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

Google Home

home.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 468 posts

Re: Google Home

#301

Post by wwwdonohue »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #249
reitanqild wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the near future, it will all be about having large amounts of data, and processing power; I don't think we are even close to the limits if what we can reach with standard desktop and server software.

I agree. The current trend of outsourcing everything to "the cloud" is partially fashion, partially laziness, and mostly dictated by business models - why do something the right way (from engineering point of view), when you can lock your users up in your own garden and extract rent (either directly, or by spamming them with ads and selling their data)? Our devices have incredible amount of computing power now - a gr…

"Business models" are why your devices have such incredible computing power too.

Re: Google Home

#302

Post by darpa_escapee »

cheald wrote: post #19

When I was younger, I dreamed of something like this. Voice control for my home! A Star Trek computer that I can interact with conversationally! I just say what I want and it happens! Now, I just see an internet-connected microphone in a software black box which I can only interpret as a giant frickin' security liability. I want this, but unless it's open source top-to-bottom, I won't ever actually put one in my home…

Let us be reminded that the FBI can neither confirm nor deny that they've accessed the microphones on the Amazon Echo of suspects, according to FOIA requests.

Adoption of this tech will hurt general privacy. Find me a home where there isn't an internet enabled microphone or camera. Even if you are security conscious, are your family, friends, coworkers and the people you are near?

Re: Google Home

#303

Post by api »

cheald wrote: post #19

When I was younger, I dreamed of something like this. Voice control for my home! A Star Trek computer that I can interact with conversationally! I just say what I want and it happens! Now, I just see an internet-connected microphone in a software black box which I can only interpret as a giant frickin' security liability. I want this, but unless it's open source top-to-bottom, I won't ever actually put one in my home…

Never EVER under any circumstances would I put a closed-source cloud-connected always-on microphone in my house.

Google's entire business model and value as a company revolves around their ability to maximize the accuracy of their consumer profiles. They have no incentive to do anything other than maximally invade privacy. A device like this from them is even creepier than the Amazon Echo. While it's not released yet, I don't see a disable microphone switch on it either. At least the Echo has that-- though I imagine most users would forget to use it.

The defenders will say "but it only listens when it hears the keyword!" What assurance do I have of this? How secure is this device? Is the keyword recognition performed locally or remotely? What is the definition of "listen?" I'm guessing that like glass the privacy policy will allow them to collect everything.

Re: Google Home

#304

Post by api »

amelius wrote: post #207
mbrock wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Free Software Foundation, in its texts, often uses the phrase "the free world" to mean the realm of computing without proprietary restrictions, surveillance, etc. Approximately since Snowden, I've become more and more convinced about both the fragility and the value of this free world. And today, I basically see the tech giants as colossal enemies. Career-wise, henceforth I will avoid proprietary systems and dedi…

But do you think that free software can keep up against these giants? In the near future, it will all be about having large amounts of data, and processing power; it will be less and less about the actual algorithms. I'm afraid the only way out will be to rethink the economy.

Another way out is to divorce free "as in beer" from free "as in freedom" and start charging for freedom-enhancing software. Find an economic model that works.

Re: Google Home

#305

Post by hc07 »

chinathrow wrote: post #136
DarkContinent wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference between this product and 1984 is that we choose to install Google home into our places of residence for our own convenience. We are not forced into installing said software. That having been said, if Google chooses to release the data to the government, it has an obligation to tell us about that or it will be behaving unethically. As matters stand, however, this is just a new technology with pros and c…

> That having been said, if Google chooses to release the data to the government, it has an obligation to tell us about that or it will be behaving unethically. No, as far as I know that would be incorrect with NSLs in place. Gag order and such.

Every sensor can have a "canary" mode indicator. It bypasses NSL by claiming the negative: "Nope I have not been served by an NSL yet".

This has been successfully used by companies to indicate that "the canary has died" in a surveillance order.

Re: Google Home

#306

Post by dguaraglia »

detaro wrote: post #295
dguaraglia wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm amazed that people still feel this level of paranoia about stuff, when they have a clear option: do not use the product. Concerned about the privacy implication of Google Home? Don't get one. Don't like the fact that Apple Watch reads biometric data? Get a Casio watch. Don't like the fact that Facebook knows who your friends are? Go out more. The very fact that someone is watching the keynote and going "oh my Gaw…

Maybe I'm parsing your tone wrong, but what is so outlandish/surprising about people liking features but not the implications of them? (or often, of the way they are implemented, see every cloud vs local software discussion ever) E.g. cheald's comment above is pretty clear "I always wanted that, but I fear its implementation"

I think you parsed it correctly. My surprise is more about people watching a keynote fully knowing that most of the stuff announced will be ran by Google, and still being outraged about "the privacy implications." I'm not sure what they expected. A fully open source implementation with pre packaged Docker images so you can deploy your own cluster and petabytes of training data?

The truth about a lot of these services is they only work at the scale Google (or Amazon, or Facebook, etc.) run them. You'd spend thousands, if not millions, of dollars to get equivalent functionality, even if you got the software for free. I've basically had this argument every time someone helpfully suggests "Dropcam/Nestcam cameras should have an option to save data locally." You can have cheap, 100% private and efficient. Choose two.

Re: Google Home

#307

Post by chongli »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #249
reitanqild wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the near future, it will all be about having large amounts of data, and processing power; I don't think we are even close to the limits if what we can reach with standard desktop and server software.

I agree. The current trend of outsourcing everything to "the cloud" is partially fashion, partially laziness, and mostly dictated by business models - why do something the right way (from engineering point of view), when you can lock your users up in your own garden and extract rent (either directly, or by spamming them with ads and selling their data)? Our devices have incredible amount of computing power now - a gr…

The problem is that our devices are locked up behind NAT routers and IPv6 is starting to resemble fusion power in terms of its ETA.

The future of all of our devices having extremely fast connections existing in a world of amazing, free, peer-to-peer applications still seems so far away.

Re: Google Home

#308

Post by angryasian »

__jal wrote: post #176
angryasian wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lets stop this nonsense. They don't sell access to your personal information. There is nowhere that I can buy your personal information from google. What they sell is access to your attention. When advertising, I'm looking for people that match these characteristics, and what I'm purchasing is the possibility to show you an ad if you match certain criteria.

You are making a mighty fine distinction, one that sometimes makes no difference. You are also assuming that "access to attention" is perfectly firewalled from data, which it isn't. I know one person who is playing with what correlations can be made by getting people to click on google ads. I can't imagine he's the first. You are also assuming that Google's policy will never change, Google's assets will never end up…

the original commenter said they "sell personal data". Yes this is nonsense. Yes every company is susceptible to breaches and every company has the ability to change TOS in the future. Not to belittle you but the only way to protect yourself is to live completely off the grid. As to the person, correlations != direct persons personal data.

Re: Google Home

#309

Post by EGreg »

mbrock wrote: post #151
cheald wrote: post #19

When I was younger, I dreamed of something like this. Voice control for my home! A Star Trek computer that I can interact with conversationally! I just say what I want and it happens! Now, I just see an internet-connected microphone in a software black box which I can only interpret as a giant frickin' security liability. I want this, but unless it's open source top-to-bottom, I won't ever actually put one in my home…

The Free Software Foundation, in its texts, often uses the phrase "the free world" to mean the realm of computing without proprietary restrictions, surveillance, etc. Approximately since Snowden, I've become more and more convinced about both the fragility and the value of this free world. And today, I basically see the tech giants as colossal enemies. Career-wise, henceforth I will avoid proprietary systems and dedi…

Okay please see http://qbix.com/platform and - if you are interested - email me (my email is greg @ that domain)

Re: Google Home

#310

Post by EGreg »

amelius wrote: post #207
mbrock wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Free Software Foundation, in its texts, often uses the phrase "the free world" to mean the realm of computing without proprietary restrictions, surveillance, etc. Approximately since Snowden, I've become more and more convinced about both the fragility and the value of this free world. And today, I basically see the tech giants as colossal enemies. Career-wise, henceforth I will avoid proprietary systems and dedi…

But do you think that free software can keep up against these giants? In the near future, it will all be about having large amounts of data, and processing power; it will be less and less about the actual algorithms. I'm afraid the only way out will be to rethink the economy.

Large amounts of data can also be open sourced, and aggregated. What's large today will be average tomorrow.
Post reply on HN