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

261–270 of 291 posts

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

#261

Post by gerash »

Placing an inactive mic does raise questions naturally but shipping updates to hardware is not easy/possible. So you'd want to future proof your hardware throughout its lifetime. Had Google announced in their marketing that there's an inactive mic there, it would've become the only focus by the louder segments of the media. Whether or not it would ever be activated.

Perhaps had Google assistant been more useful, fewer people would've felt so upset. The mic can also be used to detect broken glass, etc.

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

#262

Post by decebalus1 »

criddell wrote: post #254
decebalus1 wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What's the difference between a Google Home and a Pixel phone sitting side-by-side on the table, which one is the bigger threat to my privacy? What about when I leave the home and take my GPS-capable phone and leave the Google Home on that table? Which is a bigger threat now?

I have no idea. I refuse to use Android phones.

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

#263

Post by throw2016 »

This thread has been comprehensively derailed and is an embarrassment to informed discussion. Imagine if a major Chinese firm had 'forgot' to document a microphone, how many people here would be making excuses? This is an astonishing reflection of the quality of technical discussion.

Anyone who is even remotely familiar with hardware design will know this cannot be an accident in any way and form. It's there because its designed to be there. The fact that its not documented takes it firmly in the territory of extreme malice and dystopic surveillance unconstrained by any ethical concerns.

The only folks for whom this is not a concern are those unburdened by any sense of societal or ethical concern. They represent those sections of the tech community who have zero compass or qualms and do not see any problem building a toxic dystopic society.

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

#264

Post by strictnein »

porpoisely wrote: post #120
strictnein wrote: post #10

Infosec dramas are getting more and more tiresome. Between this and the Singapore Airlines story, it just seems like people need to ratchet everything up to 11. You have two options, choose one: - 1. Google wants to spy on you with a hidden mic - 2. They had future plans for the mic, but it was disabled, so it wasn't mentioned by the marketing department For the Singapore Airlines story, you have two options, choose…

Infosec dramas are getting more tiresome? Are you really saying this on hacker news in an environment where we know governments, corporations, etc are actively trying to spy more and more on everyone? It's strange how you think the latter options are the pretty obvious explanations. "Google wants to spy on you with hidden mic" seems to be the fairly obvious one to me. What's strange is the amount of pro-government an…

I'm saying this on a site where I assume people are able to think a little beyond the basics, yes.

Google spying on its customers would result in an amazing lawsuit. People tear apart and reverse-engineer these things for fun and it would have been discovered in due course. Google knows this. So, no, it's not an "obvious" option at all.

You're starting from a position of "of course google is evil". I'm starting from "how much sense does that make?". We've reached different conclusions because of this.

Pedantically listing a bunch of other options is missing the point, and they basically all fall under option 2.

As for your perceived "pro-government" and "pro-google" views on HN: people have different views on many topics. Maybe this is the only place you encounter views that differ from your own?

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

#265

Post by atemerev »

krapp wrote: post #225
atemerev wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 vi…

No, I am saying that there _was_ at least one valid conspiracy by NSA. It doesn't makes any particular conspiracy case like this one automatically valid, but it gives some Bayesian evidence for it, in my opinion, enough to at least consider it, not dismiss automatically.

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

#266

Post by jhayward »

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…

> 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.

Citation needed.

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

#267

Post by jhayward »

gojomo wrote: post #249
uptown wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So can capacitors - a common factor to avoid in amplifier design - and at the limit, so can just about any semiconductor.

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

#268

Post by 8bitsrule »

kmlx wrote: post #60
vermilingua wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Google is well past conspiracy territory. They are a company whose bottom line depends on collecting as much user data as possible; in an economy that compels them to improve their bottom line by any means available. Is there really any doubt that google can and will spy on you if given the slightest opportunity?

Yes, I have 100% doubt anyone is spying on anyone. I think most of it is paranoia. I also think this kind of paranoia is detrimental to our evolution as a species. We should be sharing more, not hiding in our caves.

> We should be sharing more...

The Spanish Inquisition would certainly agree.

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

#269

Post by sonnyblarney »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #252
sonnyblarney wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Product Marketing does not 'document' they position, and write about features. If the 'mic' isn't part of feature or proposition, why would it even be in their radar? The '1st order' response of marketing doing their job is 'who cares?'. Few people care about tech tidbits that are not user oriented. There's already tons of things to worry about and address - and every single bit of copy takes up valuable space. The i…

>`"this has privacy implications" - no - it only has the perception of privacy implications. Because Google is not actually [intruding] on people's privacy [...]` I've got to disagree here: it has privacy implications because at Google's end they can issue a software update and now be monitoring all audio, and the T&C no doubt say they can be unilaterally varied without notification. That all means that Google think…

Google is not going to all of a sudden start recording you in your home without your knowledge, and then say 'hey look, you signed a contract'. That would be an obvious PR disaster, not an 'I forgot disaster'.

If/when Google enables this tech, it think it will be clear enough. If not, then definitely would be time to raise a real fuss.

"There seems no good reason to me that the specification summary can't say" - I agree with you there - however, I suggest that they mighn't have even have thought of it. That would be the prudent thing to do, but again, there's no established procedure for it.

There probably was not even a legal review hint etc. because as I say, they were not using it.

So it's questionable, weird, but not nefarious.

What they will do, with your ostensible permission, with a signed T&C - is to me, far more nefarious.

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

#270

Post by atoav »

kmlx wrote: post #58
atoav wrote: post #28

What never ceases to amaze me, is the absolute inability of companies like google to understand what their actions look like for somebody who is concerned about privacy. Maybe they understand and do not care, because there are many vocal critics. But having a microphone in a product and not disclosing it? If not even google can keep track of what they should tell us, how on earth do they think they deserve trust?

who's "concerned about their privacy" and why?

Privacy is a important factor in the stability of free democratic societies.

Today we have a asymmetry of transparency: institutions and companies are intransparent while the individual isn’t. This assymetry in information translates into an asymmetry of power.

The traditional way citizen of free societies dealt with asymmetries of power was to divide them.

A government could easily sentence and jail anybody if it weren’t for some strangely roundabout rules that made this hard.

The privacy movement is part of a powerplay between individuals and entities that go beyond single persons.

Of course you also have those who think it is about their dick pics..

Post reply on HN