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

211–220 of 291 posts

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

#211

Post by m0zg »

maximente wrote: post #203
illumin8 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Contrast this to Amazon: during design of the original Echo at Lab126, an engineering discussion took place where they determined that implementing the mute function in software would be less expensive in terms of component requirements than implementing a physical disconnect of the mic circuit. The engineering team refused to take the less expensive route, and insisted that the mute button physically disconnect the…

is this the same company that's shilling Rekogition to police departments and governments? for some reason i'm thinking this point of view isn't held company wide.

>> shilling Rekogition to police departments and governments

That's a rather poor choice of words. I prefer "helping police departments catch criminals", myself. 'cuz, you know, police departments exist for a reason.

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

#212

Post by StanislavPetrov »

criddell wrote: post #172
_RPM wrote: post #167

And most of the rich people in my neighborhood have complete voice devices in their homes, Amazon’s device and Google’s I refuse to have these devices in my home regardless of how cool they seem.

What event down the road do you think will vindicate your decision? How do you think your neighbors will be harmed?

Some people have no problem putting a little webcam in their toilet bowl so that the world can watch them eliminate every morning. Personally I prefer to keep my business private. I don't need any "vindication" to be happy with my decision to protect my privacy. If you don't understand the value of privacy nobody can explain it to you - but they may watch your morning broadcasts.

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

#213

Post by rjf72 »

coldtea wrote: post #86
rjf72 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there are two ends on a diagram of skepticism and scrutiny. On one end you have individuals who will find nearly any conspiracy viable for whatever reason. That most conspiracy theories are eventually shown to be false doesn't really seem to bother them. On the other end you have individuals that will never believe anything could possibly be true, so long as a government or corporation has plausible deniabili…

> That most conspiracy theories are eventually shown to be false doesn't really seem to bother them. Which "conspiracy theories" are eventually shown to be false? The ones concerning aliens and lizard overloads or illuminati? Because there are plenty corporate, political, and economic conspiracies going on all the time, including tons of "conspiracy to commit fraud/murder/etc" at smaller and larger scales, as acknowl…

The big ones are things that are shown to have a timeline. For instance one conspiracy theory is that Operation Jade Helm 15 [1], a military training exercise, was really a precursor to imminent declaration of martial law or some sort of a government takeover of Texas. There were lots of derivatives of this including Obama somehow trying to hold onto the presidency beyond his term limits.

Needless to say this did not come to pass.

Another one I found amusing was people believing that SpaceX's retropulsive landings, when they were first being successfully executed, were actually just launches played back in reverse. This conspiracy died pretty fast after they did it over and over, to say nothing of people being able to freely go and watch the landings. But it could also be shown to be false beyond any doubt by reversing the landing footage which, suffice to say, looked nothing like a takeoff. There were also more technical ways to debunk these things such as by looking at individual phenomena (birds, etc). It wasn't a good conspiracy theory, but there were plenty of people that believed it for a while.

But yeah, I'm not really sure what's up with people who seem to think that conspiracies don't happen and on an extremely regular basis. Even some absolutely awful things. Operation Northwoods [2] was very much a real idea that made it way all the way through the intelligence agencies and joint chiefs of staff. It was literally one signature away from being carried out. If we had a president of lesser moral character, not only would it likely have been carried out but we'd probably be none the wiser today. JFK was a great man.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jade_Helm_15_conspiracy_theori...

[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

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

#214

Post by ceejayoz »

m0zg wrote: post #211
maximente wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

is this the same company that's shilling Rekogition to police departments and governments? for some reason i'm thinking this point of view isn't held company wide.

>> shilling Rekogition to police departments and governments That's a rather poor choice of words. I prefer "helping police departments catch criminals", myself. 'cuz, you know, police departments exist for a reason.

Both of these POVs are a bit extreme versus actual real-life implementation.

Police have a legitimate, important societal purpose, and have historically abused and over-surveilled minority populations in a way that's highly problematic.

There's a compelling use case for facial recognition in law enforcement. There's also a compelling case that it needs to be closely scrutinized and regulated.

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

#215

Post by m0zg »

ceejayoz wrote: post #214
m0zg wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> shilling Rekogition to police departments and governments That's a rather poor choice of words. I prefer "helping police departments catch criminals", myself. 'cuz, you know, police departments exist for a reason.

Both of these POVs are a bit extreme versus actual real-life implementation. Police have a legitimate, important societal purpose, and have historically abused and over-surveilled minority populations in a way that's highly problematic. There's a compelling use case for facial recognition in law enforcement. There's also a compelling case that it needs to be closely scrutinized and regulated.

>> abused and over-surveilled minority populations

Citation needed.

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

#216

Post by ceejayoz »

m0zg wrote: post #215
ceejayoz wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both of these POVs are a bit extreme versus actual real-life implementation. Police have a legitimate, important societal purpose, and have historically abused and over-surveilled minority populations in a way that's highly problematic. There's a compelling use case for facial recognition in law enforcement. There's also a compelling case that it needs to be closely scrutinized and regulated.

>> abused and over-surveilled minority populations Citation needed.

Really?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE#1985_bombing

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

#217

Post by m0zg »

ceejayoz wrote: post #216
m0zg wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> abused and over-surveilled minority populations Citation needed.

Really? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE#1985_bombing

Really. The first one wasn't even "police". The second was 34 years ago. I'd expect something more recent if your argument is to hold any water whatsoever.

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

#218

Post by xvolter »

It wasn't listed in tech specs, but it was never hidden or kept secret. It probably could have been more explicitly detailed, but in the FAQs for the Nest Secure it even tells the user:

> Can Nest Secure detect breaking glass? No. We’re working on bringing glass break detection to Nest Guard, the main hub of Nest Secure. Nest Detect, the open/close motion sensor, doesn’t have a microphone, so it can’t detect breaking glass. But its motion sensors can detect movement by intruders as well as when a door or window opens and closes depending on how it's installed.

https://nest.com/support/article/Frequently-asked-questions-...

This was listed before this big announcement.

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

#219

Post by ceejayoz »

m0zg wrote: post #217
ceejayoz wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE#1985_bombing

Really. The first one wasn't even "police". The second was 34 years ago. I'd expect something more recent if your argument is to hold any water whatsoever.

Sub in "law enforcement" for "police" if you want to be that pedantic, and I did say "historically".

If you want more recent examples, Chicago was disappearing people to black sites for interrogation this decade.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago-poli...

and torturing suspects for decades, well into the 2000s:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/18/guantanamo-t...

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

#220

Post by criddell »

StanislavPetrov wrote: post #212
criddell wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What event down the road do you think will vindicate your decision? How do you think your neighbors will be harmed?

Some people have no problem putting a little webcam in their toilet bowl so that the world can watch them eliminate every morning. Personally I prefer to keep my business private. I don't need any "vindication" to be happy with my decision to protect my privacy. If you don't understand the value of privacy nobody can explain it to you - but they may watch your morning broadcasts.

You don't see any difference between people getting a Google-connected device (like a Google Home or Pixel phone) and those that install a public webcam in their bathroom?
Post reply on HN