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

41–50 of 291 posts

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

#41

Post by cbg0 »

est31 wrote: post #25

Oh wow, this is amazing. There's been a lawsuit in court about someone in Germany who sued their landlord because the landlord has put a Google Nest fire alarm into their flat against their will, ignoring offers by the renter to put in a non-google-non-iot fire alarm at the renter's expense. The landlord won because apparently the court was not convinced that the fire alarm could spy on conversations [1]... What woul…

> What would have happened if Google had secretly put a microphone into their fire alarms as well, not just their home security system?

You could have found it by dismantling the device and the renter would have won their case against the landlord.

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

#42

Post by wpearse »

fyfy18 wrote: post #8
craftyguy wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of all places to 'spy' on folks, on a cramped airplane seems like the worst. Most people will be 1) asleep, 2) pissed off, 3) eating shitty food, 4) watching bad movies. It's likely that they decided to shove in some cheap android tablets that someone else sold them. It's unlikely that they are actively watching everyone, though the possibility of them switching on the camera to watch/record you shifting in your seat…

For security a lot of (most?) new aircraft have Cabin Video Monitoring Systems (CVMS). Depending on where you are seated they may be able to see everything you do or just your head. An aircraft shouldn't be considered a private place, as you are probably already being watched. In 2008 a study was carried out that attempted to use facial recognition to identify passengers for signs of terrorist activity [0], so maybe…

Noticed these on an Emirates A380 recently. Cameras in the ceiling at the front of each seating section.

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

#43

Post by coldtea »

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…

>- 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

How about both 1. and 2.? Google wants to spy (for ad context etc) with a mic that will be enabled in due time?

And why move the Overton window to "it's ok to have hidden mics in a bloody thermostat, as long as they're not enabled"?

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

#44

Post by wpearse »

craftyguy wrote: post #3
wpearse wrote: post #2

I wonder if Singapore Airlines has something new to say about the cameras in their IFE system? https://twitter.com/vkamluk/status/1097008518685573120

Of all places to 'spy' on folks, on a cramped airplane seems like the worst. Most people will be 1) asleep, 2) pissed off, 3) eating shitty food, 4) watching bad movies. It's likely that they decided to shove in some cheap android tablets that someone else sold them. It's unlikely that they are actively watching everyone, though the possibility of them switching on the camera to watch/record you shifting in your seat…

At some point someone at SIA would have thought about covering up the cameras (surely?), I imagine it would have been:

1. Accept the OEM design (cameras uncovered) but possibly have to deal with people not liking a camera shoved in their face (camera active or inactive)

2. Modify the OEM design (cover the camera, costing money) and nobody even knows that there was a camera there in the first place

So I'm curious as to why they chose #1. A pure cost-saving exercise? Reserving use of the cameras at a later time? Didn't have the option of modifying the design? Didn't think people would mind the thought of being filmed?

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

#45

Post by itronitron »

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…

option 3 >> Tech companies get special treatment from governments when they include potential surveillance capabilities that are 'disabled for general use'.

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

#46

Post by TeMPOraL »

sl1ck731 wrote: post #34
dnbgfher wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For Google, I'm not sure how option 2 is supposed to be acceptable either. It is perfectly reasonable to be concerned about introducing an internet-connected microphone into your house. It doesn't even require assuming a malicious Google to see potential problems with this. You're one decent security flaw (in an IoT device no less) from anybody having a microphone in your house.

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 it out. Such is the pathology of turning products into services. It's a sick market dynamic.)

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

#47

Post by skookumchuck »

est31 wrote: post #30
dnbgfher wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For Google, I'm not sure how option 2 is supposed to be acceptable either. It is perfectly reasonable to be concerned about introducing an internet-connected microphone into your house. It doesn't even require assuming a malicious Google to see potential problems with this. You're one decent security flaw (in an IoT device no less) from anybody having a microphone in your house.

> You're one decent security flaw (in an IoT device no less) from anybody having a microphone in your house. Many people already have Android smartphones, so there is already a Google microphone in your house. The big difference is that you know that it has a microphone.

The smartphone requires a battery, which drains away noticeably if it is sending all your conversations. The Nest is connected to the house power, so it can stream audio non-stop.

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

#48

Post by baxtr »

est31 wrote: post #30
dnbgfher wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For Google, I'm not sure how option 2 is supposed to be acceptable either. It is perfectly reasonable to be concerned about introducing an internet-connected microphone into your house. It doesn't even require assuming a malicious Google to see potential problems with this. You're one decent security flaw (in an IoT device no less) from anybody having a microphone in your house.

> You're one decent security flaw (in an IoT device no less) from anybody having a microphone in your house. Many people already have Android smartphones, so there is already a Google microphone in your house. The big difference is that you know that it has a microphone.

Which of course makes a big difference. We are all adults. We can weight pros and cons and then make an informed decision. Not so if we don’t know all the details. This is what you’re betting on when leaving “details” like this out.

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

#50

Post by benbristow »

coldtea wrote: post #43
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…

> - 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 How about both 1. and 2.? Google wants to spy (for ad context etc) with a mic that will be enabled in due time? And why move the Overton window to "it's ok to have hidden mics in a bloody thermostat, as long as they're not enabled"?

That's getting close to conspiracy territory
Post reply on HN