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

221–230 of 291 posts

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

#221

Post by dantillberg »

illumin8 wrote: post #185
userbinator wrote: post #110

Having worked at large companies before, I'm almost certain that more than one person working on the product raised the point "this has a microphone, why isn't it documented?" or "this has privacy implications", but was silenced. (Or it could be that everyone working at Google has been carefully chosen to not have such concerns; I do get that feeling sometimes too.)

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…

In this story, it was only lower-level engineers that took a stand for user privacy. It was them against everyone above them at Amazon. Doesn't sound like Amazon-the-company deserves credit.

Update to clarify reasons for this characterization: Parent used the words "refused" and "insisted," which strongly suggest conflict between the pro-privacy engineers and others at Amazon involved in the project. And "so that no future engineering team could decide to stealth 'unmute'" suggests a lack of trust in long-term company management. Nothing in this story supports the later statement that "Privacy of customer data is considered the most important thing to Amazon."

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

#222

Post by AlexandrB »

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?

Political turmoil. Putting this data in the hands of FAANG means it's just one NSL away from being used by the government. It's foolish to think that the relative stability of western governments since the 1950s is a permanent condition. This is a blink of an eye in historical terms.

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

#223

Post by netphobee »

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.

I do think you don’t need citations to know that over-surveillance is a consistent happening, my apologies if you aren’t American.

New York recently finished settling and paying out a case where they were accused of heavily, unreasonably surveilling a number of muslim people and properties. In the end, they still admitted to no misconduct.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/05/nyregion/last-suit-accusi...

This is just a single drop in heavy policing that NYC pushed for and is still dealing with the effects of doing so. Stop and Frisk comes to mind: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=846365

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

#224

Post by endofcapital »

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.

Where I come from the police used to hunt and kill "undesirables", and bury the bodies up in the mountains. One of the first things my dad taught me was how to recognize those long skinny headlights on a cop car, you had to learn to avoid them at all costs to survive if you didn't have the appropriate skin color.

They aren't always good guys, and it's ok to have legitimate concerns about cooperation with law enforcement.

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

#225

Post by krapp »

atemerev wrote: post #191
krapp wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another thing we've learned from the post-Snowden world is that people invoke the post-Snowden world as an excuse to abandon critical thinking and skepticism and assume all conspiracies are valid, and often don't actually understand what, specifically, Snowden did and didn't demonstrate. People still believe the PRISM program was about companies giving the NSA direct and unlimited backdoor access to their databases,…

Not all conspiracies are valid, however, the particular conspiracy of "NSA covertly uses devices and implants to conduct mass surveillance both in the US and elsewhere, and has special relationships with the largest internet companies including Alphabet" is now quite valid and confirmed. Which means that in cases like that, it should necessarily be considered as a valid concern.

You're saying not all conspiracies are valid, while asserting that all conspiracies involving the NSA implanting bugs in hardware in collusion with tech companies should be considered valid.

You're supporting my point rather than refuting it, in that you appear to have drawn an arbitrary line in the sand and decided to doubt everything on one side and believe everything on the other. That's not a rational point of view, it's religious dogmatism.

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

#226

Post by throw082 »

randcraw wrote: post #200
mrb wrote: post #178

Fun fact: any device with a speaker can be turned into a microphone because a speaker is fundamentally the same thing as a microphone (a membrane connected to a coil/magnet).

Yes, any speaker can become a mic, but only if you plug it into an amp's input channel. Unfortunately for the CIA, they're all plugged into output channels.

input and output channels are not always physically different pins, sometimes it's just a software configuration. see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13014435

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

#227

Post by illumin8 »

dantillberg wrote: post #221
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…

In this story, it was only lower-level engineers that took a stand for user privacy. It was them against everyone above them at Amazon. Doesn't sound like Amazon-the-company deserves credit. Update to clarify reasons for this characterization: Parent used the words "refused" and "insisted," which strongly suggest conflict between the pro-privacy engineers and others at Amazon involved in the project. And "so that no…

The company fully backed their decision. They did not have to fight anyone.

This type of product design decision happens all the time. Whenever you're considering component costs, you have to evaluate all of the options. You're mischaracterizing it as a fight between engineers and management.

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

#228

Post by criddell »

AlexandrB wrote: post #222
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?

Political turmoil. Putting this data in the hands of FAANG means it's just one NSL away from being used by the government. It's foolish to think that the relative stability of western governments since the 1950s is a permanent condition. This is a blink of an eye in historical terms.

Is it worse than a smartphone which is a far more personal device with a lot more sensors?

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

#229

Post by krapp »

flycaliguy wrote: post #180
krapp wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another thing we've learned from the post-Snowden world is that people invoke the post-Snowden world as an excuse to abandon critical thinking and skepticism and assume all conspiracies are valid, and often don't actually understand what, specifically, Snowden did and didn't demonstrate. People still believe the PRISM program was about companies giving the NSA direct and unlimited backdoor access to their databases,…

My take away from the Snowden leaks was basically non-technical and simply an appreciation for how public-private partnerships have assembled a new sort of surveillance industrial complex. One which resembles the military industrial complex and may in the future even replace it? It felt like a warning along the lines of Eisenhower and even Snowden’s role as a whistle blowing contractor felt symbolic of our government…

I would consider it misguided to assume that one can determine whom to trust and whom not to trust based on whether or not their logo appeared on a slide leaked onto the internet, yes. I would also consider it misguided to implicitly believe stories that conform to any particular ideological bias, because misinformation, manipulation and deception can take place everywhere.

It leads to things like people implicitly trusting DDG because they weren't on the PRISM slide, or implicitly trusting Facebook and Reddit because they aren't the "mainstream media."

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

#230

Post by m0zg »

netphobee wrote: post #223
m0zg wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I do think you don’t need citations to know that over-surveillance is a consistent happening, my apologies if you aren’t American. New York recently finished settling and paying out a case where they were accused of heavily, unreasonably surveilling a number of muslim people and properties. In the end, they still admitted to no misconduct. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/05/nyregion/last-suit-accusi... This is just a…

What you're missing though is that without heavy policing a large city with very high income inequality like NYC would quickly turn into a dystopian shithole. And I don't know about you, but I also believe countermeasures are necessary to prevent Islamic radicalization (and any other kind of radicalization as well). Don't try nothing - won't be nothing. I do not for a second believe that US law enforcement is "systematically" oppressing anybody.
Post reply on HN