Google speakers are listening to more than just voice commands • Hacker News Board

Re: Google speakers are listening to more than just voice commands

#151

Post by joshuamorton » Sat, Aug 08, 2020, 5:21 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #143

joshuamorton wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well of course Gmail scans your email. Spam filtering requires scanning, not to mention things like putting labels in the emails. Why do you think Google would sell pii? It doesn't make business sense. (I work on Gmail)

> Why do you think Google would sell pii? It doesn't make business sense. In these discussions, "selling PII" is sometimes a short for "providing a service that allows targeting ads based on PII without actually releasing PII itself to the service users", which is only a little less bad.

Given the context, it's clear that's not what GP means.

Also, from a privacy perspective, there is a vast difference between the two. One person who you trust to keep your data safe (but not to use it in ways you find ethical necessarily) is vastly different from them giving it to other parties who you don't know.

Re: Google speakers are listening to more than just voice commands

#152

Post by ocdtrekkie » Sat, Aug 08, 2020, 5:23 PM UTC

croutonwagon wrote: post #91

harha wrote: post #86

I had one of these when I worked for Google, I didn’t quite trust it though, so I had it in the bathroom to limit what my employer could listen to. Imagine discussing a product idea at home with friends, then having that stolen by an engineer at one of these companies (who figured out how to find the interesting conversations) for a promotion or new position. On a larger scale these might get hooked up with some adve…

I just dont have them in the house. Every now and then i get called paranoid. And sure, my phone can function the same (though i specifically have siri disabled on our iphones) Its just a cost benefit. I can get off the couch and flip a switch or use a remote to turn on a song. I really dont need speach recognition for those functions.

I unplug my parents' Google wiretap device when I enter the house for holiday parties. For some reason my parents can both know that I know way more about this topic than them, and still totally disregard me and spend hundreds on Google hardware devices because they seem cool. \o/

Re: Google speakers are listening to more than just voice commands

#153

Post by TeMPOraL » Sat, Aug 08, 2020, 5:23 PM UTC

theshadowknows wrote: post #129

For the folks who think your devices aren’t listening try an experiment: start talking out loud about a product you’ve never, ever searched for. Something you’ve never, ever needed or wanted. See how long it takes for ads for that very thing to start showing up in Facebook and in your targeted ads. I’ve done it and Started getting ads in a matter of days.

I've always dismissed this as coincidence. But over the past few months, my wife reported to me several incidents of a relevant Facebook ad showing up a day or two after a conversation she had with me or her friends, and that was not followed up by any on-line searches on the topic. At this point, I'm starting to consider something may be going on after all - it seems to happen too often to be easily explained away as happenstance.

Re: Google speakers are listening to more than just voice commands

#154

Post by Ijumfs » Sat, Aug 08, 2020, 5:25 PM UTC

ineedasername wrote: post #120

nitrogen wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compressed audio at speech quality uses miniscule amounts of storage, especially with modern codecs like Opus.

You addressed storage but skipped the CPU portion: Yes, Opus can create good quality audio with low storage requirements, but it cannot do so without a high CPU cost.

Yet any of the smart home speakers on the market is more than capable of compressing audio.

Re: Google speakers are listening to more than just voice commands

#155

Post by twirlock » Sat, Aug 08, 2020, 5:25 PM UTC

eloff wrote: post #104

choeger wrote: post #97

I might sound like a grumpy old granddad to some of you (and I am not even that old), but did you really think that a huge company would offer to put microphones into your living room for your advantage? They are going to benefit from this and you are going to pay for it. How? For instance with dynamic pricing. Your loved ones tell you how much they want that vacation on that Greek island? Good luck finding a cheap f…

Any of those things would be such massive trust violations that the fallout would almost certainly sink the product and badly tarnish the company. That's not saying a company wouldn't be stupid enough to try it, but it's very clearly a bad business decision - so logically they wouldn't do it.

>so logically they wouldn't do it

No, logically they'll just try to hide the fact they're doing it, probably by rolling it into an ad hoc social credit packaged and sold to "marketers" behind the scenes.

Re: Google speakers are listening to more than just voice commands

#156

Post by twirlock » Sat, Aug 08, 2020, 5:26 PM UTC

changoplatanero wrote: post #105

choeger wrote: post #97

I might sound like a grumpy old granddad to some of you (and I am not even that old), but did you really think that a huge company would offer to put microphones into your living room for your advantage? They are going to benefit from this and you are going to pay for it. How? For instance with dynamic pricing. Your loved ones tell you how much they want that vacation on that Greek island? Good luck finding a cheap f…

You're spreading conspiracy theories. There is no way Google is listening to your phone calls and using the information for ads.

>There is no way

Then why does your comment read as satire?

Re: Google speakers are listening to more than just voice commands

#157

Post by AsyncAwait » Sat, Aug 08, 2020, 5:27 PM UTC

ineedasername wrote: post #120

nitrogen wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compressed audio at speech quality uses miniscule amounts of storage, especially with modern codecs like Opus.

You addressed storage but skipped the CPU portion: Yes, Opus can create good quality audio with low storage requirements, but it cannot do so without a high CPU cost.

ARM CPUs can be rather performant, especially for specialist tasks. These things are always plugged in and don't need to save battery, therefore they can always run at maximum performance.

The HomePod for example uses the Apple A8 chip which is a very capable chip used to power the iPhone 6 than did way more than encode/decode audio.

Re: Google speakers are listening to more than just voice commands

#158

Post by escanda » Sat, Aug 08, 2020, 5:27 PM UTC

nkrisc wrote: post #117

changoplatanero wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're spreading conspiracy theories. There is no way Google is listening to your phone calls and using the information for ads.

Why is there no way they're doing it? They're certainly capable of it. I think it's pretty unlikely they are, but it would be trivial for them to do so.

Because they won't supposedly use your Wifi connection to investigate on you. That could be unfair.

Re: Google speakers are listening to more than just voice commands

#159

Post by paulcole » Sat, Aug 08, 2020, 5:27 PM UTC

titzer wrote: post #50

paulcole wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course I can imagine those problems! Those problems are brought up literally every time I mention that in-home speakers are not the end-of-the-world-nightmare-scenario so many people treat them as. I just don’t particularly care. Also if someone wants to cut out the middleman and buy my personal conversations directly, feel free to reach out. Great value! Last night I talked about weed and Top Chef!

I hope you never witness a government official commit a crime and consider blowing the whistle.

I hope so too!

Re: Google speakers are listening to more than just voice commands

#160

Post by function_seven » Sat, Aug 08, 2020, 5:28 PM UTC

throwaway936482 wrote: post #145

function_seven wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And they were upfront with it. When GMail was released, they straight up told users that’s how they were paying for the enormous 1GB storage.

I'm not going to trust memory, mine, yours or anyone's on this and don't have time to traipse back in time to fully research it, but that is besides the point. The point is that Google have form for engaging in privacy violations that extend to the scanning of personal communications for advertising purposes without gaining informed consent (no I don't think click through t&C's that can be changed by Google on a whim…

I agree with you on click-though T&Cs! That's a shitty place to hide what you're doing with customer trust and data. 100% agree there.

But it was widely known and discussed at the time, and included in their policy on day one[0]. It was the plan to make 1GB work. It was their answer when people asked, skeptically, how they could make money giving away such unfathomable storage "for free".

And, as far as privacy policies go, that document is well organized and addresses the scanning in the very first section.

You don't have to trust my memory of this, but their above-board handling of keyword scanning in emails is not an example that illustrates how they will be evil with surreptitious voice recording on their other products.

[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20040404134002/http://gmail.goog...