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

Google says Nest’s built-in mic not listed in specs was not meant to be secret

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 291 posts

Re: Google says Nest’s built-in mic not listed in specs was not meant to be secret

#101

Post by michaelt »

bpye wrote: post #55
Gibbon1 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the mic is on the BOM it's not disabled. It's just not being currently used. Maybe.

Right. If it's ended up on a production board that means one of two things. 1. They intend to use the microphone in the future 2. They disabled the microphone after having the boards manafactured right before shipping - what changed? If they knew they weren't going to use it, why didn't they leave the microphone unpopulated? It would save on their BOM cost too, there had to be a reason.

In this instance, the microphone was discovered when Google added built-in 'Google Assistant' support to the 'Nest Guard'.

So yes they planned to use the microphone in the future, to do precisely what they have done here.

Re: Google says Nest’s built-in mic not listed in specs was not meant to be secret

#102

Post by aeone »

coldtea wrote: post #43
strictnein wrote: post #10

Infosec dramas are getting more and more tiresome. Between this and the Singapore Airlines story, it just seems like people need to ratchet everything up to 11. You have two options, choose one: - 1. Google wants to spy on you with a hidden mic - 2. They had future plans for the mic, but it was disabled, so it wasn't mentioned by the marketing department For the Singapore Airlines story, you have two options, choose…

> - 1. Google wants to spy on you with a hidden mic - 2. They had future plans for the mic, but it was disabled, so it wasn't mentioned by the marketing department How about both 1. and 2.? Google wants to spy (for ad context etc) with a mic that will be enabled in due time? And why move the Overton window to "it's ok to have hidden mics in a bloody thermostat, as long as they're not enabled"?

FWIW the Nest product in question is the home security/alarm system Nest Secure, rather than the Nest Thermostat.

Re: Google says Nest’s built-in mic not listed in specs was not meant to be secret

#103

Post by [deleted] »

benbristow wrote: post #50
coldtea wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> - 1. Google wants to spy on you with a hidden mic - 2. They had future plans for the mic, but it was disabled, so it wasn't mentioned by the marketing department How about both 1. and 2.? Google wants to spy (for ad context etc) with a mic that will be enabled in due time? And why move the Overton window to "it's ok to have hidden mics in a bloody thermostat, as long as they're not enabled"?

That's getting close to conspiracy territory

[deleted]

Re: Google says Nest’s built-in mic not listed in specs was not meant to be secret

#104

Post by [deleted] »

kmlx wrote: post #60
vermilingua wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Google is well past conspiracy territory. They are a company whose bottom line depends on collecting as much user data as possible; in an economy that compels them to improve their bottom line by any means available. Is there really any doubt that google can and will spy on you if given the slightest opportunity?

Yes, I have 100% doubt anyone is spying on anyone. I think most of it is paranoia. I also think this kind of paranoia is detrimental to our evolution as a species. We should be sharing more, not hiding in our caves.

[deleted]

Re: Google says Nest’s built-in mic not listed in specs was not meant to be secret

#106

Post by kalleboo »

taneq wrote: post #38
strictnein wrote: post #10

Infosec dramas are getting more and more tiresome. Between this and the Singapore Airlines story, it just seems like people need to ratchet everything up to 11. You have two options, choose one: - 1. Google wants to spy on you with a hidden mic - 2. They had future plans for the mic, but it was disabled, so it wasn't mentioned by the marketing department For the Singapore Airlines story, you have two options, choose…

> 2. They had future plans for the mic, but it was disabled, so it wasn't mentioned by the marketing department If you design in something which is later not used, you don't populate that part of the circuit board. Not unless you're intending to use it later, anyway. Components cost money. A software equivalent would be "we had plans to offer an integrated backup system but that didn't happen, although we still uploa…

You can add hardware features in order to support features you want to support in the future, but not advertise them in case those features for some reason don't come to fruition. If they had advertised "contains a microphone" there could be users who claim false advertising if they can't use the microphone. It's stupid but I can see a lawyer making the argument.

As long as the microphone never recorded anything, they're no legal downside to including it and not documenting it. There could be a slim but potential issue with advertising a microphone that the customer can never use.

The response to this incident is showing that that view is changing though.

Re: Google says Nest’s built-in mic not listed in specs was not meant to be secret

#107

Post by netwanderer3 »

I love Google for the service values they provide, but if this were to come from another company then I might have believed it was in fact an error.

Privacy has always been an important factor when people consider any Google products, and they are fully aware of that so this topic must have always been on their list of priorities. For a company like Google with rigorous testing/approving processes in place before a product is even launched, to come back and say that it was an accident is pretty hilarious, though realistically what else could they have said?

I still like them. It's a love-hate relationship, we have passed the denial phase and entered the acceptance stage long time ago.

Re: Google says Nest’s built-in mic not listed in specs was not meant to be secret

#108

Post by black_puppydog »

merb wrote: post #80
est31 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The renter did not have the chance to buy the fire alarm, read it again. Instead, the renter offered it but the landlord refused.

Read it again. The landlord refused to buy it, not that the renter could not use it: > 1. Der Beschwerdeführer wurde von der Vermieterin (im Folgenden: Klägerin) seiner - in einem Mehrfamilienhaus gelegenen - Wohnung auf Duldung des Einbaus von Rauchwarnmeldern in Anspruch genommen. Er lehnte das von der Klägerin ausgesuchte Gerät ab, weil es nicht lediglich dem Brandschutz diene, sondern mittels Ultraschallsensoren…

The right to "informational self-determination" (ugly translation from German, sorry) relates as much to things you do not want to do/use/provide as it relates to things you want.

Re: Google says Nest’s built-in mic not listed in specs was not meant to be secret

#109

Post by userbinator »

kalleboo wrote: post #33
craftyguy wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of all places to 'spy' on folks, on a cramped airplane seems like the worst. Most people will be 1) asleep, 2) pissed off, 3) eating shitty food, 4) watching bad movies. It's likely that they decided to shove in some cheap android tablets that someone else sold them. It's unlikely that they are actively watching everyone, though the possibility of them switching on the camera to watch/record you shifting in your seat…

I used to go to a gym where the exercise machines all had Windows tablets built in. They all had a camera and Skype installed. I'm still curious who ever wants to Skype all sweaty during an exercise, but probably the same person who wants to Skype on an airplane.

I'm still curious who ever wants to Skype all sweaty during an exercise

Maybe a variation of this old meme might help explain: "The great thing about going to the gym isn't exercising, it's showing everyone online that you did."

Re: Google says Nest’s built-in mic not listed in specs was not meant to be secret

#110

Post by userbinator »

Having worked at large companies before, I'm almost certain that more than one person working on the product raised the point "this has a microphone, why isn't it documented?" or "this has privacy implications", but was silenced.

(Or it could be that everyone working at Google has been carefully chosen to not have such concerns; I do get that feeling sometimes too.)

Post reply on HN