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

21–30 of 291 posts

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

#21

Post by mnm1 »

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…

Cameras in a public space? Oh no! Call the police right now!

On the other hand, Google conveniently forgetting about the mics they installed in people's private residences is actually a big deal. This is exactly the reason I would never buy garbage devices like this. Google couldn't make a better case against such devices if they tried. There's no hint that the disabling of the mic wasn't or couldn't be reversed by Google or other parties. But even if it was secure and didn't record anything, Google broke customers' trust by including a hidden mic. Whether they had future plans or not, they lied to all their customers. If they came out and offered free replacements of any systems, I'd maybe buy their apology. As it stands, it's clearly PR bullshit that this was a mistake. One would have to be extremely stupid, gullible, or both to buy that especially given Google's history. That mic was put there on purpose. I also don't buy it that they never recorded anything with it. Of course, we won't be able to prove it and Google won't tell. But once again, their history tells all.

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

#22

Post by [deleted] »

brisance wrote: post #20

At the bare minimum Google should offer a full refund for those who bought a Nest Guard. This could be covered under the breach of implied warranty of "fitness for particular purpose", where the purpose is "to purchase a device and having a reasonable expectation of being free from surveillance".

[deleted]

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

#23

Post by baddox »

pdkl95 wrote: post #16

> It also said the microphone was originally included in the Nest Guard for the possibility of adding new security features down the line, like the ability to detect broken glass. Detecting broken glass with a microphone? Does the device even have enough CPU power (and RAM) to add advanced advanced audio processing features? Or was this going to upload the audio to Google's servers to do the work? If it's the latter,…

> Or was this going to upload the audio to Google's servers to do the work? If it's the latter, that would necessarily[1] require uploading audio without a wake-word trigger.

Couldn’t it run a local model to detect possible incidents, and when a local confidence threshold was exceeded, upload to Google to run a more intense model? I’m pretty sure this is how things like “Hey Siri” and “okay Google” are implemented.

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

#24

Post by saurik »

pdkl95 wrote: post #16

> It also said the microphone was originally included in the Nest Guard for the possibility of adding new security features down the line, like the ability to detect broken glass. Detecting broken glass with a microphone? Does the device even have enough CPU power (and RAM) to add advanced advanced audio processing features? Or was this going to upload the audio to Google's servers to do the work? If it's the latter,…

Broken glass alarms based on sound are really really common, and are effectively just a slightly modified The Clapper (that maybe cares more about specific frequencies) attached to an alarm that calls the police. My house had one when I was growing up (though it didn't call the police: we turned that part off as it went off every time my father belched ;P).

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

#25

Post by est31 »

Oh wow, this is amazing. There's been a lawsuit in court about someone in Germany who sued their landlord because the landlord has put a Google Nest fire alarm into their flat against their will, ignoring offers by the renter to put in a non-google-non-iot fire alarm at the renter's expense. The landlord won because apparently the court was not convinced that the fire alarm could spy on conversations [1]... What would have happened if Google had secretly put a microphone into their fire alarms as well, not just their home security system?

[1]: https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheid...

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

#26

Post by jonas21 »

pdkl95 wrote: post #16

> It also said the microphone was originally included in the Nest Guard for the possibility of adding new security features down the line, like the ability to detect broken glass. Detecting broken glass with a microphone? Does the device even have enough CPU power (and RAM) to add advanced advanced audio processing features? Or was this going to upload the audio to Google's servers to do the work? If it's the latter,…

You don't need "advanced audio processing" to detect a glass window breaking because it is loud, and has a distinctive spectrogram. It's a lot easier to detect glass breaking than a wake word, and you can buy standalone acoustic glass break sensors for under $30.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Honeywell-Intellisense-FG-1625-Acoust...

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

#27

Post by btown »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #15
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…

A fair point, but then again, if people don't react to #2 now, how long until it turns into #1? Things would be much simpler if companies were up front about what they're selling, instead of giving you incomplete information optimized to placate the unsophisticated buyers.

Disclosure of things like microphones on internet-connected devices is the type of no-brainer regulation that our regulatory bodies should be promoting. No need for real behavior changes, no need for giant Surgeon General's warnings, just a mention in printed user documentation, the same way products attest that they aren't in violation of FCC regulations on airwaves. There can be a healthy debate about whether this needs to go even further, e.g. legally requiring what Apple does for its laptop cameras in that a hardware light is lit whenever the recording system is powered up. But at least documentation-level transparency seems like a no-brainer. Unfortunately our regulatory bodies seem incapable of common sense these days, but that's a topic for another day.

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

#28

Post by atoav »

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?

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

#29

Post by dnbgfher »

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…

For Google, I'm not sure how option 2 is supposed to be acceptable either. It is perfectly reasonable to be concerned about introducing an internet-connected microphone into your house. It doesn't even require assuming a malicious Google to see potential problems with this. You're one decent security flaw (in an IoT device no less) from anybody having a microphone in your house.

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

#30

Post by est31 »

dnbgfher wrote: post #29
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…

For Google, I'm not sure how option 2 is supposed to be acceptable either. It is perfectly reasonable to be concerned about introducing an internet-connected microphone into your house. It doesn't even require assuming a malicious Google to see potential problems with this. You're one decent security flaw (in an IoT device no less) from anybody having a microphone in your house.

> You're one decent security flaw (in an IoT device no less) from anybody having a microphone in your house.

Many people already have Android smartphones, so there is already a Google microphone in your house. The big difference is that you know that it has a microphone.

Post reply on HN