Google’s Nest fiasco harms user trust and invades their privacy • Hacker News Board

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

#21

Post by FakeComments » Sat, Mar 16, 2019, 2:14 PM UTC

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.

Because I don’t care to.

It’s easy enough to Google literally any of them and read substantial numbers of articles on their practices:

For example, AdWords misrepresents clicks by slow rolling fraud mitigation and Google is quite deceptive about what various statistical measures and advertising practices actually deliver.

As another, YouTube has a quasi-DMCA process while feigning that it’s a safe harbor purveyor of information, while in fact maintaining an editorialized anthology. This quasi-DMCA process is frequently used to steal ad revenue from creators through acts of fraud which Google’s automated systems and lack of human support (intentionally) don’t mitigate.

It’s just not worth my morning to document all of it, because it’s literally a story a week for years. And a dozen stories a week for the past few years.

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

#22

Post by Zelphyr » Sat, Mar 16, 2019, 2:14 PM UTC

iforgotpassword wrote: post #19

I suspect this is going to be an unpopular opinion, but I still don't get the fuzz. People buy crap like Amazon echo left and right, and have been carrying little computers with microphones and an internet connection around all day for even longer. Apart from the fact that any sane person shouldn't trust any google product value their privacy in the first place, how many people are there consciously not buying a smar…

I think yours is an important question that few people realize which is; these companies are legally required to tell you when they are listening to you, or even potentially listening to you.

Google "accidentally" forgot to tell people that they included a mic in those devices. That's still illegal.

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

#23

Post by iforgotpassword » Sat, Mar 16, 2019, 2:17 PM UTC

orev wrote: post #20

iforgotpassword wrote: post #19

I suspect this is going to be an unpopular opinion, but I still don't get the fuzz. People buy crap like Amazon echo left and right, and have been carrying little computers with microphones and an internet connection around all day for even longer. Apart from the fact that any sane person shouldn't trust any google product value their privacy in the first place, how many people are there consciously not buying a smar…

There’s a difference between doing it knowingly vs unknowingly. In fact, that is the ONLY thing that matters.

But that's people bullshitting themselves. It's not like you suddenly behave differently in your own home once you got an echo dot. You basically know you just sold your privacy to amazon, but you tell yourself it's OK since you know about it, which somehow puts you on top of the game. It doesn't.

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

#24

Post by milkthefat » Sat, Mar 16, 2019, 2:23 PM UTC

Zelphyr wrote: post #22

iforgotpassword wrote: post #19

I suspect this is going to be an unpopular opinion, but I still don't get the fuzz. People buy crap like Amazon echo left and right, and have been carrying little computers with microphones and an internet connection around all day for even longer. Apart from the fact that any sane person shouldn't trust any google product value their privacy in the first place, how many people are there consciously not buying a smar…

I think yours is an important question that few people realize which is; these companies are legally required to tell you when they are listening to you, or even potentially listening to you. Google "accidentally" forgot to tell people that they included a mic in those devices. That's still illegal.

What happens if i created a device that has multiple speakers and through a software update I make one an (albeit)poor quality mic? Do I need to tell you before hand that this was possible? Are they still considered speakers?

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

#25

Post by cascom » Sat, Mar 16, 2019, 2:25 PM UTC

These companies want it both ways - they hide behind their terms of service etc. saying consumers should actually read this stuff and be inforned, and then when they get busted for failing to disclose something it’s “oops, our bad, we didn’t think anyone cared”

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

#26

Post by viscanti » Sat, Mar 16, 2019, 2:25 PM UTC

iforgotpassword wrote: post #23

orev wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s a difference between doing it knowingly vs unknowingly. In fact, that is the ONLY thing that matters.

But that's people bullshitting themselves. It's not like you suddenly behave differently in your own home once you got an echo dot. You basically know you just sold your privacy to amazon, but you tell yourself it's OK since you know about it, which somehow puts you on top of the game. It doesn't.

> But that's people bullshitting themselves.

No it's not. What Google did here was illegal. There are also people who value their privacy and don't have an Amazon echo or other listening device.

You're trying to argue that SOME people don't value their privacy so NO ONE should ever have an expectation that a device they buy isn't secretly listening in on them illegally. I fundamentally disagree with that take.

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

#27

Post by renholder » Sat, Mar 16, 2019, 2:29 PM UTC

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.

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

#28

Post by ignoramous » Sat, Mar 16, 2019, 2:32 PM UTC

iforgotpassword wrote: post #19

I suspect this is going to be an unpopular opinion, but I still don't get the fuzz. People buy crap like Amazon echo left and right, and have been carrying little computers with microphones and an internet connection around all day for even longer. Apart from the fact that any sane person shouldn't trust any google product value their privacy in the first place, how many people are there consciously not buying a smar…

Couple of reasons why I think the fuzz is approp:

1. The fact that things are already bleak doesn't justify a more bleaker tomorrow. The fact that a large section of humanity is oblivious to privacy breaches doesn't mean the select few who do care about it should stop protesting against it, regardless of behaviour of the masses [0].

2. The law makers (governments) and the king makers (tech conglomerates) shouldn't be given a free-pass to do as they please at the expense of security, privacy, free-speech, and other ethos that make internet such a powerful medium. Policies needs to be continually renewed in response to emerging threats at pace [1] and so it is important to keep naming/shaming said entities to drive the dialogue.

--

[0] Bruce Schneier on Censorship, Surveillance, Propaganda, and User Control https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3NJ-Ow2Lvg

[1] Bruce Schneier, again, on Security of Everything https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkJCI3_jbtg

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

#29

Post by ineedasername » Sat, Mar 16, 2019, 2:37 PM UTC

milkthefat wrote: post #24

Zelphyr wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think yours is an important question that few people realize which is; these companies are legally required to tell you when they are listening to you, or even potentially listening to you. Google "accidentally" forgot to tell people that they included a mic in those devices. That's still illegal.

What happens if i created a device that has multiple speakers and through a software update I make one an (albeit)poor quality mic? Do I need to tell you before hand that this was possible? Are they still considered speakers?

Uh, yes? I don't think it's an open question that product updates should detail the updates made. And since recording someone in any way without their knowledge is illegal in many contexts, that would go double for something like you describe.

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

#30

Post by propogandist » Sat, Mar 16, 2019, 2:39 PM UTC

Zelphyr wrote: post #22

iforgotpassword wrote: post #19

I suspect this is going to be an unpopular opinion, but I still don't get the fuzz. People buy crap like Amazon echo left and right, and have been carrying little computers with microphones and an internet connection around all day for even longer. Apart from the fact that any sane person shouldn't trust any google product value their privacy in the first place, how many people are there consciously not buying a smar…

I think yours is an important question that few people realize which is; these companies are legally required to tell you when they are listening to you, or even potentially listening to you. Google "accidentally" forgot to tell people that they included a mic in those devices. That's still illegal.

Google admitted to congress they're constantly tracking people via their devices

>Hawley pointed out on Tuesday that a user's location is sent to Google hundreds of times a day, even when the phone is not in use. In fact, Hawley said, a user's location is tracked "every four minutes, or 14 times an hour, roughly 340 times during a 24-hour period," even when the phone is not in use.

>DeVries confessed that "location information is absolutely core to making a mobile phone work the way that you want it to work." He said that Google has an "optional service" called Location History that is opt-in and "can collect location over time when people turn that on."

>"But Google collects geolocation data even if Location History is turned off, correct?" Hawley pressed.

>"Yes, senator, it can in order to operate other services—"

This should be illegal and was admitted to congress -- justifying it with BS excuses -- but virtually no major media outlet is covering this.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/google-tracks-you-even-when-loc... (one of 3 articles I found about this)