Google’s Nest fiasco harms user trust and invades their privacy
blog.malwarebytes.com
Google’s Nest fiasco harms user trust and invades their privacy
1–10 of 119 posts
Re: Google’s Nest fiasco harms user trust and invades their privacy
#2>“The on-device microphone was never intended to be a secret and should have been listed in the tech specs,” a Google spokesperson said. “That was an error on our part.”
I don't know, it sounds believable. Maybe they put it there "just in case", but didn't want to put it in the list of specifications because it had no software support, and having it there would've mislead customers who could've thought the microphone was functional software-wise.
Re: Google’s Nest fiasco harms user trust and invades their privacy
#3> While collecting data on users is nearly inevitable in today’s corporate world, secret, undisclosed, or unpredictable data collection—or data collection abilities—is another problem.
A smart-home speaker shouldn’t be secretly hiding a video camera. A secure messaging platform shouldn’t have a government-operated backdoor. And a home security hub that controls an alarm, keypad, and motion detector shouldn’t include a clandestine microphone feature—especially one that was never announced to customers.
This sounds too much like trying to move the overton window for me. If the next generation of smart devices is advertised as "no hidden cameras and microphones! (we'll just spy on you with the visible cameras and microphones)", I don't think this would be a win.
Re: Google’s Nest fiasco harms user trust and invades their privacy
#4>“The on-device microphone was never intended to be a secret and should have been listed in the tech specs,” a Google spokesperson said. “That was an error on our part.” I don't know, it sounds believable. Maybe they put it there "just in case", but didn't want to put it in the list of specifications because it had no software support, and having it there would've mislead customers who could've thought the microphone…
“Unexpectedly smart” and “hidden, software enable-able features” are both anti-features of security hardware.
I don’t think Google deserves the benefit of the doubt anymore: these untruths happen with every product, and they’re always in Google’s favor. There’s a consistent pattern of Google specifications, documentation, etc being knowingly untrue.
The only “error” is Google got caught deceiving people, again.
Re: Google’s Nest fiasco harms user trust and invades their privacy
#5I have said this before: the reason why people find a hidden camera much worse than a visible camera is simple. People aren’t dumb, they make trade-off choices. Of course they could spy on you with a visible camera, too. But either you know and don’t care and still buy the damn thing or you don’t. Knowing means in this case being able to make an informed decision. Not informing customers about a camera inside a home device feels like they don’t want you to consider this fact in your decision making...
Re: Google’s Nest fiasco harms user trust and invades their privacy
#6>“The on-device microphone was never intended to be a secret and should have been listed in the tech specs,” a Google spokesperson said. “That was an error on our part.” I don't know, it sounds believable. Maybe they put it there "just in case", but didn't want to put it in the list of specifications because it had no software support, and having it there would've mislead customers who could've thought the microphone…
“Unexpectedly smart” and “hidden, software enable-able features” are both anti-features of security hardware. I don’t think Google deserves the benefit of the doubt anymore: these untruths happen with every product, and they’re always in Google’s favor. There’s a consistent pattern of Google specifications, documentation, etc being knowingly untrue. The only “error” is Google got caught deceiving people, again.
It may be true that Google no longer deserves the benefit of the doubt. The hyperbolic “every product” doesn’t help your case, though. Claiming that they engage in misleading behavior with every product, especially with no supporting evidence or examples, makes it look like you just have an axe to grind.
Re: Google’s Nest fiasco harms user trust and invades their privacy
#7I have said this before: the reason why people find a hidden camera much worse than a visible camera is simple. People aren’t dumb, they make trade-off choices . Of course they could spy on you with a visible camera, too. But either you know and don’t care and still buy the damn thing or you don’t. Knowing means in this case being able to make an informed decision. Not informing customers about a camera inside a home…
Plus if you know about it you can cover it over etc.
And get to question why they even need a camera to start with, before buying the product.
Re: Google’s Nest fiasco harms user trust and invades their privacy
#8> While collecting data on users is nearly inevitable in today’s corporate world, secret, undisclosed, or unpredictable data collection—or data collection abilities—is another problem. A smart-home speaker shouldn’t be secretly hiding a video camera. A secure messaging platform shouldn’t have a government-operated backdoor. And a home security hub that controls an alarm, keypad, and motion detector shouldn’t include…
Agreed, but I would say the Overton Window was already way over there somewhere anyway.
The fact that they need to lay out why this might be wrong is mildly depressing.
Re: Google’s Nest fiasco harms user trust and invades their privacy
#9>“The on-device microphone was never intended to be a secret and should have been listed in the tech specs,” a Google spokesperson said. “That was an error on our part.” I don't know, it sounds believable. Maybe they put it there "just in case", but didn't want to put it in the list of specifications because it had no software support, and having it there would've mislead customers who could've thought the microphone…
“Unexpectedly smart” and “hidden, software enable-able features” are both anti-features of security hardware. I don’t think Google deserves the benefit of the doubt anymore: these untruths happen with every product, and they’re always in Google’s favor. There’s a consistent pattern of Google specifications, documentation, etc being knowingly untrue. The only “error” is Google got caught deceiving people, again.
What do you think was the secret nefarious purpose for this hardware?
Re: Google’s Nest fiasco harms user trust and invades their privacy
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Unexpectedly smart” and “hidden, software enable-able features” are both anti-features of security hardware. I don’t think Google deserves the benefit of the doubt anymore: these untruths happen with every product, and they’re always in Google’s favor. There’s a consistent pattern of Google specifications, documentation, etc being knowingly untrue. The only “error” is Google got caught deceiving people, again.
What do you think was the secret nefarious purpose for this hardware?
Nothing, I think it was hardware that was included because they might one day add a feature which used it, under the belief that customers would want that.
What I think is nefarious is not informing customers about that latent capability, because denying customers that information increased sales (eg, by not informing people who would be concerned by the mic).
A lie of omission for “good intentions” often is actually just denying the other person the information that they need to make an informed decision, for your own benefit.
That seems to be what Google did here.