4 ms·

Isn't it a valid distinction between a device which could be abused to spy on you vs a device with the sole purpose to record ~everything you say unless you opt

by a_imho 9y ago

Isn't it a valid distinction between a device which could be abused to spy on you vs a device with the sole purpose to record ~everything you say unless you opt out (like in this case)? I can see how smartphones make that possibility less obvious and more palatable even to users who are aware of it.

Pyxl101 9y ago
If you are worried that a home hub will spy on you, then you should be way more worried your phone will do the same thing. A lot of phones already listen to audio nonstop. Take the Android phones that listen to "OK Google" or the Apple phones that respond to "Hey Siri". Those features require the phone to listen to and process audio nonstop. Sure, if you don't like that then you can turn it off, but I don't understand why people have concerns about stationary always-listening devices moreso than phones with the same functionality. These base stations or hubs are the same concept, except they're present in a room instead of part of your phone. All other things equal, I think mobile phones are a much greater threat vector than home hubs. Mobile phones are juicy targets with large, complex attack surface areas. See the various remote code execution exploits in Android that could be triggered by sending someone a message. See the various high levels of privilege that applications have that can be used to spy on you. Did you see the article about how Uber had secret privileges that allowed the app to record iPhone screens? [1] There are multiple reasons why an attacker would want to compromise your phone (e.g. to steal your data, not just record your voice). Many people have phones, so sophisticated adversaries are more likely to invest the energy into developing attacks. There's a lot more to compromise (apps). Home hubs are less likely to see that same level of scrutiny, and they're less likely to be vulnerable to the same types of attacks and issues because they're much simpler devices (they don't run "apps", they don't communicate on the network except with their vendor). If you're worried about being spied on, then you should also be worried about other people's phones, which you may not even realize are in the room with you! By comparison it tends to be pretty obvious / known to everyone when there's a home hub present in a room. Your phone probably doesn't have a hardware-level light that tells you when it's recording you, like your home hub does. The list goes on. [1] http://bgr.com/2017/10/05/uber-app-privacy-issues-iphone-screen-record/ http://bgr.com/2017/10/05/uber-app-privacy-issues-iphone-scr...
- jasonrhaas 9y ago
  Exactly correct. But having Alexa's and Google Home's around isn't helping anything. It's just yet another vector that can be used to inadvertently collect your data.
- pnutjam 9y ago
  I monitor traffic on my phone due to data limits. I turn of features that aren't needed, like bluetooth or wifi. My phone is a well understood ecosystem. Meanwhile, these other devices are a speaker and a button. Why wouldn't I trust that?
- jerf 9y ago
  "A lot of phones already listen to audio nonstop." I think you have to be careful about what it is you care about. Listening isn't it. To the extent that modern phones "listen non-stop" you're just one step away from saying that all microphones are non-stop-listeners. What matters is what data is available, where it goes, and who can get access to it. If my phone truly only has a small ring buffer with specialized hardware purpose-built to listen for "OK Google", which it is reasonably accurate at, then it's not a privacy issue. The problem is that by visual inspection I can't distinguish that from a system that is listening for "OK Google" and also other politically interesting keywords, or a phone that is just sending all my audio up, etc. Now, I am a very technically aware person compared to the general population, and I have good reason at the moment to still believe that phones aren't actually spying on the audio level as much as people believe on the grounds that it is technically impossible due to both battery and mobile data consumption. However, it is not entirely comforting that those are the only reasons I believe it is not happening, and improvements in battery technology, CPU efficiency, and/or mobile bandwidth are going to eliminate those assurances for me. (By contrast, location spying, activity spying, and abundant marketing-based tracking clearly does happen.)
mikeash 9y ago
What's the distinction? When comparing to a modern smartphone which supports "Hey Siri" or "OK Google," then both devices have dedicated hardware that's always listening for the activation phrase, then send your audio off to the cloud for processing. The only real difference is that your phone does this even when it's unplugged, can still send your audio to the cloud when far beyond the range of your home WiFi, and can listen to you everywhere you go instead of just at home.
- a_imho 9y ago
  Disable the voice recognition and you have a perfectly functioning phone. With a hub you have a paperweight, pretty big difference. I agree smartphones are bad, but can see how they perceived not as bad as hubs.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    Why would you trust it to actually be disabled when it says it's disabled, but not trust the hub to actually keep your data private when it says it's private?
    - a_imho 9y ago
      I for one, do not trust or use them. All I'm saying is they could appear more trustworthy, perhaps because users are less aware. In this particular case as far as I understand, disabled means no recording at all, while keeping private means your data is already transferred and access is granted to parties based on how private is defined in the tos.

by a_imho 9y ago

Pyxl101 9y ago

If you are worried that a home hub will spy on you, then you should be way more worried your phone will do the same thing. A lot of phones already listen to audio nonstop. Take the Android phones that listen to "OK Google" or the Apple phones that respond to "Hey Siri". Those features require the phone to listen to and process audio nonstop. Sure, if you don't like that then you can turn it off, but I don't understand why people have concerns about stationary always-listening devices moreso than phones with the same functionality. These base stations or hubs are the same concept, except they're present in a room instead of part of your phone. All other things equal, I think mobile phones are a much greater threat vector than home hubs. Mobile phones are juicy targets with large, complex attack surface areas. See the various remote code execution exploits in Android that could be triggered by sending someone a message. See the various high levels of privilege that applications have that can be used to spy on you. Did you see the article about how Uber had secret privileges that allowed the app to record iPhone screens? [1] There are multiple reasons why an attacker would want to compromise your phone (e.g. to steal your data, not just record your voice). Many people have phones, so sophisticated adversaries are more likely to invest the energy into developing attacks. There's a lot more to compromise (apps). Home hubs are less likely to see that same level of scrutiny, and they're less likely to be vulnerable to the same types of attacks and issues because they're much simpler devices (they don't run "apps", they don't communicate on the network except with their vendor). If you're worried about being spied on, then you should also be worried about other people's phones, which you may not even realize are in the room with you! By comparison it tends to be pretty obvious / known to everyone when there's a home hub present in a room. Your phone probably doesn't have a hardware-level light that tells you when it's recording you, like your home hub does. The list goes on. [1] http://bgr.com/2017/10/05/uber-app-privacy-issues-iphone-screen-record/ http://bgr.com/2017/10/05/uber-app-privacy-issues-iphone-scr...

jasonrhaas 9y ago
Exactly correct. But having Alexa's and Google Home's around isn't helping anything. It's just yet another vector that can be used to inadvertently collect your data.
pnutjam 9y ago
I monitor traffic on my phone due to data limits. I turn of features that aren't needed, like bluetooth or wifi. My phone is a well understood ecosystem. Meanwhile, these other devices are a speaker and a button. Why wouldn't I trust that?
jerf 9y ago
"A lot of phones already listen to audio nonstop." I think you have to be careful about what it is you care about. Listening isn't it. To the extent that modern phones "listen non-stop" you're just one step away from saying that all microphones are non-stop-listeners. What matters is what data is available, where it goes, and who can get access to it. If my phone truly only has a small ring buffer with specialized hardware purpose-built to listen for "OK Google", which it is reasonably accurate at, then it's not a privacy issue. The problem is that by visual inspection I can't distinguish that from a system that is listening for "OK Google" and also other politically interesting keywords, or a phone that is just sending all my audio up, etc. Now, I am a very technically aware person compared to the general population, and I have good reason at the moment to still believe that phones aren't actually spying on the audio level as much as people believe on the grounds that it is technically impossible due to both battery and mobile data consumption. However, it is not entirely comforting that those are the only reasons I believe it is not happening, and improvements in battery technology, CPU efficiency, and/or mobile bandwidth are going to eliminate those assurances for me. (By contrast, location spying, activity spying, and abundant marketing-based tracking clearly does happen.)

mikeash 9y ago

What's the distinction? When comparing to a modern smartphone which supports "Hey Siri" or "OK Google," then both devices have dedicated hardware that's always listening for the activation phrase, then send your audio off to the cloud for processing. The only real difference is that your phone does this even when it's unplugged, can still send your audio to the cloud when far beyond the range of your home WiFi, and can listen to you everywhere you go instead of just at home.

a_imho 9y ago
Disable the voice recognition and you have a perfectly functioning phone. With a hub you have a paperweight, pretty big difference. I agree smartphones are bad, but can see how they perceived not as bad as hubs.
- mikeash 9y ago
  Why would you trust it to actually be disabled when it says it's disabled, but not trust the hub to actually keep your data private when it says it's private?
  - a_imho 9y ago
    I for one, do not trust or use them. All I'm saying is they could appear more trustworthy, perhaps because users are less aware. In this particular case as far as I understand, disabled means no recording at all, while keeping private means your data is already transferred and access is granted to parties based on how private is defined in the tos.