3 ms·

I'm not saying I'm comfortable with this either way, but I do see a difference between recording a conversation with the intent to keep that recording and extra

by jo909 11y ago

I'm not saying I'm comfortable with this either way, but I do see a difference between recording a conversation with the intent to keep that recording and extract the spoken content, and processing the audio "on the fly" for certain parameters to identify a limited set of things. Of course the problem is you can't control or check which of the two was done with the audio that got uploaded, and that is the scary part and reason enough not to allow anyone to record audio. But you can't just claim that facebook does in fact "listen" to your _conversation_ in any way we would understand as listening.

forgetsusername 11y ago
The problem is that the choice as to whether they actually "listen" to my uploaded processed audio is up to them, not me. At this point the only assurance is "we don't listen."
- jo909 11y ago
  At the end it comes down to trust, laws and maybe occams razor. We can't personally check what exactly they do with our data (not limited to this particular feature), so either we trust in what facebook assures us, or trust that they follow laws that only allow certain usage, or at least assume that there is no orchestrated plot to record me farting on the sofa and that they really only do what they claim to do because that is the simplest explanation. That can change if someone has hints or factual proof that they don't. So far I have only seen asumptions that were not in any way connected to any objective argument or fact. Of course we can reason about why keeping as much information private as possible is a good idea, how users need to be in control of their data etc, and I agree with all of that stuff. I'm not a fan of facebook at all. For me opening facebook is a horrible experience filled with content I don't care about. And of course privacy is always an issue. But I can't see what is gained by making unfounded statemets that in essence claim "facebook is lying, of course they record our conversation".

by jo909 11y ago

forgetsusername 11y ago

The problem is that the choice as to whether they actually "listen" to my uploaded processed audio is up to them, not me. At this point the only assurance is "we don't listen."

jo909 11y ago
At the end it comes down to trust, laws and maybe occams razor. We can't personally check what exactly they do with our data (not limited to this particular feature), so either we trust in what facebook assures us, or trust that they follow laws that only allow certain usage, or at least assume that there is no orchestrated plot to record me farting on the sofa and that they really only do what they claim to do because that is the simplest explanation. That can change if someone has hints or factual proof that they don't. So far I have only seen asumptions that were not in any way connected to any objective argument or fact. Of course we can reason about why keeping as much information private as possible is a good idea, how users need to be in control of their data etc, and I agree with all of that stuff. I'm not a fan of facebook at all. For me opening facebook is a horrible experience filled with content I don't care about. And of course privacy is always an issue. But I can't see what is gained by making unfounded statemets that in essence claim "facebook is lying, of course they record our conversation".