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

141–150 of 291 posts

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

#141

Post by hoffs »

userbinator wrote: post #110

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.)

I doubt that they were silenced, more like the concern was raised but it was given some random answer at first and said to be discussed at a later date and then forgotten.

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

#142

Post by snarf21 »

sametmax wrote: post #117
strictnein wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A job interview is just a smidge different than a life changing $3.2 billion for a company that only raised $80 million.

No doubt. I don't pretend I would have made a different choice. Yet it is still a choice. It's just a question of how much your values are worth.

Don't forget that all your investors that took that chance on you want their return too. It is different than one person who bootstrapped and can do whatever they want. When you take someone else's money, you have a legal and ethical responsibility to them.

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

#143

Post by natch »

vegardx wrote: post #116
xyzzy123 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah so the nest protect is, when you look at it objectively, a ceiling mounted general purpose remote sensing package. It’s basically only lacking a wide angle camera and I suspect that’s because they figured it would cross too far into “creepy” for it to be saleable. It seems to me like a team sat for a while, looked at all the possible ways they could get people to mount a package like this in every room and settl…

They don't have to be connected to a network in order to work. The will even happily do self-check without network access - something I realized when I wanted to mute a self-check only to find out that I had done some network changes. Had to use a schtick, like in the old days. Given that these devices are battery powered and meant to last for years on a single charge you can imagine how often they actually connect t…

>Had to use a schtick, like in the old days.

What is that? Google's not helping.

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

#144

Post by fixermark »

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…

Tesla has a suite of sensors installed that are not currently used because they intend to solve the self-driving car problem with them in the not-too-distant future.

Nintendo released multiple generations of consoles in the US with expansion ports for peripherals that ended up not making market sense to bring to the US.

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

#145

Post by fixermark »

sametmax wrote: post #7
jrowley wrote: post #5

It’s really sad to see companies like google buy companies like nest, or more recently amazon and eero. These little companies build fantastic devices, then the companies get acquired and the elegant products get mutated to serve their new owners. Finally a new player enters the market and the cycle continues.

What's sad is that those companies accept. I have been offeredd job interviews at google and facebook and politely refused. Yes, millions are a much bigger temptation, but you still have a choice. In the hand, either they decided those companies where matching their ethics, or they gave up on ethics for money. Given our entreprenarial culture, is that surprising ?

Those companies accepting these offers is often the goal-state of creating the company in the first place.

This is the flow of the Silicon Valley startup ecosystem.

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

#146

Post by justtopost »

stewartm wrote: post #61
atoav wrote: post #28

What never ceases to amaze me, is the absolute inability of companies like google to understand what their actions look like for somebody who is concerned about privacy. Maybe they understand and do not care, because there are many vocal critics. But having a microphone in a product and not disclosing it? If not even google can keep track of what they should tell us, how on earth do they think they deserve trust?

It never ceases to amaze me, that despite the pattern of behaviour, people continue to be willing to consider that Google/FAANGs/politicians/etc are just a bit thick and don't get it. (Not a dig incidentally, just that at some point the pattern of behaviour must reach a point that swings Occam's Razor to malevolence being the most likely explanation)

Exactly.

1. History of privacy violation? Check.

2. Increasing pace and scope of privacy violations? Check.

3. Financial incentive to continue and expand privacy violations? Check.

4. Lack of legal oversight deterring continuing and deeper privacy violations? In every single nation, check.

At this point the onus is firmly with Google / Alphabet to prove the ethics of their actions, because we already know their intent.

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

#147

Post by fixermark »

sametmax wrote: post #117
strictnein wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A job interview is just a smidge different than a life changing $3.2 billion for a company that only raised $80 million.

No doubt. I don't pretend I would have made a different choice. Yet it is still a choice. It's just a question of how much your values are worth.

I think you're assuming anticapitalist values in a game played by capitalists with venture capital.

This isn't an aberration; it's the goal. Startup companies are group-funded technology incubators that, if they succeed, are consumed by larger technology holding and aggregation companies.

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

#148

Post by fixermark »

darkerside wrote: post #127

Literally, "Oh, we're sorry. We thought it was obvious we were spying on you by now". Guess their conditioning program isn't yet complete...

When a person hires a personal assistant, the person doesn't generally turn around and accuse the assistant of spying on them because the assistant listens too attentively.

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

#149

Post by gameshot911 »

userbinator wrote: post #110

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.)

You're "almost certain", huh?

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

#150

Post by pacala »

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…

False choice. Google has future plans for the mic: to spy on you. Singapore Airlines is using off the shelf spyware/Android devices [but I repeat myself] because it wants to record you.
Post reply on HN