4 ms·

> They could do the same thing to your computer or phone or even any speaker you have... Absolutely. That's why I don't really let stuff auto-update, use as mu

> They could do the same thing to your computer or phone or even any speaker you have... Absolutely. That's why I don't really let stuff auto-update, use as much FOSS stuff as I can, etc. Just because someone can push a malicious update to $product_a doesn't mean we should ignore the fact that they can do it to $product_b. I fail to see the logic here. > Why don't we freak out that Chrome could be listening to all our audio? I do. And that's why I don't use Chrome. Just because you don't seem to be worried doesn't mean other people don't worry about it. > ...it would be pretty obvious if these changes were made, especially on a wide-ranging basis... Maybe, but I'm not worried just about wide-ranging basis, but a narrow-ranging basis as well.

Eridrus 10y ago
> I fail to see the logic here. Most people are not concerned about Chrome, iOS or Android auto-updating; I'm sure you can see that you're an outlier here. FOSS software might not have automatic updates, but if you do any sort of update where you don't verify the blob you got is the same one as everyone else you have exactly the same problem. I largely expect that unless you get super paranoid about this (and hey, we're on HN, so that's a possibility), you're not really going to stop a sophisticated government adversary. And at the point where you're on a specifically targeted list, they will probably not limit themselves to the digital world. I also think that expecting this level of privacy where the government cannot figure out what you're doing is a historical anomaly; most people who avoided telephones because the government could be listening are generally considered crazy people. Does the government target people in a violation of their civil rights? Yes, but you probably know if you're doing something the government doesn't like, and it does not seem sensible to argue that people should become experts in technology and then give up a lot of benefits to avoid a risk that is not real for them.
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  > Most people are not concerned about Chrome, iOS or Android auto-updating; I'm sure you can see that you're an outlier here. Sure, but I don't see how that invalidates my point. Some people are concerned about privacy, some people aren't. That doesn't mean the original software couldn't be updated with malicious code. > FOSS software might not have automatic updates, but if you do any sort of update where you don't verify the blob you got is the same one as everyone else you have exactly the same problem. I'd disagree. Having the ability to verify it has kept a lot of people from pushing a lot of bad code because they know they could be caught. > you're not really going to stop a sophisticated government adversary. I'd agree, but just because I can't really stop someone from breaking into my house doesn't mean I'm OK with putting a key under my doormatt. > I also think that expecting this level of privacy where the government cannot figure out what you're doing is a historical anomaly There's a huge difference between being able to figure out, and recording everything for later use. > most people who avoided telephones because the government could be listening are generally considered crazy people. lolno. Movies have often had a trope about talking in person because "someone could be listening" for a long time. Audiences understand this quite well and go along with the story. And it doesn't have to be the government. When party-lines were common, people knew you had to be careful, or the town gossip could get all the juicy details. The Public has long known that someone could be listening. The difference now is that a lot of actors are trying to always be listening. > it does not seem sensible to argue that people should become experts in technology and then give up a lot of benefits to avoid a risk that is not real for them. I'm not really sure where I said that. If I did, I'd like you to point it out. I just think people should be able to educate themselves and decide for themselves if that trade-off is worth it. I'm not saying people shouldn't make the tradeoff, but pretending that "It's OK, the Echo could never be used maliciously because some guy on HN said he wrote the software and it doesn't do that" is naive at best.

Eridrus 10y ago

> I fail to see the logic here. Most people are not concerned about Chrome, iOS or Android auto-updating; I'm sure you can see that you're an outlier here. FOSS software might not have automatic updates, but if you do any sort of update where you don't verify the blob you got is the same one as everyone else you have exactly the same problem. I largely expect that unless you get super paranoid about this (and hey, we're on HN, so that's a possibility), you're not really going to stop a sophisticated government adversary. And at the point where you're on a specifically targeted list, they will probably not limit themselves to the digital world. I also think that expecting this level of privacy where the government cannot figure out what you're doing is a historical anomaly; most people who avoided telephones because the government could be listening are generally considered crazy people. Does the government target people in a violation of their civil rights? Yes, but you probably know if you're doing something the government doesn't like, and it does not seem sensible to argue that people should become experts in technology and then give up a lot of benefits to avoid a risk that is not real for them.

CaptSpify 10y ago
> Most people are not concerned about Chrome, iOS or Android auto-updating; I'm sure you can see that you're an outlier here. Sure, but I don't see how that invalidates my point. Some people are concerned about privacy, some people aren't. That doesn't mean the original software couldn't be updated with malicious code. > FOSS software might not have automatic updates, but if you do any sort of update where you don't verify the blob you got is the same one as everyone else you have exactly the same problem. I'd disagree. Having the ability to verify it has kept a lot of people from pushing a lot of bad code because they know they could be caught. > you're not really going to stop a sophisticated government adversary. I'd agree, but just because I can't really stop someone from breaking into my house doesn't mean I'm OK with putting a key under my doormatt. > I also think that expecting this level of privacy where the government cannot figure out what you're doing is a historical anomaly There's a huge difference between being able to figure out, and recording everything for later use. > most people who avoided telephones because the government could be listening are generally considered crazy people. lolno. Movies have often had a trope about talking in person because "someone could be listening" for a long time. Audiences understand this quite well and go along with the story. And it doesn't have to be the government. When party-lines were common, people knew you had to be careful, or the town gossip could get all the juicy details. The Public has long known that someone could be listening. The difference now is that a lot of actors are trying to always be listening. > it does not seem sensible to argue that people should become experts in technology and then give up a lot of benefits to avoid a risk that is not real for them. I'm not really sure where I said that. If I did, I'd like you to point it out. I just think people should be able to educate themselves and decide for themselves if that trade-off is worth it. I'm not saying people shouldn't make the tradeoff, but pretending that "It's OK, the Echo could never be used maliciously because some guy on HN said he wrote the software and it doesn't do that" is naive at best.