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

Headphones are collecting too much personal data (2019)

soundguys.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 431 posts

Re: Headphones are collecting too much personal data (2019)

#291

Post by paultopia »

taneq wrote: post #265
p1esk wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good luck with this if you want state of the art in noise canceling

I have a pair of Bose QC20s which are (or were, when I bought them) state of the art for noise canceling, and have a 3.5mm headphone jack. No app required and they even work as normal wired headphones if the battery goes flat.

This is a good point. Last I looked at the reviews, those were still state of the art for noise cancelling, if only because wired in-ears also have nice sound isolation. I should dust mine off...

Re: Headphones are collecting too much personal data (2019)

#292

Post by _delirium »

andrewflnr wrote: post #222
josteink wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve had the best heat headphones Bose has to offer in the Quiet Comfort series and to me this “state of the art noise cancellation” sounds like artefact- and distortion-inducing noise. I’ve returned them and replaced them with much better, naturally damping, closed head-phones. And the audio is so much better, at a fraction of the cost. Noise cancellation in the hifi-space is just snake oil, and I’m not having it.

Does... does anyone actually think noise-cancelling is for increasing audio quality? I always thought it was just for handling obnoxiously noisy environments, like airplanes, screaming children, etc.

Aside, but noise cancelling (at least what's currently on the market) doesn't really do much for screaming children. It only handles relatively constant noise well, ideally low/mid-frequency constant noise. Great at silencing stuff like airplane engines, wind, HVAC hum, freeway rumble, etc. But not very effective for people talking, crying babies, car horns, ambulance sirens, slamming doors, etc.

Re: Headphones are collecting too much personal data (2019)

#293

Post by tedd-the-tiger »

jimmaswell wrote: post #79
dangoor wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were two things that happened when Apple got rid of the headphone jack: (1) they added water resistance, (2) the phones got thinner. Plus, Apple had seen the trends heading toward wireless headphones. They still included a dongle to give you a standard headphone jack. While Apple could likely have gotten their water resistance even with the headphone jack, they couldn’t have made the phones as thin. People may…

The Samsung S10 line is water resistant with a headphone jack just fine.

Exactly. So is my LG G7. IP68, who wants better than that?

Re: Headphones are collecting too much personal data (2019)

#294

Post by bitwize »

egypturnash wrote: post #175
bitwize wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My Boses allow you to set the cancellation level with a button press. It cycles through three options: high, low, and off. Does the app enable more fine-grained control or something? Perhaps per-ear cancellation settings?

My QC35s don't have that button. It's only available in the app, and there is no fine-grained control or anything - just high/low/off.

I have QC35s too. Maybe a newer rev?

Re: Headphones are collecting too much personal data (2019)

#295

Post by Mandatum »

cjsawyer wrote: post #286
Mandatum wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

QC35's have a hardware button on the side of the volume buttons that allow you to change ANC. Not sure which model you're using.

I have the first gen, not the model II’s. It doesn’t have the button on the left side.

I'm a buffoon! I meant the QC30's - the in-ear ones. Sorry! It appears mk 2 of QC35 has physical ANC buttons, but the originals do not.

Re: Headphones are collecting too much personal data (2019)

#296

Post by dylz »

cjsawyer wrote: post #286
Mandatum wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

QC35's have a hardware button on the side of the volume buttons that allow you to change ANC. Not sure which model you're using.

I have the first gen, not the model II’s. It doesn’t have the button on the left side.

Even worse, on my QC35 II's, the hardware button defaulted to Google Assistant on Android, and I had to use the app anyway to set it to modify ANC on press.

Re: Headphones are collecting too much personal data (2019)

#297

Post by tgsovlerkhgsel »

neiman wrote: post #200
tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With GDPR in place, "unnecessary harvesting of data" should in theory be a thing in the past (unless the user explicitly makes a voluntary choice to opt-in after being informed of the options). Reality is different, but NGOs can in theory sue to make reality align better with the intent of GDPR. NOYB ( https://noyb.eu ) is supposed to be such an NGO, and they seem to be doing a decent job so far, although they're lim…

Afaik GDPR allows harvesting of data as long as I agree to that in the user agreement. The problem is of course that more than once I found out the user agreements after purchasing the product, when it was too late. (I live in the EU, so GDPR is relevant to me)

GDPR allows collection of data on the basis of very specific reasons: https://gdpr-info.eu/art-6-gdpr/

Option a), consent, is further regulated later. The key aspect is https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-43/ "Consent is presumed not to be freely given if (...) the provision of a service, is dependent on the consent despite such consent not being necessary for such performance". Further requirements in https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-32/

Each option only lets them process the data to the extent necessary, so if they can argue that they need the data to provide a service (option b), they can only use it for that, not for e.g. resale. I think a court also clarified that "but we need it to show personalized ads" doesn't count.

I don't think anyone tried to argue that ads or other common ways to monetize data are in the public interest, and such an attempt would likely not stand.

Option f (legitimate interest) also seems to be popular, but I think that again, a court clarified that invasive tracking for ads doesn't meet the balance.

The problems with GDPR are really more on the enforcement side: The DPAs are overwhelmed and in some cases (Ireland) they seem to be rather keen on not doing their job. Also, it's hard to enforce GDPR against companies that are outside the EU.

Re: Headphones are collecting too much personal data (2019)

#298

Post by lmkg »

zelly wrote: post #150
mixmastamyk wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One user is worthless, a few pennies. A million and things get interesting.

Say I have a database full of metrics, user agents, IPs, GPS, names, addresses, photos, etc. on a million users, who would I call to sell it? Genuinely curious.

One part of CCPA is that data brokers have to register themselves with the Attorney General if they trade in the data of California residents. The registry is public. You could start there.

https://www.oag.ca.gov/data-brokers

Re: Headphones are collecting too much personal data (2019)

#299

Post by renewiltord »

La1n wrote: post #164
renewiltord wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like you do have a choice: spend more money. In a world where this wasn't allowed, presumably you'd be forced to spend more money. So you can inhabit that world right now if you want.

>That sounds like you do have a choice: spend more money. This is not an option for everyone. Don't poor people deserve privacy too?

Sure, but they deserve to be able to make the choice too. So if you move to a world where selling your data for services isn't available, then you're forcing them to pay and since we've determined they can't pay, all you're doing is removing the choice from them and forcing them in to the no-service option.

And I know how it is because I was once affected by this. All these "but the poor people" folks disappear when the poor actually ask for help. It's like this:

Poor people: Hey, can we get the right to work for a living in a dignified way and use the same services as everyone else?

The Privileged Protectors: Okay, how about I make it so you can't work for more than 20 hrs and umm... I'll throw in some privacy

Poor people:...

You can't eat privacy.

Re: Headphones are collecting too much personal data (2019)

#300

Post by Naac »

renewiltord wrote: post #120
saurik wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They care. It exudes as a cynicism about the world and continual jokes about talking to the FBI agent assigned to watch them. They (as are we) are just powerless to prevent it as every single service and every single platform and apparently every single product is collecting data on us. And since the value of services and platforms and, sadly, even products goes up as more people are using them, the arguments of "don…

That sounds like you do have a choice: spend more money. In a world where this wasn't allowed, presumably you'd be forced to spend more money. So you can inhabit that world right now if you want.

> spend more money

We're talking about a companion app for one of the most expensive consumer headphones you can get ( $350 ).

I don't think this is about money, this is about using dark patterns and morally questionable behavior to get user data.

Yes, if you're older and wiser you can work around these, disable the app location data, etc. But a lot of people are oblivious to this, not because they don't care but because they are being purposefully deceived.

Post reply on HN