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

A sociotechnical threat model for AI-driven smart home devices

arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 76 posts

Re: A sociotechnical threat model for AI-driven smart home devices

#61

Post by jdkoeck »

roughly wrote: post #36
DriverDaily wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure an absence of surveillance is what creates “humane trust”. I’m certain we had locks on doors and security guards before the internet.

Trust involves risk - someone has to be willing to risk having their trust violated. The problem in modern western society is that we’ve decided we’re unwilling to take that risk, and therefore we’ve begun imposing what’s effectively a panopticon state on those with less power than us, with the consequence that the kinds of things we with power get away with fine - driving over the speed limit, being a couple minutes…

I’ve had plenty of uber drivers with a camera inside the car. I was not offended by their seeming lack of trust. They had stories to tell that made me realize these cameras were very much needed.

Re: A sociotechnical threat model for AI-driven smart home devices

#62

Post by [deleted] »

groundzeros2015 wrote: post #51
newspaper1 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would absolutely support the surveillance of CEOs and board members. They have demonstrated themselves, as a class, to not be trustworthy. I think as a society, we should be reviewing Alex Karp's decision making for instance.

This is not a serious comment. CEOs are some of the most accountable and watched people in society. Low level employees (imagine a random adult) is not highly capable or accountable and needs guidance. Can you acknowledge this gap in your analysis?

[deleted]

Re: A sociotechnical threat model for AI-driven smart home devices

#63

Post by newspaper1 »

groundzeros2015 wrote: post #51
newspaper1 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would absolutely support the surveillance of CEOs and board members. They have demonstrated themselves, as a class, to not be trustworthy. I think as a society, we should be reviewing Alex Karp's decision making for instance.

This is not a serious comment. CEOs are some of the most accountable and watched people in society. Low level employees (imagine a random adult) is not highly capable or accountable and needs guidance. Can you acknowledge this gap in your analysis?

CEOs are not accountable at all. Look at Elon Musk. I don't care what the guy stocking shelves at Walmart does, I do care when billionaires interfere with my life in myriad ways, all of which are nefarious. They can cause infinitely more damage than a low level employee and need infinite more scrutiny because of that.

Re: A sociotechnical threat model for AI-driven smart home devices

#64

Post by roughly »

reliabilityguy wrote: post #59
roughly wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are indeed free to go live under a bridge, until the police tell them to move on.

There are a lot of choices between “under the bridge” and “cameras are evil”.

There are indeed a lot of choices for you. Others have fewer choices.

Re: A sociotechnical threat model for AI-driven smart home devices

#65

Post by IndySun »

A thought experiment. Cameras everywhere, zero privacy, some murders. No cameras anywhere, total privacy, probably more murders. If cameras everywhere meant zero crime, would you be for it? Can cameras everywhere ever equate to no crime ever; I don't think so. There's some serious pre-crime notions here too.

Re: A sociotechnical threat model for AI-driven smart home devices

#66

Post by groundzeros2015 »

newspaper1 wrote: post #63
groundzeros2015 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not a serious comment. CEOs are some of the most accountable and watched people in society. Low level employees (imagine a random adult) is not highly capable or accountable and needs guidance. Can you acknowledge this gap in your analysis?

CEOs are not accountable at all. Look at Elon Musk. I don't care what the guy stocking shelves at Walmart does, I do care when billionaires interfere with my life in myriad ways, all of which are nefarious. They can cause infinitely more damage than a low level employee and need infinite more scrutiny because of that.

What has Elon done to you? Other than provide more vehicle and internet choices?

Scrutiny and surveillance are not synonyms.

Re: A sociotechnical threat model for AI-driven smart home devices

#67

Post by antonvs »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #54
antonvs wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Collectively, in the US at least, decisions collectively made by boards have led to greatly increased inequality. For example, at every AI company right now, an explicit goal it to make profit by replacing or reducing the need for human staff. There tends to be extremely little attention paid to the social ramifications of this: like every SV business before them, the goal is to "disrupt" and leave the consequences f…

>For example, at every AI company right now, an explicit goal it to make profit by replacing or reducing the need for human staff. Almost everyone has an explicit goal of spending less money for equivalent goods and services. People prefer to stores that prioritize lowering prices over paying for more staff.

Do people also prefer paying zero percent tax over paying a positive percentage in tax?

Perhaps you’d like to reconsider your comment with that in mind.

Re: A sociotechnical threat model for AI-driven smart home devices

#68

Post by lotsofpulp »

antonvs wrote: post #67
lotsofpulp wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>For example, at every AI company right now, an explicit goal it to make profit by replacing or reducing the need for human staff. Almost everyone has an explicit goal of spending less money for equivalent goods and services. People prefer to stores that prioritize lowering prices over paying for more staff.

Do people also prefer paying zero percent tax over paying a positive percentage in tax? Perhaps you’d like to reconsider your comment with that in mind.

I do not see why I should reconsider. My intention was to point out it is not just “AI companies” that have the following directive, they just couch it in finding the lowest price for something.

>an explicit goal it to make profit by replacing or reducing the need for human staff. There tends to be extremely little attention paid to the social ramifications of this:

Re: A sociotechnical threat model for AI-driven smart home devices

#69

Post by esrauch »

roughly wrote: post #39
esrauch wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you spell out the ramifications for the plebs? As far as I can tell home smart speakers are being used for warrantless mass surveillance, unlike Flock for example. Do you mean the possible future situation where they are?

I don’t quite understand how after twenty five years of the modern internet and every single consequent revelation about state surveillance you’re still at a point where you can look at a corporate-owned camera or microphone and say, “my priors suggest this isn’t being used for state surveillance and/or won’t be in the future, I’m gonna need evidence it is before I consider the consequences of that.”

Sorry, you're going to have to spell out the risk for me here. What other cases have we seen that indicate that mass surveillance via smart speakers is a risk?

We all also have phone in my pocket 24/7 and my laptop on my desk, both with microphones in them. In the event of the government doing warrantless spying on all devices it seems like that is a strictly higher ROI target for them?

Re: A sociotechnical threat model for AI-driven smart home devices

#70

Post by roughly »

esrauch wrote: post #69
roughly wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t quite understand how after twenty five years of the modern internet and every single consequent revelation about state surveillance you’re still at a point where you can look at a corporate-owned camera or microphone and say, “my priors suggest this isn’t being used for state surveillance and/or won’t be in the future, I’m gonna need evidence it is before I consider the consequences of that.”

Sorry, you're going to have to spell out the risk for me here. What other cases have we seen that indicate that mass surveillance via smart speakers is a risk? We all also have phone in my pocket 24/7 and my laptop on my desk, both with microphones in them. In the event of the government doing warrantless spying on all devices it seems like that is a strictly higher ROI target for them?

No, you’re right, we have not seen a case specifically of state surveillance specifically using a smart speaker yet.

Re: phones - yes, they’re a strictly higher ROI target, which is why they’re regularly targeted by state-level adversaries, who also seem to enjoy using every other tool and opportunity available to them to surveil and collect data on whoever they’re considering this week’s bete noire, including both warranted data requests from phone manufacturers, service providers, and cell networks, buying data from commercial brokers when that doesn’t work, or just outright hacking whoever they’re interested in.

But no, you’re strictly correct that to the best of my knowledge we do not currently have specific evidence that state level adversaries have leveraged the notably piss-poor security standards and data protections on IOT equipment containing multiple microphones capable of collecting room-level audio and separating out that audio into individual actors to surveil persons of interest, so, no need to worry.

Post reply on HN