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

Google’s Nest fiasco harms user trust and invades their privacy

blog.malwarebytes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–119 of 119 posts

Re: Google’s Nest fiasco harms user trust and invades their privacy

#111

Post by xg15 »

renholder wrote: post #27
xg15 wrote: post #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…

> 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. Agreed but we have to consider that it's entirely plausible that we're in the minority in this line of thinking.

True of course, but what specifically makes you think that?

Re: Google’s Nest fiasco harms user trust and invades their privacy

#112

Post by MertsA »

pdkl95 wrote: post #38
iamrobschiavone wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, it's "only" a microphone, but it's still an inexcusable breach of trust.

The breach of trust is bad enough, but the fact that it is a microphone opens the possibility of criminal wiretapping charges.

Well first of all this isn't a phone call so there's no chance at all of wiretapping charges regardless of any other circumstances. Second of all, the only potentially related charge would be something like eavesdropping and while that would vary by state, that would have required Google to actually use the microphone. If they didn't actually eavesdrop on anyone or design that in with the intent to eavesdrop on anyone then they haven't committed any kind of eavesdropping crime.

https://definitions.uslegal.com/e/eavesdropping/

Re: Google’s Nest fiasco harms user trust and invades their privacy

#113

Post by MertsA »

Pocketknife wrote: post #106
wgjordan wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The question is, does that really matter? Legally speaking, it really does matter (18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d) [1]) [my emphasis]: > It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person [...] to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception [...]. [1] https://www.law.cor…

You say that as if Silicon Valley is subject to the law in the same way as you or I. They learned to pay off DC around when Microsoft was taken to the anti-trust woodshed. Now they are beyond accountability. Especially once it's clear to everyone that they control election results to a wide degree.

That's not what he's saying. The section he is quoting is that if the user already consented to e.g. an Amazon Echo listening with a microphone then that's totally legal. Hence it does matter whether or not Google disclosed this to the end user although reading through the rest of that section there's nothing there that would implicate Google if they didn't actually use the microphone in some way. I'm not saying there isn't some law being broken here, but it isn't in 18 U.S. Code § 2511.

Re: Google’s Nest fiasco harms user trust and invades their privacy

#114

Post by jstanley »

akira2501 wrote: post #75
jstanley wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you in principle, but I think the Nest actually only includes a hidden microphone, not a hidden camera.

This is something I always ask people with those little "camera blockers" attached to their laptops: "How do you block the microphone?" and "Which is worse? Recording video of you all day, or recording audio of you all day?

It's not "would you rather be recorded in video or audio?", it's "would you rather be recorded in just audio, or in both video and audio?".

It's easy and quick to put some tape over the webcam, so unless you use it all the time, there's very little reason not to to so.

Disabling the microphone is harder and maybe not worth the effort.

Re: Google’s Nest fiasco harms user trust and invades their privacy

#115

Post by rum3 »

cube2222 wrote: post #16
FakeComments wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are correct, let me list the Google services I’ve experienced deception from Google on: YouTube, GMail, Google search, Google Docs, Google Drive, Google ads (both selling and buying), and GCP. To me, that seems like every core product they offer, and so a little hyperbole is appropriate when calling out the misconduct of a gigacrime[0] syndicate. It is, however, very HN to say I was too hyperbolic and mean to the…

You've just listed a bunch of services, in no way have you described how they use deceptive strategies in them.

The whole purpose of all these Google services is to collect private data. Very few people actually realize the scope and power of the data they are collecting and how it is used, and how they plan to use it when they will have the technical capability. If they would have it written out in clear text exactly what they do with this data, and what they can do with it in the future then nobody would use their services. Therefore all these services are deceptive.

Re: Google’s Nest fiasco harms user trust and invades their privacy

#116

Post by StanislavPetrov »

akira2501 wrote: post #75
jstanley wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you in principle, but I think the Nest actually only includes a hidden microphone, not a hidden camera.

This is something I always ask people with those little "camera blockers" attached to their laptops: "How do you block the microphone?" and "Which is worse? Recording video of you all day, or recording audio of you all day?

You crimp the internal microphone with a pair of pliers.

Re: Google’s Nest fiasco harms user trust and invades their privacy

#117

Post by rum3 »

eli wrote: post #9
FakeComments wrote: post #4

Earlier 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?

To develop some opt-out feature in the future that will record audio as often as possible, activated by an update with this information hidden behind a long wall-of-text terms of service that nobody will read.

Re: Google’s Nest fiasco harms user trust and invades their privacy

#118

Post by vsl »

harry8 wrote: post #95
Gaelan wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if the mic was never on?

Yes! Even if the gun to your head was never fired.

This is either stupid or dishonest.

A gun to your head is a threat of violence - that’s the criminal act. Threatening murder is a crime in itself.

The crime of wiretapping would be secretly listening/recording (and willfully so, not by accident as e.g. when baby monitors cross-talk). Having an inactive piece of hardware present, with no intention of using it for spying, is not a crime.

Having the hardware present is extremely unlikely to be nefarious. It could have been (a probably was) future-proofing. It could be a bundled package (unlikely I think for a mic, but you e.g. pretty much can’t buy cheap motion sensors without temp and luminosity bundled, so things like Philips Hue motion sensors measure temperature too).

Re: Google’s Nest fiasco harms user trust and invades their privacy

#119

Post by harry8 »

vsl wrote: post #118
harry8 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes! Even if the gun to your head was never fired.

This is either stupid or dishonest. A gun to your head is a threat of violence - that’s the criminal act. Threatening murder is a crime in itself. The crime of wiretapping would be secretly listening/recording (and willfully so, not by accident as e.g. when baby monitors cross-talk). Having an inactive piece of hardware present, with no intention of using it for spying, is not a crime. Having the hardware present is…

I disagree strongly that characterisation of stupid and dishonest. Play ball. You didn't know about the gun to your head, are you ok with that? It was futureproofing in case you later might want the gun and we're claiming it's not loaded.

Yes gun to the head is the extreme example, that's the point. Not switching it on does not absolve you of guilt. Same thing here.

That is an entirely reasonable point of view and argument. If you really do find it stupid and/or dishonest reflect on that.

If there is no law against putting secret wire taps in people's houses "by mistake" and claiming it wasn't switched on there should be because ethically its a crime worthy of the Stasi. I would prefer if we didn't have a turnkey solution to creation of a facist state of the kind the soviets could only dream of. Perhaps you like the idea? Ah but "google wouldn't" So there's no need for law surrounding google because they just wouldn't. I know some of the engineers and no way would they allow that.

Democracy deserves better defence. Even if the gun to your head is never fired and you don't know about it. Criminal. If the law says otherwise, change it.

Now I wonder if there is something you would like to disclose about your vested interests? Perhaps not. I'm old enough to remember smart and kind people being Soviet apologists then finding out later something approximating the truth to their revulsion. You don't have to be on the take to be an apologist. But there is a lot of defence of big silicon valley companies behaving badly around here and very little "Disclosure, I work for.." going on.

Post reply on HN