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

241–250 of 291 posts

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

#241

Post by segmondy »

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…

Doesn't matter if it's lower-level engineers or a janitor, So long as they worked at Amazon and Amazon finally agreed. Amazon deserves credit.

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

#242

Post by uptown »

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…

One anecdote I remember from the Steve Jobs biography was how he'd discovered that a speaker could also be used as a microphone. Is there any risk of some of these devices using that capability to convert their audio output tech into audio input tech?

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

#243

Post by jancsika »

krapp wrote: post #168
fixermark wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there's one thing we've learned from post-Snowden world, it's that most people don't care enough to dodge the surveillance because most people didn't respond by voluntarily throwing out all their computing devices, smartphones, ISP service plans, etc.

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,…

> People still believe the PRISM program was about companies giving the NSA direct and unlimited backdoor access to their databases,

I agree that the sentence exactly as you've written it describes a possible conspiracy theory that some people may hold.

I also believe you're hedging a bit-- it's possible for people who didn't follow the leaks to infer from your exact wording that a) NSA did not access those databases at scale using the PRISM program, or even b) NSA did not access those databases using PRISM, or maybe even c) NSA did not access those databases using PRISM or any other NSA program. None of those are true.

Here's something relevant from Wikipedia about PRISM:

> Documents indicate that PRISM is "the number one source of raw intelligence used for NSA analytic reports", and it accounts for 91% of the NSA's internet traffic acquired under FISA section 702 authority."

Can you speak to the veracity of that sentence?

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

#244

Post by netphobee »

m0zg wrote: post #230
netphobee wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 "system…

> without heavy policing a large city with very high income inequality like NYC would quickly turn into a dystopian shithole

A lack of order is not what I'm 'proposing', but more the factor that 'order' is very obviously skewed towards minorities as shown by various sources you could seek now. One could also discuss how it's based on crime statistics, but that would reach to "systematic oppression" fields: You can't continuously punish random people of a certain race just because statistics say they're 'likely' to commit crime, this is systematic. What you see as a dystopian shithole is already just that for those who can't have their peace without law involvement, and ML tools will not skirt around this, the bias will only transfer and amplify such shit.

> I also believe countermeasures are necessary to prevent Islamic radicalization (and any other kind of radicalization as well).

The department responsible for the spying disbanded and confirmed in 2014 that they hadn't generated a terrorism related case since 2008, as stated in the previous NYT article. You'd frankly figure that after 9/11, American Muslims — Let alone those in New York, would be actively against any kind of 'radicalization' unless you consider simply practicing religion as 'radicalization', which NYPD practically did here.

> Don't try nothing - won't be nothing

I mentally envy the ability to state such a thing, to be honest.

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

#245

Post by AlexandrB »

criddell wrote: post #228
AlexandrB wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

At it's core, this is just "whataboutism". Yes, phones have a lot more sensors. Phones also give you some control around what gets recorded when. Even if phones were just as bad, doesn't mean the solution is capitulating completely and putting listening devices all over my house. Quite the opposite actually.

As an aside, this is why I would never use an Android phone. At least Apple, for all their faults, allows me to keep my data on my phone and treats privacy, user consent, and app permissions as serious matters. Meanwhile, Onavo is still available in the Play Store[1].

[1] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.onavo.spac...

Edit: It's telling that you didn't respond to my reasons for why this technology is potentially harmful, and instead just reached for "but what about phones?" I would love to hear your argument for why corporate or government abuse of data from always-online, always-listening devices like Alexa and Google Home is not a real concern.

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

#246

Post by zeroego »

uptown wrote: post #242
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…

One anecdote I remember from the Steve Jobs biography was how he'd discovered that a speaker could also be used as a microphone. Is there any risk of some of these devices using that capability to convert their audio output tech into audio input tech?

I don't have a direct answer to your question, but it piqued my curiosity so I did a quick search. I found this informative little post:

https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/154343/can-a-sp...

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

#247

Post by decebalus1 »

criddell wrote: post #228
AlexandrB wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I believe there's either a trigger somewhere in Amazon's or Google's PR to post the classic 'but what about ur phone' whenever someone is pushing back against IOT recording devices or we've become so brainwashed that we do their job without even realizing it. I don't know which of the two is sadder.

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

#248

Post by vegardx »

dpark wrote: post #201
vegardx wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't have to be connected to a network in order to work. The will even happily do self-check without network access - something I realized when I wanted to mute a self-check only to find out that I had done some network changes. Had to use a schtick, like in the old days. Given that these devices are battery powered and meant to last for years on a single charge you can imagine how often they actually connect t…

The sound check takes literally a couple of seconds. How did you even have time to try to silence it?

It tells you in advance and you get a push to your phone if you're on the same network.

"This is a test. The alarm will sounds. The alarm is loud."

(or something like that)

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

#249

Post by gojomo »

uptown wrote: post #242
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…

One anecdote I remember from the Steve Jobs biography was how he'd discovered that a speaker could also be used as a microphone. Is there any risk of some of these devices using that capability to convert their audio output tech into audio input tech?

Some on-chip gyros/accelerometers can also work as microphones – and may be even harder to separate those via an external cut-off switch.

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

#250

Post by sl1ck731 »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #46
sl1ck731 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know which specs exactly people are referencing, but if its marketing specs or the specs you would see on the box then I don't expect consumer products to have "microphone (disabled)" for unused hardware just as I wouldn't expect it to list some unused PCB circuitry. It might be reasonable to be concerned about this kind of thing in the tech crowd, but the vast majority of people aren't.

> I don't expect consumer products to have "microphone (disabled)" for unused hardware This should absolutely be the expectation. A note of "microphone (disabled in software )" at minimum. Since when is it OK for a company to sell you a product with hidden functionality that can be used to harm you by either the manufacturer or third parties? (The obvious defense is that they're not selling it to you, they're renting…

How many things built into products have obsolete hardware or unused functionality that would have to be listed? I understand being reactionary to a microphone but where is the line? How do you draw it?

Do I need to list all the capabilities of some SoC even if I don't take any advantage of them? If a component has thermal sensors I'm not using do I have to list every one of them on the box?

Post reply on HN