7 ms·

Buying a facebook speaker, or really any home-speaker for that matter seems like a really bad idea. You give it the ability to record everything in your home fo

Buying a facebook speaker, or really any home-speaker for that matter seems like a really bad idea. You give it the ability to record everything in your home for a slight utility.

the8472 9y ago
Assuming you already haven't given them that kind of permission through some smartphone app anyway.
slg 9y ago
I see this argument all the time, but these things are less dangerous than smartphones. First off, they ride off your own network so it is easy to see when they are sending data back home unlike phones which can transfer data over harder to monitor 3rd party networks. They are cheaper and lower powered machines so they can't do a lot of processing on device and can't store a large amount of data for later transfer. They are stationary in your home and therefore likely spend a majority of the time listening to nothing unlike phones which might be at their owners side 24/7. They also only have one source of data which is audio as opposed to the other various sensors phones have like GPS. Finally, if you believe that these companies are shady enough that they are lying to their customers about what these smart speakers are doing, why do you think they aren't lying about what their mobile OSes or apps are doing? All that said, I believe Apple, Amazon, and Google all have worlds more trust in this area than Facebook.
- lev99 9y ago
  I would suspect that small cpu inside them is better at real time voice processing than you think.
- musage 9y ago
  > these things are less dangerous than smartphones They're also orthogonal to smartphones. > why do you think they aren't lying about what their mobile OSes or apps are doing? Why do you think everybody thinks that? And why frame it that way from the get go, to what the companies themselves are doing today, and/or to what the widgets do in isolation? It's another vector of attack for all sorts of actors, present and future, including the companies themselves. > All that said, I believe Apple, Amazon, and Google all have worlds more trust in this area than Facebook. They're not the baseline, the baseline is none of these devices. And for me, those all have worlds less trust than entities I trust, and the difference between them and Facebook is pretty much irrelevant in the big picture.
  - SlowRobotAhead 9y ago
    Thank you, sometimes I feel like I’m nuts for seeing all these people run to install always on mics in their house. I don’t like the 1 second of buffer the iPhone has for Siri with Hey Siri disabled - but LOL if I’m going to install a single purpose always listening microphone for gimmick reasons.
- saagarjha 9y ago
  > these things are less dangerous than smartphones I disagree. > they ride off your own network so it is easy to see when they are sending data back home unlike phones which can transfer data over harder to monitor 3rd party networks …if you use a VPN, then you can check for traffic here as well. > They are cheaper and lower powered machines so they can't do a lot of processing on device and can't store a large amount of data for later transfer. HomePod has an Apple A8 processor, and Google Home has some sort of ARM SoC. These aren't low-powered machines; on the contrary, they can run 24/7 since they're always powered. > They are stationary in your home and therefore likely spend a majority of the time listening to nothing I think this makes them more likely to be overlooked, more than anything. > Finally, if you believe that these companies are shady enough that they are lying to their customers about what these smart speakers are doing, why do you think they aren't lying about what their mobile OSes or apps are doing Some of them, maybe.
  - slg 9y ago
    >…if you use a VPN, then you can check for traffic here as well. This is conditional on the assumption that the device is doing what it tells you it is doing. Like the point in my previous comment, if you believe the device is lying to you about when it is recording, why do you trust that it isn't hiding non-VPNed connections from you? Smart speakers can not physically transfer data themselves and can only forward data over WiFi or Bluetooth. >HomePod has an Apple A8 processor, and Google Home has some sort of ARM SoC. These aren't low-powered machines; on the contrary, they can run 24/7 since they're always powered. The A8 is a 4 year old processor and the HomePod is by far the most expensive and powerful of these devices. Maybe I was downplaying their potential processing power too much, but the fact still stands that a modern smartphone is much more powerful than a modern smart speaker. >I think this makes them more likely to be overlooked, more than anything. And phones aren't overlooked when they spend almost 24/7 within a few feet of the owner? I am not saying these devices don't present any potential issues. I am just pointing out that the risk is lower than the one we have already accepted by using smartphones. Stressing over compromised smart speakers is like stressing about whether you locked the door to the third floor balcony while not caring that the front door is unlocked.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- cornholio 9y ago
  The fundamental difference is that a smartphone will record and send the data remotely only when you have applications or malware to that effect. So you still have nominal control. Smart speakers are sending the audio to the mothership by design, it's the way they work in normal operation.
- Retric 9y ago
  Smartphone radios use quite a bit of energy. So, they can't be used to record 24/7 without the drain becoming really obvious. These things send back full audio to be processed by design. So, it's not a question of possible it's up to the provider what they want to do with the recordings the device is directly sending.
exotree 9y ago
For those who are disabled, the prevalence of these devices can be life changing.
- drewbug01 9y ago
  All the more reason we should get behind open source, run-your-own voice assistants. We shouldn’t have to trade off privacy for accessibility!
  - xxpor 9y ago
    Sure. Let's even leave aside the whole corpus of data you need to make a even remotely useful voice assistant. But if you think there will be people willing to self host and maintain a whole voice assistant service, you're off your rocker. It's just like saying "Why doesn't everyone just use Tor and PGP?" Because it's an enormous pain in the ass and really only accessible to technical users.
    - Lionsion 9y ago
      > But if you think there will be people willing to self host and maintain a whole voice assistant service, you're off your rocker. There were probably people who said that about open source operating systems, once upon a time. Extremely complicated software is packaged down to an installer and installed by non-expert users all the time.
    - jonathankoren 9y ago
      And that’s why you use Common Voice and Deep Speech from Mozilla. https://research.mozilla.org/machine-learning/ https://research.mozilla.org/machine-learning/
    - drewbug01 9y ago
      I think you shouldn’t rush to judge the utility; consider that other people might find uses for a voice assistant that doesn’t require “a vast corpus of data” to function. But moreover, if you need to call me “off my rocker,” you’re not engaging in good faith.
tyingq 9y ago
I'm definitely more worried about a FB speaker than an Apple, Amazon, or Google one. In that specific order.
- tanilama 9y ago
  Agree, Apple had the least incentive to monetize your data. Amazon will use your data to sell stuff, but they probably not going to share that to others. Google and FB are all advertising companies that they relies on reselling your data for targeting, with FB being the more aggressive one for you know, growth.
  - tyingq 9y ago
    A much more nuanced and detailed explanation of what I was trying to share. Thanks for that. Wordsmithing isn't my strong suit. Your wording is exactly my sentiment, and better stated.
  - seattle_spring 9y ago
    Neither FB nor Google "resell" your data. They use your data to put you into categories. Advertisers choose which categories to advertise to, and if your data puts you into one of those chosen categories then you're shown the ad.
    - tyingq 9y ago
      How does that jive with the recent Cambridge Analytica scandal? Facebook seems pretty clearly in the reseller category.
      - seattle_spring 9y ago
        3+ years ago, their Graph API provided much more information than it does today. App developers (CA, in this case) used that open API to get information about the app user's friends, and then stored that data on their own servers (which is and always was against Facebook's Terms of Service).
wpietri 9y ago
I can only imagine the SNL fake commercials for this. People are already half-convinced that Facebook is listening through the existing app; every couple of weeks I see friends posting weird coincidences between real-life conversations and Facebook ads.
richard___ 9y ago
People who use these seem completely oblivious to the fact that you're wiring your home. The important part is these things are always on, always recording, and often sending data back home. You can't monitor all of that, and your phone doesn't do that. Stop with the disingenuous phone argument.
- knightofmars 9y ago
  I'll wager with you that if we randomly stopped individuals on the street with Android phones we'd be able to find a significant portion of individuals who have "Ok Google" enabled. (I'll concede that this piece of functionality can be disabled.) That said, I'll also wager that for those with the "Ok Google" functionality disabled that at least one application on their phone has the microphone permission enabled. I'll even wager that if you own an Android phone you have at least one application with the microphone permission enabled. Additionally, I can disable the microphone on my home device if I wish with the push of a button. If I'm in public I can't walk around asking every stranger within earshot to "disable their phone's microphone". Now, explain to me, in the case where "Ok Google" is enabled; how isn't the phone always recording if "Ok Google" works (or "Hey Siri" for that matter)? Given everything covered, is it still "disingenuous" to say that a cell phone is minimally as risky as putting any of the devices mentioned in a home if not more due to the inability to control the devices of others?

Buying a facebook speaker, or really any home-speaker for that matter seems like a really bad idea. You give it the ability to record everything in your home for a slight utility.

the8472 9y ago

Assuming you already haven't given them that kind of permission through some smartphone app anyway.

slg 9y ago

I see this argument all the time, but these things are less dangerous than smartphones. First off, they ride off your own network so it is easy to see when they are sending data back home unlike phones which can transfer data over harder to monitor 3rd party networks. They are cheaper and lower powered machines so they can't do a lot of processing on device and can't store a large amount of data for later transfer. They are stationary in your home and therefore likely spend a majority of the time listening to nothing unlike phones which might be at their owners side 24/7. They also only have one source of data which is audio as opposed to the other various sensors phones have like GPS. Finally, if you believe that these companies are shady enough that they are lying to their customers about what these smart speakers are doing, why do you think they aren't lying about what their mobile OSes or apps are doing? All that said, I believe Apple, Amazon, and Google all have worlds more trust in this area than Facebook.

lev99 9y ago
I would suspect that small cpu inside them is better at real time voice processing than you think.
musage 9y ago
> these things are less dangerous than smartphones They're also orthogonal to smartphones. > why do you think they aren't lying about what their mobile OSes or apps are doing? Why do you think everybody thinks that? And why frame it that way from the get go, to what the companies themselves are doing today, and/or to what the widgets do in isolation? It's another vector of attack for all sorts of actors, present and future, including the companies themselves. > All that said, I believe Apple, Amazon, and Google all have worlds more trust in this area than Facebook. They're not the baseline, the baseline is none of these devices. And for me, those all have worlds less trust than entities I trust, and the difference between them and Facebook is pretty much irrelevant in the big picture.
- SlowRobotAhead 9y ago
  Thank you, sometimes I feel like I’m nuts for seeing all these people run to install always on mics in their house. I don’t like the 1 second of buffer the iPhone has for Siri with Hey Siri disabled - but LOL if I’m going to install a single purpose always listening microphone for gimmick reasons.
saagarjha 9y ago
> these things are less dangerous than smartphones I disagree. > they ride off your own network so it is easy to see when they are sending data back home unlike phones which can transfer data over harder to monitor 3rd party networks …if you use a VPN, then you can check for traffic here as well. > They are cheaper and lower powered machines so they can't do a lot of processing on device and can't store a large amount of data for later transfer. HomePod has an Apple A8 processor, and Google Home has some sort of ARM SoC. These aren't low-powered machines; on the contrary, they can run 24/7 since they're always powered. > They are stationary in your home and therefore likely spend a majority of the time listening to nothing I think this makes them more likely to be overlooked, more than anything. > Finally, if you believe that these companies are shady enough that they are lying to their customers about what these smart speakers are doing, why do you think they aren't lying about what their mobile OSes or apps are doing Some of them, maybe.
- slg 9y ago
  >…if you use a VPN, then you can check for traffic here as well. This is conditional on the assumption that the device is doing what it tells you it is doing. Like the point in my previous comment, if you believe the device is lying to you about when it is recording, why do you trust that it isn't hiding non-VPNed connections from you? Smart speakers can not physically transfer data themselves and can only forward data over WiFi or Bluetooth. >HomePod has an Apple A8 processor, and Google Home has some sort of ARM SoC. These aren't low-powered machines; on the contrary, they can run 24/7 since they're always powered. The A8 is a 4 year old processor and the HomePod is by far the most expensive and powerful of these devices. Maybe I was downplaying their potential processing power too much, but the fact still stands that a modern smartphone is much more powerful than a modern smart speaker. >I think this makes them more likely to be overlooked, more than anything. And phones aren't overlooked when they spend almost 24/7 within a few feet of the owner? I am not saying these devices don't present any potential issues. I am just pointing out that the risk is lower than the one we have already accepted by using smartphones. Stressing over compromised smart speakers is like stressing about whether you locked the door to the third floor balcony while not caring that the front door is unlocked.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
cornholio 9y ago
The fundamental difference is that a smartphone will record and send the data remotely only when you have applications or malware to that effect. So you still have nominal control. Smart speakers are sending the audio to the mothership by design, it's the way they work in normal operation.
Retric 9y ago
Smartphone radios use quite a bit of energy. So, they can't be used to record 24/7 without the drain becoming really obvious. These things send back full audio to be processed by design. So, it's not a question of possible it's up to the provider what they want to do with the recordings the device is directly sending.

exotree 9y ago

For those who are disabled, the prevalence of these devices can be life changing.

drewbug01 9y ago
All the more reason we should get behind open source, run-your-own voice assistants. We shouldn’t have to trade off privacy for accessibility!
- xxpor 9y ago
  Sure. Let's even leave aside the whole corpus of data you need to make a even remotely useful voice assistant. But if you think there will be people willing to self host and maintain a whole voice assistant service, you're off your rocker. It's just like saying "Why doesn't everyone just use Tor and PGP?" Because it's an enormous pain in the ass and really only accessible to technical users.
  - Lionsion 9y ago
    > But if you think there will be people willing to self host and maintain a whole voice assistant service, you're off your rocker. There were probably people who said that about open source operating systems, once upon a time. Extremely complicated software is packaged down to an installer and installed by non-expert users all the time.
  - jonathankoren 9y ago
    And that’s why you use Common Voice and Deep Speech from Mozilla. https://research.mozilla.org/machine-learning/ https://research.mozilla.org/machine-learning/
  - drewbug01 9y ago
    I think you shouldn’t rush to judge the utility; consider that other people might find uses for a voice assistant that doesn’t require “a vast corpus of data” to function. But moreover, if you need to call me “off my rocker,” you’re not engaging in good faith.

tyingq 9y ago

I'm definitely more worried about a FB speaker than an Apple, Amazon, or Google one. In that specific order.

tanilama 9y ago
Agree, Apple had the least incentive to monetize your data. Amazon will use your data to sell stuff, but they probably not going to share that to others. Google and FB are all advertising companies that they relies on reselling your data for targeting, with FB being the more aggressive one for you know, growth.
- tyingq 9y ago
  A much more nuanced and detailed explanation of what I was trying to share. Thanks for that. Wordsmithing isn't my strong suit. Your wording is exactly my sentiment, and better stated.
- seattle_spring 9y ago
  Neither FB nor Google "resell" your data. They use your data to put you into categories. Advertisers choose which categories to advertise to, and if your data puts you into one of those chosen categories then you're shown the ad.
  - tyingq 9y ago
    How does that jive with the recent Cambridge Analytica scandal? Facebook seems pretty clearly in the reseller category.
    - seattle_spring 9y ago
      3+ years ago, their Graph API provided much more information than it does today. App developers (CA, in this case) used that open API to get information about the app user's friends, and then stored that data on their own servers (which is and always was against Facebook's Terms of Service).

wpietri 9y ago

I can only imagine the SNL fake commercials for this. People are already half-convinced that Facebook is listening through the existing app; every couple of weeks I see friends posting weird coincidences between real-life conversations and Facebook ads.

richard___ 9y ago

People who use these seem completely oblivious to the fact that you're wiring your home. The important part is these things are always on, always recording, and often sending data back home. You can't monitor all of that, and your phone doesn't do that. Stop with the disingenuous phone argument.

knightofmars 9y ago
I'll wager with you that if we randomly stopped individuals on the street with Android phones we'd be able to find a significant portion of individuals who have "Ok Google" enabled. (I'll concede that this piece of functionality can be disabled.) That said, I'll also wager that for those with the "Ok Google" functionality disabled that at least one application on their phone has the microphone permission enabled. I'll even wager that if you own an Android phone you have at least one application with the microphone permission enabled. Additionally, I can disable the microphone on my home device if I wish with the push of a button. If I'm in public I can't walk around asking every stranger within earshot to "disable their phone's microphone". Now, explain to me, in the case where "Ok Google" is enabled; how isn't the phone always recording if "Ok Google" works (or "Hey Siri" for that matter)? Given everything covered, is it still "disingenuous" to say that a cell phone is minimally as risky as putting any of the devices mentioned in a home if not more due to the inability to control the devices of others?