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

Google chief: I'd disclose smart speakers before guests enter my home

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 573 posts

Re: Google chief: I'd disclose smart speakers before guests enter my home

#61

Post by Clubber »

nkrisc wrote: post #54
bilbo0s wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> corporations are just doing what they want while governments are asleep at the wheel. That assumes the governments aren't in on it. They probably want the data more than the corporations. I mean, you know, "security" and all.

The government itself doing the things these corporation do would generate loads of outrage. For whatever reason it's a lot more acceptable for a company to collect all this data so you can play music with your voice and then the government can secretly collect it all later if they wish.

Are you not aware of the Ed Snowden revelations? I mean the NSA is piped into all these corporate data streams.

Re: Google chief: I'd disclose smart speakers before guests enter my home

#62

Post by UserIsUnused »

LudwigNagasena wrote: post #2

>"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"?

>Ask forgiveness not permission. That's all that matters to big tech, that's what brings in the $$$

Re: Google chief: I'd disclose smart speakers before guests enter my home

#63

Post by mtgx »

LudwigNagasena wrote: post #2

>"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"?

This is why I've preached this for a long time:

It's not that regular users "don't care about privacy" as many are quick to conclude, but the vast majority simply don't understand.

If even big tech execs don't understand these issues, then how can regular people?

Re: Google chief: I'd disclose smart speakers before guests enter my home

#64

Post by SmellyGeekBoy »

DebtDeflation wrote: post #24
madez wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish it were socially accepted to tell people to turn their Android device off while they are in company. I wish I could tell people that visit me to turn their device off or put it into rf and sound shielded containers. I don't mind people using computers and their powers to ease their lives. I don't want to deny them that just because they are next to me or in my home. I just don't want them to use that power to…

>I just don't want them to use that power to collect and track and surveil everything at all times around them Unfortunately, the trend is to stick a camera and microphone (and compute/network stack) on every consumer device sold to you, including TVs and refrigerators. Not sure what the solution is, since the vendors can make a plausible argument for the convenience provided by voice control and additional features…

> Not sure what the solution is

A soldering iron?

Re: Google chief: I'd disclose smart speakers before guests enter my home

#65

Post by lqet »

Fnoord wrote: post #16

Google could have the device say that it records conversations the moment it detects an unknown voice. Google could even ask that unknown voice for consent.

Isn't the voice recognition done on Google's servers? How can Google record the voice, send it to its servers, decide that it is someone unknown and play the consent notification if the person has not already given consent?

Re: Google chief: I'd disclose smart speakers before guests enter my home

#66

Post by tagawa »

wowamit wrote: post #60
XJ6 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All "big tech" are at it, I tried to go to "My Pictures" the other day and microsoft asked me to run my pictures through facial recognition. They said that by consenting I was asserting I had the consent of anyone who appeared in any of my photos or might appear in future which is insane to ask of anyone, no-one can really give that third party consent. Then when I refused they showed me a nag screen which didn't hav…

I wonder why does Google need the web activity to be turned on for subscribing to the Podcasts? Is there any realistic reasoning for it?

I think this is the part hidden from view when companies claim they let users opt out of data collection. Yes you can opt out, but some (possibly unrelated) features won’t be available to you.

Re: Google chief: I'd disclose smart speakers before guests enter my home

#67

Post by wowamit »

tagawa wrote: post #66
wowamit wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder why does Google need the web activity to be turned on for subscribing to the Podcasts? Is there any realistic reasoning for it?

I think this is the part hidden from view when companies claim they let users opt out of data collection. Yes you can opt out, but some (possibly unrelated) features won’t be available to you.

Yes, but I think when they disable that feature, they must provide some justification that is believable right? I can't think of any for this.

Re: Google chief: I'd disclose smart speakers before guests enter my home

#68

Post by paganel »

bilbo0s wrote: post #50
wmeredith wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don’t care. They’re arguing in bad faith. It’s also called lying or being full of shit.

You're wrong. They are not arguing in bad faith, because they are not arguing with you at all. They are informing you of what their products do, and what the products should likely do in the future. Debate, or argument, implies, at minimum, a two way discussion. That's not what's been going on. And I'm not sure that a debate ever will happen? The only politically palatable people even concerned about their loss of pr…

> The only politically palatable people even concerned about their loss of privacy are a few activists and people in the tech industry.

Slightly related, but the only protest marches held in my European country when biometric personal identification documents were announced were held by overtly religious people, the type of people that believe staff like the 666 number and the end of times being near. Even though I'm not religious at all I joined them in one of their protests, and by looking around me there weren't that many lookalike programmers/tech people attending. Quite the contrary, most of the tech people I personally know are all in when it comes to stuff like this, they look at me as a retrograde when I mention privacy-related issues.

Re: Google chief: I'd disclose smart speakers before guests enter my home

#69

Post by Santosh83 »

A few short years ago it was incomprehensible, even in the west, to have what is essentially a permanently bugged house. Now it has been normalised to such an extent that even people who claim to be aware of privacy use Alexa et al at home in a striking display of dissonance. The general public at large has been sold such attractive shiny toys that they don't realise that the price they pay for using them is to unconsciously disabuse themselves of any notion of assuming privacy, even in your private space and activities. This training has been so effective that they will actually defend these practices and claim that you're a 'tin foil hat wearer' and paranoid to be speaking up for reclaiming what was normal and natural as short as two generations back.
Post reply on HN