121–129 of 129 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My device has no microphone. Promise. How would you verify?
Some services offer modified devices without a camera or mic for high-security environments. https://www.gadgetreview.com/the-iphone-with-no-camera-and-w... I imagine this is why Apple has kept the mic array and camera as separate removeable components in their devices when pretty much everything else is integrated.
How would you verify?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It depends what you mean by ‘listening’. If you look at how this actually works - it’s basically only ever looking for a certain waveform ‘Listening’ sort of implies intelligence is paying attention to what is said. It’s more ‘hearing’ than ‘listening’ There are documents on how these activation words work
To look for a certain waveform, wouldn't you need to obtain all of the mic data at all times? I think that's what's implied by "listening" here, but semantics are rarely an interesting discussion.
- The microphone always vibrates from the sound waves
- The microphone is powered in a way that the sound waves change electrical readings in some way
- The electrical readings are sent to another component reading them
- A component receiving the data does some kind of unbuffered processing related to triggered actions (e.g. a clapper or a activation wave)
- Some component temporarily uses a buffer of the data but not for permanent storage (e.g. live, unstored transcription for the deaf or a 'nevermind' after a triggered activation)
- Some component stores or sends data generated by the sound, but not necessarily the original audio or even any attributions of who (e.g. voice trigger web search sends the search query as text)
- Some component generates a stored copy of the transcription with attribution of who
- Some component stores the actual audio in a way that can be later replayed
I'd say this "sounds" like a mess to deal with, but then I'd be worried about falling into a category ;).
A: Over my dead body!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s the other way around - for secure environments there is an approved device list. If your device is not on that list, it does not go in. There is also an approved human list. And the approved humans carry responsibility and consequence when going into the space.
My device is listed model XYZ. Promise. How would you verify?
This is the part where you repeat the same comment and substitute in modifying the software, opening the device and putting in listening hardware, putting a microphone under your skin, attaching a microcontroller to their outside walls to analyze vibration patterns, etc. Luckily, the world doesn't operate on pedantry. They care about removing 99% of attack vectors, the remaining 1% is covered by you being on the line. If your office permits outside recording hardware, someone 'forgetting' that their device was recording is a mishap. But if it only approves certain devices and finds out you did James Bond-level gadgetry to circumvent their measures, guess what image that'll paint on you.
I lost count how many times my boss will just flat out lie. This will be a very useful feature.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some services offer modified devices without a camera or mic for high-security environments. https://www.gadgetreview.com/the-iphone-with-no-camera-and-w... I imagine this is why Apple has kept the mic array and camera as separate removeable components in their devices when pretty much everything else is integrated.
I have not readded those components. Promise. How would you verify?
If you’re worried about legit espionage, you hold the meeting or do the work in a SCIF, zero devices go in or out period, metal detectors and patdowns on both entry and exit.
This is, I believe, a felony in Massachusetts. https://www.romanolaw.com/can-i-record-a-conversation-in-mas... (Linking to discussion, not the statute, because it confirms that it is in fact enforced.) Come to think of it, this would also include smart glasses, etc. And whatever those LG devices were doing. Paging the AG...
> This is, I believe, a felony in Massachusetts. I hear this a lot but such a perspective elides the novelty (and the actual question): If I devise a mechanical device that semi-faithfully creates marks that convey information about a conversation - but which does not offer a way to replay the conversation whatsoever - does that constitute a recording subject to two-party consent? If so, how does this relate to a pot…
The point I'm trying to make by this exaggeration is that sometimes the information itself is private and recording that information causes issues as well.
e.g. a military personal taking a pen and paper and listing some secret information they know of, this piece of paper by definition is also subject to regulation that is supposed to keep secret information secure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have not readded those components. Promise. How would you verify?
If it’s an Apple device, it’s pretty easy to verify, if you’re not getting into the realm of spycraft. Open the stock recording app from the store and try to record after verifying the preferences allow recording. This is sufficient for catching bad actors who don’t have immense resources behind them. Even easier if it’s a managed device. If you’re worried about legit espionage, you hold the meeting or do the work in…