I make my guest sign agreement before they enter my property... I don’t have many people visiting me anymore
Google chief: I'd disclose smart speakers before guests enter my home
241–250 of 573 posts
Re: Google chief: I'd disclose smart speakers before guests enter my home
#242This happens to be a good example of how there are so many laws you likely break some all the time. California requires consent from all present who have vibrated the air while you record the air vibrations (but not with your ears and brain storage!). That means if the google phone in your pocket listens to people at a restaurant or your alexa listens to your delivery man for a second you are a criminal under Califor…
> California requires consent from all present who have vibrated the air while you record the air vibrations One-party recording laws enable us to catch bad actors. Otherwise, you can't do things like record Rob Ford smoking crack and being a racist piece of shit while the incumbent mayor. The fact that you don't have the right to record a conversation you are participating in is not a good thing .
I'll tell of an actual situation that is different, but with similar elements.
Guy A arranges for presumed friend (pf) to provide transport for post surgery where benzodiazepines are administered along with local anesthetics. Guy A is still hesitant after 1st dose of benzo, so another is given and surgery proceeds. Afterwards, pf transports intoxicated guy A home, but for whatever reason, they agree to go elsewhere. Along the way, pf insists on purchasing liquor, which guy A feebly objects to. Liquor is purchased. Guy A and pf arrive at some home and drink liquor. Guy A is now drinking hard liquor on a double dose of surgical grade benzodiazepine and is concealing the effects poorly. Guy A, whose personality includes jovially natured hyperbole on occasion, is now saying abnormally odd things. Throughout this occasion, pf fails to inform guy A of recordings taking place in the car, home and on pf's phone. The following day, pf takes Guy A to retrieve vehicle from medical facility and informs guy A of his obnoxious behavior and deranged rhetoric on previous night. Guy A is a bit alarmed and skeptical, but regretfully accepts that in such a state, dumb things were said. Pf, however, does not share recordings with guy A, but does with friends, without disclosing context.
Re: Google chief: I'd disclose smart speakers before guests enter my home
#243Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nest/Google Home devices have a hardware mute button. They are off when they are off.
> Nest/Google Home devices have a hardware mute button. They are off when they are off. Can you cite where Google says that the mute switch is a hardware kill switch for the mics? I've only read where they say that it doesn't listen but never that it physically disables the mics which means it's done in software and the device could be "muted" and still able to listen. Unless the mute switch is a physical disconnect…
Google it you lazy fuck, yes they repeatedly say it's a hardware disconnect
Re: Google chief: I'd disclose smart speakers before guests enter my home
#244I was a huge Google Fan but this is becoming lunacy. I understood trading some data and privacy for great search results, maps and free quality email. But people willingly bringing always on listening devices in to their homes (beyond what smartphones are already capable of) I just can't comprehend it. Why would people voluntarily do this in exchange for being able to ask for weather, play a playlist, add a todo and…
People just don't know how valuable this data actually is. Sure it only gets value if a critical quantity is reached. There is just a disconnect in understanding. With huge efforts they will create archives of 5% special price coupons, but how tech companies extract free money from them is beyond their comprehension. The implications of having every deed and word quantified is perhaps too abstract a danger to underst…
no, you just over estimate how valuable this data is because you desperately want to feel important. guess what, you saying "ok google turn on my lights" 1000x times is completely worthless to anyone. you're not important and your data means nothing to anyone. grow up
Re: Google chief: I'd disclose smart speakers before guests enter my home
#245I was a huge Google Fan but this is becoming lunacy. I understood trading some data and privacy for great search results, maps and free quality email. But people willingly bringing always on listening devices in to their homes (beyond what smartphones are already capable of) I just can't comprehend it. Why would people voluntarily do this in exchange for being able to ask for weather, play a playlist, add a todo and…
I hate not having privacy but I don't understand singling Google out here. Siri is listening (both on phones and on Apple' homepod), Alexa is listening, Cortana is listening, ... I actually am less worried about those (since I turn them off) than I do about Netflix/Amazon knowing every movie I watch. Amazon knowing every product I order. My Credit Card and Bank company knowing every business I transact with. My Mac a…
I think we need to be looking at this from the side of biometrics. There are already privacy laws in some states which protect that kind of information about individuals. It's scary to know that if you collect a lot of what may seem like harmless information about an individual in one place, and analyze it through an algorithm or AI, then you're able to accurately predict a lot of extremely intimate details about a person. Just look at the classic example of Target predicting a teen's pregnancy before she even knew it herself, just by observing her buying habits[1].
Imagine if AI advanced to the point where a human brain could be simulated in a computer. If you collected enough data on a person, you could create a virtual clone with their exact same beliefs, opinions, intelligence, etc. Just imagine how easy it would be to exploit someone if you could simulate how they'd respond to anything with perfect accuracy. You could literally enslave people.
And while that's currently scifi, the amount of money companies like Google and Facebook are pumping into AI research means we could land somewhere pretty close to that eventually. If we're still not protecting peoples' data by then, we're all fucked.
[1]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-targ...
Re: Google chief: I'd disclose smart speakers before guests enter my home
#246I'm genuinely curious why only nest, alexa, google home[^1] devices get highlighted - aren't they all use the same tech as the Google App on android? Why are android phones not flagged as well? [^1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21262521
Two obvious reasons: - Smart home devices are used at home, where you have a high expectation of privacy. In contrast phones go with you everywhere. - Those devices are supposed to hear everything in the room clearly. A phone in your pocket or backpack? If they can make their mics good enough for that, I would like to have that tech.
I don't find that I expect more privacy at my home than when talking to someone at work, or while walking in a park. I'm aware that someone can overhear in public, but I'm not constantly aware that a microphone is following me.
And in many places, people take their phones out of their pocket. And women's pockets often don't have good pockets at all, so whenever they sit down the phone is also put down (or in use).
Re: Google chief: I'd disclose smart speakers before guests enter my home
#247I was a huge Google Fan but this is becoming lunacy. I understood trading some data and privacy for great search results, maps and free quality email. But people willingly bringing always on listening devices in to their homes (beyond what smartphones are already capable of) I just can't comprehend it. Why would people voluntarily do this in exchange for being able to ask for weather, play a playlist, add a todo and…
You are right but as you say all those things apply to your smartphone and the smartphone of every person you are in range of. Also, smartphones have cameras front and back. An Alexa in my bathroom only has a mic and speakers. The future will also be powered by cameras and microphones in public and you will be tracked. Amazon is actively selling software and hardware to enable dystopia today.
I imagine that if governments start to use Alexa, et. al. to crack down on dissenters, those whole business lines disappear as people dump them all in the trash. I think we have to depend on capitalism and whistleblowers to shout if things change. If someone wants to listen in on the sounds of my bathroom, help yourself. I personally draw the line at cameras. No camera, no Ring doorbell and my phone is usually in my pocket or in a shelf with no visual access.
The other thing that I'd point out is that a lot of people publicly shout their political and other positions voluntarily. This is great for free speech but is an even easier and richer target for government crackdowns.
Re: Google chief: I'd disclose smart speakers before guests enter my home
#248Earlier quoted context omitted.
All smartphones, Apple and Android, use dedicated audio processors which are always listening for the command word by saving recent audio to a buffer and analyzing it before discarding it. There has never been any evidence that I've ever seen that these audio processors save and transmit their work pre-activation, only post-activation of the service. Although I do remember in the 2014-2016 time frame when the CIA hac…
> All smartphones, Apple and Android, use dedicated audio processors which are always listening for the command word by saving recent audio to a buffer and analyzing it before discarding it. Not all Android phones have Google Assistant.
True, just nearly all.
Re: Google chief: I'd disclose smart speakers before guests enter my home
#249Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have voice-activated assistant on my droid turned off, meanwhile Siri is active on all iDevices, and everyone with a laptop at your place is a mole. Do you expect to altogether prevent people from bringing computing devices into your home? If you are not a state target, then that is just silly. Focus your malcontent on the real bad actors, not their victims.
The various states would love to have as much data as they can on every citizen. Therefore, we're all state targets.
Language is useless if we don't set boundaries.
In this case, as you already know despite wanting to twist its meaning, "State target" refers to someone whom the state is specifically, actively expending resources in order to target. Target being the key word. Being part of a giant nation-wide dragnet doesn't make you a target.
Re: Google chief: I'd disclose smart speakers before guests enter my home
#250>"Gosh, I haven't thought about this before in quite this way," Osterloh said. "It's quite important for all these technologies to think about all users... we have to consider all stakeholders that might be in proximity." How much do they not care about privacy that a chief exec with an army of lawyers and advisors "haven't thought about this before"?
> stakeholders that might be in proximity I didn't realise visiting a friends house made me a stakeholder in all of their technology choices.
Or they might not even be friends. Walk down a street filled with Ring doorbells. You are being surveilled by strangers who have been fear mongered because a pedophile will steal their Amazon delivery.