Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google speakers are listening to more than just voice commands

protocol.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 287 posts

Re: Google speakers are listening to more than just voice commands

#271

Post by harha »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #237
zizee wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I had one of these when I worked for Google, I didn’t quite trust it though, so I had it in the bathroom to limit what my employer could listen to. I don't understand why you just didn't throw it away, or put it in a box powered down. A possible subtext to what you have written is that your employer (google) was mandating that you keep using the device at home as part of your employment... but that is outrageous an…

> A possible subtext to what you have written is that your employer (google) was mandating that you keep using the device at home as part of your employment... but that is outrageous and I would like clarification as I feel it cannot be true. The requirement to use a Google device at home has never been imposed to the best of my knowledge, at least unless this individual was working on the product. Even then they wou…

What’s important from a user perspective is that it’s not possible to verify these safety measures, while potentially exposing some of the most private pieces of information.

I agree that usually it should be safe and anyone messing with logs would probably get terminated, but there’s not much more than to trust people there and I’m not sure all safeguards hold in all cases, e.g., if people were to collude within the organization. Therefore I wouldn’t put such a device in my home again and if I’m having a meaningful conversation somewhere, I’ll make sure no device is connected to power.

Re: Google speakers are listening to more than just voice commands

#272

Post by vanviegen »

mehrdadn wrote: post #244
deadmutex wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems like a personal choice, and perhaps you can try to keep an open mind. Also consider the use case of your parents being alone and falling down and not being able to get up. They can just say 'ok Google, call ocdtrekkie' (if they have setup the device fully with contacts etc.). Disclaimer: I work for Google, but views are my own.

I can't speak to the merits of the family relations, but telling people to "keep an open mind" to continuous monitoring is quite the ask. The right to privacy isn't some kind of pizza topping to be "open-minded" about just because some company happens to make a product that violates the norm. (And to be clear, my statement isn't isn't Google-specific in any way.)

What objective norm does this product violate? People should be free to share (or not share) their personal information any way they please. Is being "open-minded" about other people's choices in this regard so much to ask?

Re: Google speakers are listening to more than just voice commands

#273

Post by mehrdadn »

vanviegen wrote: post #272
mehrdadn wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't speak to the merits of the family relations, but telling people to "keep an open mind" to continuous monitoring is quite the ask. The right to privacy isn't some kind of pizza topping to be "open-minded" about just because some company happens to make a product that violates the norm. (And to be clear, my statement isn't isn't Google-specific in any way.)

What objective norm does this product violate? People should be free to share (or not share) their personal information any way they please. Is being "open-minded" about other people's choices in this regard so much to ask?

> What objective norm does this product violate?

Privacy.

Also, traditionally, hosts go out of their way to help their guests feel welcome, not the other way around.

> People should be free to share (or not share) their personal information any way they please.

"Privacy" is about so much more than "personal information". Heck, it is irrelevant whether the conversation contains "personal information".

It is also very clearly not only the hosts who are affected here.

> Is being "open-minded" about other people's choices in this regard so much to ask?

It can be when that implies collateral damage on your side.

Re: Google speakers are listening to more than just voice commands

#274

Post by AsyncAwait »

fuzxi wrote: post #231
AsyncAwait wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ARM CPUs can be rather performant, especially for specialist tasks. These things are always plugged in and don't need to save battery, therefore they can always run at maximum performance. The HomePod for example uses the Apple A8 chip which is a very capable chip used to power the iPhone 6 than did way more than encode/decode audio.

Wouldn't heat generation start to become an issue? As far as I know, none of these assistants have fans. I think the average consumer would notice that their device starts giving off a lot of heat if there's a lot of speech in range of its microphone - "I wonder why my Echo turns into a space heater when I leave the TV on."

> I think the average consumer would notice that their device starts giving off a lot of heat if there's a lot of speech in range of its microphone.

Interesting point, my guess would be that not many would notice since a HomePod/Alexa/Google Home would usually sit somewhere in a corner of a room/under the TV and not be regularly touched since you don't need to touch it to control it most of the time.

I am not even sure it would be that much heat, my x86 laptop can play video for a very long amount of time before getting noticeably hot, granted with a fan, however these ARM CPUs get noticeably less hot than your average Intel chip, even without a fan.

Re: Google speakers are listening to more than just voice commands

#275

Post by AsyncAwait »

tinus_hn wrote: post #268
AsyncAwait wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ARM CPUs can be rather performant, especially for specialist tasks. These things are always plugged in and don't need to save battery, therefore they can always run at maximum performance. The HomePod for example uses the Apple A8 chip which is a very capable chip used to power the iPhone 6 than did way more than encode/decode audio.

HomePod is not exactly a cheap device.

True, but not expensive either. Especially considering it's on sale all the time.

Even for the cheaper devices, the CPU is probably capable enough, (maybe excluding the cheapest Echo Dot/Nest).

The Echo Show devices even have a screen and are actually designed to play videos from all kind of sources, (decode), as well as for videocalling, (encode) and they're £60 right now on Amazon UK.

Re: Google speakers are listening to more than just voice commands

#276

Post by MiroF »

lotu wrote: post #209
asfginino wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Furthermore, Amazon hasn’t cracked the code on hyper-efficient GB into KB lossless compression only to squirrel it away only for use in voice assistants. They could do speech recognition on the device and then ship off the plain text. I don't think they do this, but it is most certainly within their technical ability. As a practical example, I have a copy of a 458,045 word audiobook on my computer and I just downloa…

> They could do speech recognition on the device and then ship off the plain text Not with the tiny cheap CPUs that are one these devices they couldn't. Or at least not very effective speech recognition.

I think you overestimate how CPU intensive the inference is.

Re: Google speakers are listening to more than just voice commands

#277

Post by secabeen »

MiroF wrote: post #124
secabeen wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now that the feature is disabled, it's hard to know. Once the feature is enabled, it's pretty easy to tell by looking at the network traffic the device generates. Sending every sound to google is going to be obvious.

What about transcribing all the audio you get and then sending it as a chunk of stuff every time the Hone is activated. Don't think you could catch that.

That would require a lot more computational power than is currently available in an Echo device. It's possible that Amazon could sneak a custom ASIC into the device to do something like this, but it would add quite a bit to the device's Bill of Materials, and would still probably be noticed by the iFixit crowd.

Re: Google speakers are listening to more than just voice commands

#278

Post by secabeen »

im3w1l wrote: post #75
secabeen wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now that the feature is disabled, it's hard to know. Once the feature is enabled, it's pretty easy to tell by looking at the network traffic the device generates. Sending every sound to google is going to be obvious.

You could have covert wake-words.

You'd still see the network traffic for the audio going back to Amazon's servers for analysis.

Re: Google speakers are listening to more than just voice commands

#279

Post by secabeen »

Androider wrote: post #172
secabeen wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now that the feature is disabled, it's hard to know. Once the feature is enabled, it's pretty easy to tell by looking at the network traffic the device generates. Sending every sound to google is going to be obvious.

The article makes it unclear, but this feature is available right now for all Nest Aware subscribers (if you have any type of Nest camera, you'll have a Nest Aware subscription). The article mentioned that this feature was "accidentally" available to non-Nest Aware subscribers as well, but it's the same existing feature and not some test of upcoming features. You can toggle glass break and fire alarm detection on any…

Nest cameras are a completely different system than Echo, all Nest camera devices stream full motion video and audio back to Google 24x7. That's why you buy them.

Re: Google speakers are listening to more than just voice commands

#280

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

felbane wrote: post #264
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A possible subtext to what you have written is that your employer (google) was mandating that you keep using the device at home as part of your employment... but that is outrageous and I would like clarification as I feel it cannot be true. The requirement to use a Google device at home has never been imposed to the best of my knowledge, at least unless this individual was working on the product. Even then they wou…

>Also, there is no way anyone would ever be permitted to run the type of conversation analysis that the GP proposes. I flatly disagree with this statement. I have experienced first-hand how conversation analysis can turn into targeted advertising... and there are many others who have shared similar experiences.

I personally think this is a conspiracy theory, but I doubt there's anything I could say or do to convince you. Fortunately, it's a free country and you don't have to use one of these devices if you don't want to.
Post reply on HN