10 ms·
Burger King TV Ad Asks, Hoping Google Home Devices Answer
- ffef 9y agoGreat now I need an ad blocker for my google home device
- derekp7 9y agoWhat's needed is an array of microphones on these devices, so they can reject anything (using triangulation) coming from the TV.
- oh_sigh 9y agoOr from any human standing in front of the TV. A better system would be for advertisers or shows to embed an ultrasonic signal in their shows which say the magic words, which google home/alexa watch out for. Of course, that would only prevent unintentional triggerings, so it wouldn't help in the circumstance where the tv show/advertiser actively wants to annoy you.
- cestith 9y agoThen you're depending on the cheap 2w speaker built into the TV to reliably and accurately produce a 20 KHz signal.
- woodrowbarlow 9y agoor voice registration and recognition, like siri.
- Retric 9y agoOr just change the default wake up command.
- confounded 9y agoThe output of your device is owned and operated by an advertising company; you need an ad-blocker for your ears and/or mind.
- sergiotapia 9y agoThe aids that is the advertising world keeps trying to infect your home! Crickey! We can prevent this! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJg02ivYzSs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJg02ivYzSs
- Millennium 9y agoTo be perfectly honest, pointing people's smart home devices at a page that anyone can edit with a few mouseclicks does not strike me as a very smart PR move. This will not end well.
- awirth 9y agoYep, seems like this was a problem. It's semi-protected now, but not after a bit of a back and forth vandalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whopper&offset=20170501000000&limit=100&action=history&tagfilter= https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whopper&offset=20... Note that the edit in question stood (with a small edit to s/mayo/mayonnaise/ and remove some WP:PEACOCK language) for about a week. There's also some interesting discussion on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Whopper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Whopper
- ZainRiz 9y agoSmart move. But this is something that is only cool for the first few attempts, after that it'll get really annoying really fast. Good foresight by Burger King to jump on this before anyone else. But I hope everyone stops doing this really soon too.
- TylerE 9y agoYour tolerance for douchebaggery is much higher than mine if you think this is cool even the first "attempt".
- exclusiv 9y agoI don't think it's a smart move by BK, but it's pretty cool from a marketing hack perspective.
- GrinningFool 9y agoIt's not even original - people have been doing this independently since the services came out, and I'm pretty sure there were some adverts accidentally-not-accidentally tripping the behavior just a couple of months ago. It was bone-headed. The best they could hope for was to vaguely amuse someone the first time the ad came up. But what about the second , third, or tenth time?
- jsz0 9y agoIt's potentially a lot worse for Amazon/Google than it is for Burger King. I bet a lot of people will reconsider purchasing these devices based on just this one incident. Most people might not react as strongly but if this happened to me I'd immediately unplug the device and throw it away. Actually I might just go ahead and smash it to bits too. Just thinking about the possibility of it happening makes me quite angry.
- devoply 9y agoCringe. You are going to take a bunch of technical users and hijack their device to read a Wikipedia entry. Yeah that's really cool. Honestly, yeah it's a cool idea, but total garbage execution. No one wants you to read the Wikipedia entry on what a whopper is... absolutely no one.
- gooseus 9y agoAre you serious? Oh, to be a fly on the wall of the conference room where these things are pitched and discussed... > “We think about our guests’ perception and their perspective on how we interact with them, but on balance we felt this was a really positive way to connect with them.” Perhaps I'm too cynical or jaded by the trends in the evolving relationships between individuals, communities, businesses and our shared technology, but I see way too much negative in this type of connection. The only positive aspect to this is that Google/Amazon/Whoever must now find a way for users to create their own audio triggers for their devices in order to protect them from this type of invasive BS or else we need to go through the lengthy and expensive process of defining and legislating the relationship between users and their AI such that activating and using another person's AI is illegal... or is it even your AI to begin with? Thanks for the philosophical/legal quandary Burger King, but as I've always personally maintained, fuck you.
- beojan 9y agoI'm not sure the sort of person who's OK with an always-listening device in their home would find this particularly invasive.
- chc 9y agoI am and I would. I don't care if a computer is passively listening for a prompt — the computer has no consciousness and it doesn't do anything I'd even notice. I do care if somebody is trying to make my device do something without my OK.
- recursive 9y agoIf you are relying on good will and the spirit of co-operation to ensure that everything that makes sound is OK, you're going to have a bad day.
- zepto 9y agoNobody is talking about conscious computers here. The issue is recorded conversions from your home being made available to the government: https://www.inc.com/joseph-steinberg/amazon-alexa-recordings-requested-by-police-in-murder-case.html https://www.inc.com/joseph-steinberg/amazon-alexa-recordings...
- nepthar 9y agoWhen someone shows me their new Alexa or Google Home, I ask it to add ingredients to make thermite in to its shopping cart. Then I ask it to look up flights to Syria.
- RKearney 9y agoWhat are you trying to accomplish by doing this? The audio of your voice is saved along with these requests, making it extremely easy to tell them apart from typical requests of the device owner.
- true_religion 9y agoDo you think the SWAT team cares if it is the owner who is a terrorist or the owner "associate"?
- rl3 9y agoTheir door only gets kicked in if the intelligence analyst or counterterrorism agent reviewing the material isn't able to tell it's an obvious joke, which I find unlikely.
- TeMPOraL 9y agoThey might have a quota to fill.
- vkou 9y agoHere's an old Soviet joke for you: "Comrade Stalin, I heard you collect political jokes." "Yes, I do, comrade." "How many have you collected?" "Three and a half labour camps' worth." If you want an uninteresting life, expect that the police have no sense of humour.
- neaden 9y agoGreat way to have more time to spend reading at home I suppose.
- 9y ago
- crowbahr 9y agoJust another reason not to watch cable I guess. I can't believe that those ad execs really believe that people want intrusions like that. That they'd want the TV to hack their Home into advertising to them. That's just bullshit. Google should change the autoresponse for burger king. "Hey Google what is a whopper?" "A whopper is a tall tale which clever executives want to sell you but really tastes of cardboard"
- piratebroadcast 9y ago"I can't believe that those ad execs really believe that people want intrusions like that." They know that they don't. I am starting to believe that these companies do shitty things on purpose (Looking at that Pepsi ad with the Kardashian girl) knowing full well the amount of outrage and free publicity it will get.
- lancefisher 9y agoNever attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence.
- alphapapa 9y agoNever reason based on meaningless aphorisms. This particular one leaves you completely vulnerable to trivial deception. Want to get away with something evil? Just pretend to be dumb, make it look like you don't know what you're doing, then people on the Internet will defend you as "merely incompetent, not evil." Besides, did you even read the article? Burger King is doing this on purpose! Says so in the first paragraphs!
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- hiddencost 9y agoI mean, I hear you, but TBH I've seen slide decks from the planning of some fairly public failures like this one and ... marketing people at huge companies do not come from the general population.
- mrbill 9y agoGoogle has already disabled this from responding on the server side.
- smhenderson 9y agoSource? Or are you just implying that they will quickly? I don't doubt you mind you, just genuinely curious what Google has to say about this. A quick search just turned up similar articles to the post with a statement that Google had nothing to do with ad and declined to comment.
- LeoPanthera 9y agoIt recognizes the ad now and doesn't respond to it. http://www.theverge.com/2017/4/12/15277278/google-home-burger-king-whopper-ad-campaign http://www.theverge.com/2017/4/12/15277278/google-home-burge...
- smhenderson 9y agoThanks. Wow, just under three hours. Wonder how that ranks among the shortest ad campaigns ever?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- inerte 9y agoMine just responded when I watched the video from the article.
- siliconc0w 9y agoI think this is technically a violation of the CFAA right?
- crowbahr 9y agoI'm sure BK lawyers would argue that by having the TV running you're giving them write only audio access to the house.
- RKearney 9y agoBut not authorized access to interact with the Google Home networked computer device. If it were that easy, that same lawyer could argue that because you operate a public HTTP server, any "attacks" on it are simply using the implicit permission you provided by exposing port 80/443 to the internet and operating a public service on it.
- pbhjpbhj 9y agoAnd hopefully any court would treat that argument with the contempt it deserves. By having burgers on the shelf in their burger-joint BK are giving me implicit permission to take them for free. They let me in the door after all. /s
- temp-dude-87844 9y agoNot really. A criminal offense would only apply if the smart device can be construed as a 'protected computer' involved in interstate commerce; a civil complaint is only possible if the plaintiff suffers one or more of an enumerated list of 'loss' [1], neither of which appears to be a good fit for the interaction without a serious stretch. [1] https://ilt.eff.org/index.php/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act_(CFAA) https://ilt.eff.org/index.php/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act_(...
- vkou 9y agoThese devices absolutely engage in interstate commerce.
- empath75 9y agoThat would infuriate me. And I wouldn't buy a whopper after wards for sure.
- breakingcups 9y agoIsn't this technically an unauthorized use of my device?
- differentView 9y agoDoesn't freedom of speech trump that?
- jlgaddis 9y agoI don't necessarily agree with this argument but... it seems that by intentionally purchasing and installing in your home a device explicitly designed to respond upon hearing the phrase "OK, Google, ..." one could argue that you have authorized it to do exactly that. Perhaps you didn't intend or expect it to be co-opted by a Burger King commercial, but "unauthorized use" (in the legal sense) might be a bit of a stretch.
- cestith 9y agoI buy lots of gadgets that take input. That doesn't mean any time someone else is in the same room they have the legal right to activate them and tell them what to do. Audio, mouse, keyboard, touchscreen, digitizer, light pen, or SSH session makes no difference. Aaron Swartz certainly didn't break into anything. He just used a system he had authentication to in an unauthorized manner.
- stordoff 9y agoIMO, that sounds very similar to arguing the following, which, if I understand it correctly, is not an argument that has been successful in the past (see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weev https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weev which incidentally I found by guessing the URL...). > it seems that by intentionally [making available a server on the Internet] a device explicitly designed to respond upon [receiving the request] "[GET <URL>]" one could argue that you have authorized it to do exactly that. FWIW, I'm not convinced that should constitute unauthorised access. I do think the Burger King case is slightly different though - no "OK, Google" commands would be likely expected from a remote third-party, whereas third-parties are authorised to make _some_ GET requests. If anything, I'd say that makes it more likely to be considered an unauthorised use.
- joezydeco 9y agoWhat if you're the company with the ad after this one? Now the GHome is stomping over that audio with Wikipedia speech? What if it's the last ad before the show resumes?
- recursive 9y agoI assume that's a rhetorical question. But in case not, then the GDevice will talk over those things. If they really wanted to be safe, those other things could start by saying "OK google, stop talking" or something.
- anxrn 9y agoA similar (unintentional) stunt: https://qz.com/880541/amazons-amzn-alexa-accidentally-ordered-a-ton-of-dollhouses-across-san-diego/ https://qz.com/880541/amazons-amzn-alexa-accidentally-ordere...
- yock 9y agoCould this sort of thing be Google bombed?
- snickerbockers 9y agoGood, maybe this will cause people to reconsider these stupid personal-assistant devices.
- StringyBob 9y agoDo these people have no idea how much they are annoying their own customers? I just bought a google home (it's only just been released here), and if it either plays me adverts, or other adverts (ab)use it - I will return it to the store without hesitation. This was not sold as an ad-supported service. To take an extreme position - Google should take Burger King to court via the computer fraud and abuse act - they've just performed a distributed denial of service attack on google's servers by using thousands of peoples google devices simultaneously without their permission. Also - this is a key reason why google need to spend some time on supporting custom hot words for google home. 'OK google' and 'Alexa' are the audio equivalent of IoT devices with a default 'username:admin, password:password' on your network.
- hughw 9y ago> Google should take Burger King to court via the computer fraud and abuse act It certainly is unauthorized use of a computer... not a stretch at all.
- uniformlyrandom 9y agoone would argue that when you voluntarily install a device that listens to unauthenticated verbal requests, you pretty much consent to everything. In other words, people who buy alexa and ghome do not get to complain about unauthorized use, or privacy for that matter.
- Spivak 9y agoUnauthenticated != Authorized And for that matter Authenticated != Authorized Whether you can do something is orthogonal to whether you're allowed to do it.
- bfred_it 9y agoCorrect. Example: this user logged into my service. Let's try to log into gmail with the same password. It worked. I'm authenticated, but not authorized.
- sersi 9y agoNow the next step is for rogue editors to edit Wikipedia and write critical informations about Burger King in the Wikipedia entry.. Joking apart, I would be infuriated if I had such a device and saw that spot but then again, I don't have those devices because they feel like a violation of my private space.
- amluto 9y agoHow is this not a felony under the CFAA?
- recursive 9y agoI'm not really a lawyer, but you could try to figure it out by reading this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act
- rajathagasthya 9y agoWhy don't Alexa or Google Home respond to only your voice and the voices of your family members? It seems like a fairly straightforward fix to prevent TVs or other audio sources triggering a response.
- squarefoot 9y ago100% off topic, but someone had to post this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt9zSfinwFA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt9zSfinwFA
- squarefoot 9y agoto whomever dislikes my post, you may not like the video (it's irony, baby) but so called "vertical videos" are a plague that infects TV news as well when they air videos contributed by various people. If you have a better way to remember people how wrong and stupid is that way of handling the cellphone when filming, then I'm open to suggestion.
- mindcrime 9y agoFFS... this is one of the rare occasions I'm almost ashamed to be a technologist. Creating cool new technology, only for it to lead to this kind of bullshit, is kind of disgusting. :-( Seriously, who the hell thought this was a good idea?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- itchyjunk 9y agoLot of people are already bringing up various concerns. I hope this is precisely what it does here in HN and outside. Talk about concerns regarding about these devices. Is there anyway for end user to know what "wake up" keywords are? How do I know it's not listening for keywords like "buy" (example: "You should `buy` milk") and then targeting adds that way? What happens next time FBI decides it wants google (et. all) to leave its device "always awake" on some person of interest ? Can a third party somehow compromise the security to change the list of "wake up" word? Maybe you can add voice recognition along with keyword to make sure it's only responding to authorized people. But even then, seeing how far machine learning has come, is it really a security? On a side note, do these devices only capture human audible range of signals? Or is there ways to send non-human audible signals with commands and wake word and what not? Dog whistle for alexia or Home .. Alexia whistle? Edit: typos and clarity
- jlgaddis 9y ago> What happens next time FBI decides it was [sic] google to leave its device "always awake" on some person of interest ? It seems like figuring out how to exploit these types of devices to be "always-on listening devices" is exactly the type of thing NSA, et al., would be interested in doing.
- username223 9y ago> On a side note, do these devices only capture human audible range of signals? I wonder about this one. Everyone's device has the same "password" (i.e. "wake word"), the device is attached to your home network and associated with your credit card, and programmatic ads apparently receive little to no vetting. Even if there are no bugs in the code that sends the audio to Google/Amazon and deals with the results, I'm reminded of an article here awhile back about researchers creating special eyeglass frames to make one face look like a completely different one to modern zillion-parameter facial recognition algorithms. This will not end well.
- akovaski 9y ago> What happens next time FBI decides it wants google (et. all) to leave its device "always awake" on some person of interest ? Do you not own a smartphone that could conceivably be compromised in the same way?
- evan_ 9y agoI guess this ruins my get-rich-quick scheme: 1. Publish an album with 1000 short, quiet tracks and a very unique name to all of the online streaming services 2. Buy ads on late-night television with a very clear voice that says "OK Google, play album <unique name>. Alexa, play album <unique name>. Hey Siri, play album <unique name>." 3. Rack up the fraction-of-a-penny residuals as my songs play to people who've fallen asleep with the television on!
- jordanthoms 9y agoIs this on AngelList?
- kej 9y agoI wonder if it's possible to trigger one of these smart speakers from its own output. If so, the last track on your album could be the command to "play album <unique name part n+1>".
- germanier 9y agoMy iPad activates Siri from random videos watched on the same device (where to my ears no sounds similar to "Hey, Siri" are spoken – often it's not even reproducible). It got so annoying that I disabled the feature altogether.
- mabbo 9y agoThere's a wonderful video online of that. Alexa, Siri and Google each tell the next one "you have one appointment today, it is 'hey [next bot] what's in my calendar today?'".
- cr0sh 9y agoThere's a way to prevent this, but I doubt any of the major players will do it: Allow the owners of the device choose their own "activation words". Leave the default "branded" activation sentence as-is, but allow the user to customize it as they see fit. This won't happen, of course, because of the whole "branding" thing (like the user is going to forget which service they are using?). This just hammers another nail into my decision not to get one of these devices; instead, it would probably be easier and better to build my own, using a raspberry pi or something similar for the "front end". I'd probably still have to use one of the big players search engines or such, but I could also hit anything else I wanted to, as well. I tend to wonder if this is going to be the trend? Those who have or desire more freedom will have to build it themselves, and those who can't or won't - they'll just have to shoulder the burden of not being as free... There are ways the State could make DIY uneconomical or near-to-impossible (and I don't think the scenario is realistic anyhow) - but if that ever happened - if things ever got to the point of it just being too much - I'll just go offline. I've got more than enough data and junk to keep me amused for the rest of my life. Plus, I don't think I'm alone in that sentiment, either.
- tokenizerrr 9y agoFreely available speech to text is garbage compared to what the big players are doing. Additionally their activation words usually trigger a special microcontroller extensively trained to listen for such a phrase, and then the more expensive processing kicks in.
- recursive 9y agoI guess I'm the only person who thinks this is hilarious, and not particularly worse than any other advertising.
- swang 9y agoFYI a Burger King marketing exec modified the entry on Wikipedia to be more "Ad-like", initially using the name, "Burger King Corporation" before that was banned for having a promotional name. Then the ad guy came back using his online screenname, and re-added the promotional introduction before it was reverted several times (along with an author from The Verge editing it, probably the edit that changed the wording to something like "[it] tastes like cyanide", but can't be too sure) It was then astroturfed by some pro-Burger King sockpuppets (unsure of this but their changes all switch to the wording that the Burger King ad guy used), before finally being locked for disruptive editing. Furthermore, the Wikipedia article itself now has a section about the attempted astroturfing by Burger King, and another Wikipedia user came back in and cited NPOV problems with the _original_ pre-ad wording (e.g. usage of the word "signature") so now the wording in the article is even more generic and less favorable to the Whopper than when it first started.
- tempestn 9y agoBurger King needs to look at Wendy's to see how to win at marketing: http://fortune.com/2017/04/11/wendys-chicken-nuggets-teen-twitter/ http://fortune.com/2017/04/11/wendys-chicken-nuggets-teen-tw... http://www.boredpanda.com/funny-wendy-jokes/ http://www.boredpanda.com/funny-wendy-jokes/ (Although in reality I expect if another company tried to pull this off, it'd backfire horribly.)
- fgandiya 9y agoThis is my favorite one from Wendy's so far https://twitter.com/Wendys/status/852023711771238402 https://twitter.com/Wendys/status/852023711771238402
- orbitingpluto 9y agoThe new Rickrolling. "OK Google. Sell all Burger King stock."
- mmagin 9y agoWhat would be great is if this put a serious dent in people's excitement about creepy always-listening internet-connected devices. Instead, I predict it will result in some new FCC rules about broadcast advertising.
- return0 9y agoWhy dont they just go ahead and ask google to order a burger, saves the trouble.
- nikkwong 9y agoI can't imagine this working well. What about the consumers that don't have a Google Now device? I imagine that it's most of them. "Ok Google, what's in a Whopper?" Silence, and commercial ends. Sounds kind of awkward and maybe downright confusing to some.
- orionblastar 9y agoAll the more to password protect your Google Home Device, Alexa, Siri etc AI assistants. I remember someone had their daughter use the Alexa device and ordered a doll house and cookies from Amazon. http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/05/health/amazon-alexa-dollhouse-trnd/ http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/05/health/amazon-alexa-dollhouse-...
- gremlinsinc 9y agoEasy fix for google/alexa-- MAKE people name their 'assistants', when everyone answers to a different name we can simply say hey joe what's the weather -- sure sometimes TV might influence it, but most likely not, that and add voice recognition (surprised it doesn't already have that actually) Edit: I'd personally rather give my assistant a name I pick, than keep saying 'OK google'.
- kyork 9y agoI don't think the trigger words can work that way. They have have to be 3 or so syllables and have to be pretty unique to limit false positives.
- kalefranz 9y agoThis will probably only work once. Good for Burger King for thinking of it first, and getting all of the extra free publicity for it. Now any future stunts by other companies will just piss people off without the novelty upside.
- njharman 9y agoIt's not like I've eaten at BK in last 40 years. But this is the kind of thing that pushes a company into my "never do business with them ever" category. Currently only Comcast and AT&T have that distinction.
- khedoros1 9y agoI think it's clever and kind of cute. Well, maybe not so clever. There's a speech recognition "format c colon return" anecdote that apparently dates to 1994, at a meeting of the Sacramento PC User's Group, and repeated in various forms many times since then.
- frozenport 9y agohttps://threepanel.com/t/cube-drone/18/157 https://threepanel.com/t/cube-drone/18/157
- Mithaldu 9y agoThis is not just annoying, it is outright dangerous. If any of the viewers are doing anything important on their phones, the task switch interruption might have real effects on them, or cause them to lose data.
- khedoros1 9y agoI feel sorry for people who buy always-listening devices that follow instructions without any form of authentication, too. They have absolutely zero blame or responsibility for anything that happens to them as a result of their choices, as combined with the amusing, non-malicious choices of another entity.
- xg15 9y ago> Asked whether he was concerned that consumers might find the spot invasive, he said, “We think about our guests’ perception and their perspective on how we interact with them, but on balance we felt this was a really positive way to connect with them.” I'm always amazed at the universe some marketing people seem to live in. It must be a beautiful place.
- ChuckMcM 9y agoI was remarking at lunch today that for so long the goal of speech recognition was 'speaker independent' recognition and now that is a handicap. Early speech input systems required an individual to read several pre-defined words, usually several times, in order to train the algorithm to understand their speech. And then the next person to use the system would have to do the same. This was considered a 'negative' because everyone wanted systems that anyone could use. Now however, there is a tremendous need for your phone, or tablet, or commercial listening device, to be able to distinguish between who is talking so that different policies can be established based on the speaker. That will be the next killer feature in the voice wars I'm guessing.
- kalleboo 9y agoSiri already lets you train the "Hey Siri" prompt to your own voice
- davewasthere 9y agoFunnily enough, Google Home could describe the whopper's ingredients in 15 seconds...
- lowbloodsugar 9y agoSo deliberately attempting to access a computer without permission? This is a federal crime!
- burntrelish1273 9y ago"Hey Siri, erase all contents and settings." should definitely go into a TV/radio/YouTube ad. ;)
- jamiethompson 9y agoGenuine question as I don't own any of these devices. Is there no setting for locking the device activation to one or more specific voices? This is surely a technical possibility and from a security point of view it is surely the sensible default behaviour for a device that can literally buy stuff using your money with nothing but a voice command.
- gambiting 9y agoThe voice recognition is poor enough that it only works 80% of the time anyway and having certain accents defeats it completely. I think it's very very far away from being able to reliably tell voices of different people apart.