3 ms·

OK, but you used the word “tapped.” A smart speaker isn’t supposed to be tapping you any more than a phone is. In both cases, they have to be doing something mo

OK, but you used the word “tapped.” A smart speaker isn’t supposed to be tapping you any more than a phone is. In both cases, they have to be doing something more than they’re supposed to.

tambourine_man 8y ago
I disagree. To be listening at all times is the very definition of a tap, don’t you think? And people know this. It’s not like they are being misled. It’s a conscious exchange of privacy for convinence. It’s just that, in my mind, you are getting very little for what you’re giving.
- mikeash 8y ago
  In my mind, you’re giving almost nothing if you already have a cell phone. I made a different choice, but I totally understand why someone would choose not to have a phone or smart speaker due to privacy concerns. What I don’t get is someone who has a phone but sees smart speakers as crazy.
  - tambourine_man 8y ago
    So, if I understand you correctly: - You are pretty certain that your phone is listening at all times, even though it's set not to. - You see no difference between a product that's advertised manly as a listening device and one that also has such a feature, that can theoretically be turned off, and is very useful otherwise.
    - mikeash 8y ago
      I don’t think my phone is listening, other than the wake word. Same deal with my smart speakers. I think either one could, if hacked or just updated by the manufacturer with nefarious intent. I see no difference, privacy-wise, between the two. I don’t care how they’re advertised, I care what they’re capable of.
      - tambourine_man 8y ago
        That wake word can be disabled in your phone and it's perfectly functional without it. This way, it only listens when you want it to (theoretically). I'm sure you can appreciate the difference: press a button to talk to Siri vs Siri is always listening. The latter seems crazy to me, on a phone, cylinder, laptop or whatever device it's implemented.
        mikeash 8y ago
        What’s so bad about having a small processor run a recognition routine on all incoming audio, discarding everything that doesn’t match, and activating the device if it does? Are you just worried about accidental activation?
        tambourine_man 8y ago
        >What’s so bad about having a small processor run a recognition routine on all incoming audio, discarding everything that doesn’t match, and activating the device if it does? If that was the case, nothing. But we have enough evidence to believe it's not. While having the device listen, even though it's been explicitly configured not to, is a bit more of a stretch. >Are you just worried about accidental activation? That could be an inconvenience too, but I'm more concerned with malicious intent.
        mikeash 8y ago
        What evidence do we have? I’m about 99.9% sure that this story is just accidental activation and bad reporting. If you’re concerned with malicious intent then I really don’t understand the difference. If the device maker is trustworthy then you’re fine either way. If they’re malicious then you’re screwed either way. A setting for “please don’t listen” isn’t going to make the slightest bit of difference if they’re malicious. M
        DmenshunlAnlsis 8y ago
        Trust is proportional to access. I don’t trust any third party with an always-on microphone in my house, especially one that’s networked. Malice aside, I don’t trust their competence. Nor should anyone I think.

OK, but you used the word “tapped.” A smart speaker isn’t supposed to be tapping you any more than a phone is. In both cases, they have to be doing something more than they’re supposed to.

tambourine_man 8y ago

I disagree. To be listening at all times is the very definition of a tap, don’t you think? And people know this. It’s not like they are being misled. It’s a conscious exchange of privacy for convinence. It’s just that, in my mind, you are getting very little for what you’re giving.

mikeash 8y ago
In my mind, you’re giving almost nothing if you already have a cell phone. I made a different choice, but I totally understand why someone would choose not to have a phone or smart speaker due to privacy concerns. What I don’t get is someone who has a phone but sees smart speakers as crazy.
- tambourine_man 8y ago
  So, if I understand you correctly: - You are pretty certain that your phone is listening at all times, even though it's set not to. - You see no difference between a product that's advertised manly as a listening device and one that also has such a feature, that can theoretically be turned off, and is very useful otherwise.
  - mikeash 8y ago
    I don’t think my phone is listening, other than the wake word. Same deal with my smart speakers. I think either one could, if hacked or just updated by the manufacturer with nefarious intent. I see no difference, privacy-wise, between the two. I don’t care how they’re advertised, I care what they’re capable of.
    - tambourine_man 8y ago
      That wake word can be disabled in your phone and it's perfectly functional without it. This way, it only listens when you want it to (theoretically). I'm sure you can appreciate the difference: press a button to talk to Siri vs Siri is always listening. The latter seems crazy to me, on a phone, cylinder, laptop or whatever device it's implemented.
      - mikeash 8y ago
        What’s so bad about having a small processor run a recognition routine on all incoming audio, discarding everything that doesn’t match, and activating the device if it does? Are you just worried about accidental activation?
        tambourine_man 8y ago
        >What’s so bad about having a small processor run a recognition routine on all incoming audio, discarding everything that doesn’t match, and activating the device if it does? If that was the case, nothing. But we have enough evidence to believe it's not. While having the device listen, even though it's been explicitly configured not to, is a bit more of a stretch. >Are you just worried about accidental activation? That could be an inconvenience too, but I'm more concerned with malicious intent.
        mikeash 8y ago
        What evidence do we have? I’m about 99.9% sure that this story is just accidental activation and bad reporting. If you’re concerned with malicious intent then I really don’t understand the difference. If the device maker is trustworthy then you’re fine either way. If they’re malicious then you’re screwed either way. A setting for “please don’t listen” isn’t going to make the slightest bit of difference if they’re malicious. M
        DmenshunlAnlsis 8y ago
        Trust is proportional to access. I don’t trust any third party with an always-on microphone in my house, especially one that’s networked. Malice aside, I don’t trust their competence. Nor should anyone I think.