191–200 of 463 posts
The one thing about these stories that keep coming out about the home assistants... they kind of create the impression that this is an issue specific to home speakers, and you can avoid it, by simply not buying them. That's misleading. Any voice command you use to operate any internet connected tech gadget, from phones to smart TV's, is potentially stored and flagged for human review. You really have to avoid using v…
I think the responses to this can be broken down into a 2x2 matrix: level of concern vs. understanding of technology. 1) Don't understand ML; not concerned - "I have nothing to hide." 2) Don't understand ML; concerned - "I bought this device and now people are spying on me!" 3) Understand ML; not concerned - "Of course, Google needs to label its training data." 4) Understand ML; concerned - "How can we train models/c…
And the first one to do it should be apple itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My understanding of recording law is that in One Party states you need to be part of the conversation to record it. Speculation: This would mean that the device / owner would be in violation if the owner was not in the room?
Ironically, if the owner were not in the room, I'd expect the device manufacturer would be more directly liable. How can a homeowner be responsible for a device for which they (a) don't control the operation of & (b) don't control the software of? At that point, whether a device captures incidental recording seems entirely under control of the manufacturer.
It is not farfetched to imagine that, to be in compliance with the law, you would need to unplug your listening devices to avoid them accidentally going off.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean. I don't have an always on system in my home. You don't have to use these services.
The devices have a mute switch and can be configured to beep when they begin recording. Really this is just a bunch of fear mongering going on.
Why would I trust that this does anything at all?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're getting too lost in the weeds here. It doesn't matter if a company takes your data, does a poor job of anonymizing it, and then decides to label it as "training" for their "AI" or if they just stick it all in a flat .txt files and process it in Fortran. It's the exact same thing. You should be mad about the data being saved and used. Splitting hairs over implementation details to try and find a loophole is jus…
You could also compare this to hospitals sending voice files to India to be transcribed. This is not automated at all. It's not clear that hospitals are any better at getting informed consent for this than Google. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_transcription
vs
2) A company exploiting the lack of regulation and public knowledge/education on the dangers of mining personal data, to mine personal data and make a profit with no regard for the safety of the individual
If explicit consent had to be obtained, with the requirement that the person consenting be fully informed on the details of what they're giving up, in which of the scenarios above do you think people would be more likely to refuse consent?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is doubly concerning here is that the contractor was in a position to demonstrate how the system worked to the reporters. That would seem to indicate they have access to that data in a non-secured environment. I'm not familiar with EU law around these things, but I would imagine there is some kind of whistleblower mechanism available, and a right for authorities to audit/inspect such activities?
I would expect that a telecoms employee who was doing similar work on quality etc to be quite securely vetted. If I was doing now what I did back in the day For BT / Dialcom (I had root on the UK's main ADMD) I would probably have to pass DV vetting (TS in USA terms)
The one thing about these stories that keep coming out about the home assistants... they kind of create the impression that this is an issue specific to home speakers, and you can avoid it, by simply not buying them. That's misleading. Any voice command you use to operate any internet connected tech gadget, from phones to smart TV's, is potentially stored and flagged for human review. You really have to avoid using v…
Whenever I'm in the home of a friend who's enthralled with their smart speaker gadget, I like to make red-flag-raising requests to their gadget. Asking for good sniper vantage points in Washington DC, a safe rohypnol dosage for 10-year-olds, the soonest flight to a non-extradition country, those sorts of things.
From a computer science perspective, what should Google do to train its models in a privacy conscious way?
I think the responses to this can be broken down into a 2x2 matrix: level of concern vs. understanding of technology. 1) Don't understand ML; not concerned - "I have nothing to hide." 2) Don't understand ML; concerned - "I bought this device and now people are spying on me!" 3) Understand ML; not concerned - "Of course, Google needs to label its training data." 4) Understand ML; concerned - "How can we train models/c…
Do you think its possible to be educated on the societal implications of these technologies and still not be concerned? Seems like you've written your own viewpoint into the only "logical" one here.