6 ms·

At this point I assume they have a warrant, so I don't understand what the problem is. People should assume their devices can and will be used against them. A

by dade_ 10y ago

At this point I assume they have a warrant, so I don't understand what the problem is. People should assume their devices can and will be used against them. A much more tricky conversation is when a friend of mine discovered that fragments of his a session with his psychologist recorded by his Android Wear watch.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
shostack 10y ago
Can you share more details? How did they discover it?
- npongratz 10y ago
  Not OP, but I'd guess through Google's Voice & Audio Activity page [0]. Mine happens to be littered with expletives directed at Google, from self-psychotherapy when my pocket computer false-positives my voice, or most surprisingly and infuriatingly, silence. [0] https://myactivity.google.com/myactivity?utm_source=help&restrict=vaa https://myactivity.google.com/myactivity?utm_source=help&res...
- dade_ 10y ago
  I don't have Android Wear. But as he explained it he went to the Google personal data page that shows you the data they've collected on you and said there were audio recordings and transcripts with words and phrases that seemed odd but then he realized where he said them.
njharman 10y ago
> people should assume What I assume is that the bill of rights will not be subverted just because I use technology. The right to not be subject to search and right to not self incrimate.
- dade_ 10y ago
  It's a nice sentiment and sounds like a good legal argument. However, your constitution doesn't do me any good and doesn't help you with foreign states. Five Eyes has been a legal work around for years so keep fighting the good fight, but in the meantime I will keep expecting the best and assuming the worst.
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  > What I assume is that the bill of rights will not be subverted just because I use technology Given all of the revelations in the past few years, I'd consider that dangerously naive. Sure, the BoR should settle the argument, but it has notoriously been ignored.

by dade_ 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

shostack 10y ago

Can you share more details? How did they discover it?

npongratz 10y ago
Not OP, but I'd guess through Google's Voice & Audio Activity page [0]. Mine happens to be littered with expletives directed at Google, from self-psychotherapy when my pocket computer false-positives my voice, or most surprisingly and infuriatingly, silence. [0] https://myactivity.google.com/myactivity?utm_source=help&restrict=vaa https://myactivity.google.com/myactivity?utm_source=help&res...
dade_ 10y ago
I don't have Android Wear. But as he explained it he went to the Google personal data page that shows you the data they've collected on you and said there were audio recordings and transcripts with words and phrases that seemed odd but then he realized where he said them.

njharman 10y ago

> people should assume What I assume is that the bill of rights will not be subverted just because I use technology. The right to not be subject to search and right to not self incrimate.

dade_ 10y ago
It's a nice sentiment and sounds like a good legal argument. However, your constitution doesn't do me any good and doesn't help you with foreign states. Five Eyes has been a legal work around for years so keep fighting the good fight, but in the meantime I will keep expecting the best and assuming the worst.
CaptSpify 10y ago
> What I assume is that the bill of rights will not be subverted just because I use technology Given all of the revelations in the past few years, I'd consider that dangerously naive. Sure, the BoR should settle the argument, but it has notoriously been ignored.