to trust that it is/was disabled.

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

#214

Post by irq-1 »

Santosh83 wrote: post #69

A few short years ago it was incomprehensible, even in the west, to have what is essentially a permanently bugged house. Now it has been normalised to such an extent that even people who claim to be aware of privacy use Alexa et al at home in a striking display of dissonance. The general public at large has been sold such attractive shiny toys that they don't realise that the price they pay for using them is to uncon…

People used to ask me why I don't use Facebook. I haven't been asked that in about two years.

I predict that three years from now the majority will share our views about voice and video recording.

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

#215

Post by DoreenMichele »

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…

And if I ever intend to murder anyone, I will turn off Alexa.

Police cases of the future:

"He's a prime suspect because he turned off Alexa shortly before the so-called accidental death in question happened."

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

#216

Post by Santosh83 »

jachee wrote: post #181
cmsonger wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My personal view is that the biggest issue here is the lack of user protection. I'd be a LOT less concerned about this if the appropriate legal framework protected me. The Star Trek vision of voice as an interface is a good vision. The question is how the regulatory framework protects users in this world and keeps it from being the dystopian nightmare that our "for profit corporations get to do whatever they like as…

The in-universe answer from Star Trek is that there's no more capitalism in their post-scarcity society.

While the tech seems to be catching up in certain areas (if not the FTL drive), socially we're nowhere near what was depicted in Star Trek. It wasn't just post-capitalism but post-money. People no longer had to work for basic necessities. That is almost an unimaginably different setup to what humanity has always been used to. There's also a noticeable lack of crime and corruption, again something humans will have to extensively transform themselves in order to reach the goal...

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

#217

Post by DennisP »

cmsonger wrote: post #175
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…

My personal view is that the biggest issue here is the lack of user protection. I'd be a LOT less concerned about this if the appropriate legal framework protected me. The Star Trek vision of voice as an interface is a good vision. The question is how the regulatory framework protects users in this world and keeps it from being the dystopian nightmare that our "for profit corporations get to do whatever they like as…

If the voice interface is implemented locally then it's not a problem. Google already has it working on the Pixel. It has some limitations but it responds faster and works offline.

https://techcrunch.com/2019/03/12/googles-new-voice-recognit...

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

#218

Post by diffeomorphism »

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

Two obvious reasons:

- Smart home devices are used at home, where you have a high expectation of privacy. In contrast phones go with you everywhere.

- Those devices are supposed to hear everything in the room clearly. A phone in your pocket or backpack? If they can make their mics good enough for that, I would like to have that tech.

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

#219

Post by DHPersonal »

SamuelAdams wrote: post #136
astral303 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Google Maps not saving your history as you described is an incredibly bad, frustrating experience. FFS, my phone has gigs of RAM, why can’t Google Maps remember the address I searched for ten minutes ago? One minute ago? This is 2019. It has been this bad for a decade plus. Embarrassing IMO and demonstrates true UX myopia and true UX incompetence.

Personally I switched to Apple Maps after the iOS 13 release and haven't looked back. Because it's integrated into the OS, Apple Maps can look into your messages and auto-complete addresses from that. It can also save places without you signing into an account. The only thing I miss is google's "offline" mode. I live in Michigan, and I frequently go on trips up north into heavily wooded areas. I don't always get cell…

HERE WeGo has an offline version. https://apps.apple.com/us/app/here-wego-city-navigation/id95...

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

#220

Post by naasking »

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…

> 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.

Always-on listening doesn't seem like a huge deal. What matters is the policy of allowing Google people to listen to captured audio, even if it's for training purposes. This is skirting uncomfortably close to a dystopian surveillance society.

If you want to gather data from people, provide an incentive to voluntarily participate. For instance, on Google maps you can become a contributor and there are benefits and bonuses if you contribute enough. Yes, this group is self-selected so it's not as good as a random sample, but it's better than the dystopian alternative.

Post reply on HN