2 ms·

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 devic

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.
    - mikeash 8y ago
      That’s fair, but again, a smartphone fits that description too and nobody is talking about how you’d have to be crazy to let one in your house. It seems to me that smartphones are significantly worse. You can unplug your smart speaker or kick it off your WiFi and be confident that it can no longer hear you. Smartphones have batteries and cellular data connections. Also they’re usually with you at all times, even when you’re away from home.
      - DmenshunlAnlsis 8y ago
        That’s fair, but again, a smartphone fits that description too and nobody is talking about how you’d have to be crazy to let one in your house. A lot of people talk about it, they’re just laughed or shouted down. There’s also the argument that mobile phones undoubtedly offer a number of incredibly useful tools, not the least of which is a primary phone line. I think anyone would be hard pressed to argue for commensurate utility from Alexa or similar products.
  - tambourine_man 8y ago
    It's a worse PR nightmare if discovered, so a bigger risk. “Networked device with microphone records and uploads your voice” might create reactions such as: yeah, what did you expect, how else would it work? “Networked device with microphone records and uploads your voice even when explicitly told not to” is a lot worse. Company X is lying to us!

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.
  - mikeash 8y ago
    That’s fair, but again, a smartphone fits that description too and nobody is talking about how you’d have to be crazy to let one in your house. It seems to me that smartphones are significantly worse. You can unplug your smart speaker or kick it off your WiFi and be confident that it can no longer hear you. Smartphones have batteries and cellular data connections. Also they’re usually with you at all times, even when you’re away from home.
    - DmenshunlAnlsis 8y ago
      That’s fair, but again, a smartphone fits that description too and nobody is talking about how you’d have to be crazy to let one in your house. A lot of people talk about it, they’re just laughed or shouted down. There’s also the argument that mobile phones undoubtedly offer a number of incredibly useful tools, not the least of which is a primary phone line. I think anyone would be hard pressed to argue for commensurate utility from Alexa or similar products.
- tambourine_man 8y ago
  It's a worse PR nightmare if discovered, so a bigger risk. “Networked device with microphone records and uploads your voice” might create reactions such as: yeah, what did you expect, how else would it work? “Networked device with microphone records and uploads your voice even when explicitly told not to” is a lot worse. Company X is lying to us!