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

Google listening in to your room shows importance of privacy defense in depth

privateinternetaccess.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 124 posts

Re: Google listening in to your room shows importance of privacy defense in depth

#81

Post by 6d6b73 »

51Cards wrote: post #25
metric10 wrote: post #23

Has anyone actually confirmed that Chrome is continuously sending audio back to Google? I highly doubt that this is the case. Instead, the plug in knows how to recognize "OK Google" all by itself. Once activated, then it starts sending audio data. IF it where really listening even when inactive, then people would be complaining about it sucking up bandwidth and data allotments.

I was thinking something similar... that would be a LOT of data being sent back continuously while Chrome was running, which for many people is 24/7. If you had an office of Chrome users the entire office pipe could be eaten up by what is essentially X number continuous VOIP calls.

First of all, they need to send only data when there is something to listen, so above a specific threshold. They can also compress the data. Second, I'm sure that if Google can handle traffic that's generated by youtube they can handle voip traffic.

Re: Google listening in to your room shows importance of privacy defense in depth

#82

Post by neumino »

> When you’re installing a version of GNU/Linux like Debian or Ubuntu onto a fresh computer, thousands of really smart people have analyzed every line of human-readable source code

If this was true, Debian would have not build/release this version of Chromium. The author is living in the past or in another dimension. Some projects are complex, and it's hard/impossible to read/understand everything for a single human being.

Re: Google listening in to your room shows importance of privacy defense in depth

#83

Post by bduerst »

fixermark wrote: post #74
Oletros wrote: post #50

has the author really tested if Chromium is listening? Downloading a binary blob is very bad, but the accusations that author makes wihouth a single proof is more FUD than anything

It's irrelevant to the argument. The author is making an appeal to the slippery slope (even if it's not happening right now, and even if Google is not doing it.... It could easily happen tomorrow and anyone could do it. Shutter your cameras and make sure your microphones can be physically deactivated).

Isn't an argument based solely on FUD essentially a slippery slope?

Re: Google listening in to your room shows importance of privacy defense in depth

#84

Post by fixermark »

jimhefferon wrote: post #75

This is why there needs to be a switch on all computers to physically turn the microphone off. How is that hard?

Physical switches are the most common point of mechanical failure. It translates to real-world lost revenue in terms of returns and repairs to include them at all.

... but yes, they should still be included. ;)

Re: Google listening in to your room shows importance of privacy defense in depth

#85

Post by 6d6b73 »

Retra wrote: post #58
mrj wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox is open, high quality and user friendly.

Firefox's success often seems to be the exception that proves the rule.

So is, Postresql, Apache, Nginx, Blender, VLC etc..

Re: Google listening in to your room shows importance of privacy defense in depth

#86

Post by [deleted] »

azakai wrote: post #77
metric10 wrote: post #23

Has anyone actually confirmed that Chrome is continuously sending audio back to Google? I highly doubt that this is the case. Instead, the plug in knows how to recognize "OK Google" all by itself. Once activated, then it starts sending audio data. IF it where really listening even when inactive, then people would be complaining about it sucking up bandwidth and data allotments.

The problem is that it cannot perfectly recognize "OK Google". There are going to be false positives, things that sound like "OK Google" to the plugin, but are not "OK Google". And it will send those recordings, plus what said after them, to Google servers.

[deleted]

Re: Google listening in to your room shows importance of privacy defense in depth

#87

Post by nulltype »

fixermark wrote: post #84
jimhefferon wrote: post #75

This is why there needs to be a switch on all computers to physically turn the microphone off. How is that hard?

Physical switches are the most common point of mechanical failure. It translates to real-world lost revenue in terms of returns and repairs to include them at all. ... but yes, they should still be included. ;)

There's a light for the camera, they should just add one for the microphone.

Re: Google listening in to your room shows importance of privacy defense in depth

#88

Post by McGlockenshire »

zobzu wrote: post #64

Note that all android phones have that issue. Also all windows phones and soon windows 10. Oh and smart tvs. it is a real problem though

> all android phones have that issue

Citation needed.

"Ok Google" functionality is an expressly required opt-in. I had to go out of my way to turn it on.

Re: Google listening in to your room shows importance of privacy defense in depth

#89

Post by codys »

metric10 wrote: post #23

Has anyone actually confirmed that Chrome is continuously sending audio back to Google? I highly doubt that this is the case. Instead, the plug in knows how to recognize "OK Google" all by itself. Once activated, then it starts sending audio data. IF it where really listening even when inactive, then people would be complaining about it sucking up bandwidth and data allotments.

> Has anyone actually confirmed that Chrome is continuously sending audio back to Google?

That's not relevant. The problem is that they _could_ do that (for some subset of users, potentially) and in most cases no one would even notice it.

Re: Google listening in to your room shows importance of privacy defense in depth

#90

Post by noir_lord »

Retra wrote: post #58
mrj wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox is open, high quality and user friendly.

Firefox's success often seems to be the exception that proves the rule.

postgres, python, inkscape, XFCE, various shells, GTK, Qt, even libreoffice (which has gone through astounding refactoring), vim, emacs, apache, nginx.

I don't think there is a rule.

Post reply on HN