4 ms·

> Does Google have any plans to describe how they will eliminate human-spoken conversations from their noise detection? I am very much not a fan of this projec

> Does Google have any plans to describe how they will eliminate human-spoken conversations from their noise detection? I am very much not a fan of this project, but I will point out that the problem you're describing has an easy solution; a microphone can record conversations, but the output of a microphone can be fed to an algorithm that never keeps that recording and only records the noise level in dB. If you've ever used a toilet that flushes itself automatically when you leave, you've been in a bathroom with a tiny camera watching you. No one ever worries about the privacy implications of this, because that tiny camera does nothing with this information except decide if it's light or dark immediately in front of it. The image data isn't stored, it's just thrown away. Is Google going to record thousands of hours of sidewalk microphone recordings and store them somewhere? Seems far more likely they're just going to stream a "Currently it's 60dB at this intersection"; meets their requirements with minimal bandwidth and infrastructure.

morogop 8y ago
The sensor used to flush a toilet does not capture detailed photos of me and promise to throw it away. It captures essentially no detail in the first place.
cryptoz 8y ago
There's a big difference in the attitude of the society that builds these things vs. not, which is what I'm trying to describe. I'm aware that Google can create technical solutions that help protect privacy, that's not the point. That's what everyone says about OK Google and Alexa, but it is clearly not really true. These devices malfunction, frequently, with scary results. I'm not ready to trust Google, or anyone, especially when they are so vague on all the topics, with such an incredible opportunity at city-owned-level surveillance, regardless of what technical safeguards they plan for it. > Is Google going to record thousands of hours of sidewalk microphone recordings and store them somewhere? Seems far more likely they're just going to stream a "Currently it's 60dB at this intersection"; meets their requirements with minimal bandwidth and infrastructure. It "seems" to you that Google will actively choose to not record data that would be considered invasive. That's not good enough, though. First, it doesn't seem that way to me at all, I completely disagree with how much data I would expect Google to collect in this situation, and I completely disagree that a dB reading at a lat,lng point will be sufficient for Google's algorithms to do their required work. Again, the main point I'm trying to bring is not the technical issues, but the societal ones. It is too much surveillance issued directly to a company with no regard for discussing the issues openly. It's just not right.
pdkl95 8y ago
> toilet that flushes itself automatically ... tiny camera Why would you use as camera as the sensor for simple presence detection? An IR LED+photoresistor is much cheaper. > No one ever worries about the privacy implications of this Yes, I certainly would be suspicious of both the camera and the attached microprocessor needed to "decide if it's light or dark" from "image data". Anybody that chooses to pay for that kind of massive over-engineering instead of using a cheap IR emitter+detector is trying to do more than just flush the toilet. > Is Google going to record thousands of hours of sidewalk microphone recordings and store them somewhere? Why not? It's a trivial[1] amount of data after you apply a simple noise gate and a low bandwidth codec. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16346416 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16346416
- jwalton 8y ago
  > An IR LED+photoresistor is much cheaper. You mean... A tiny camera? A photoresistor is a device which measures light hitting it. It's a 1-pixel camera. In exactly the same way a decibelmeter is a little microphone. My point is, OP is looking for some complicated algorithm to detect and eliminate speech, but you don't need that - you can just eliminate pretty much everything in the first place. > Why not? It's a trivial[1] amount of data after you apply a simple noise gate and a low bandwidth codec. 5.6kbit/s to record noise levels is like using a CCD camera and a microprocessor for image detection. You could sample the noise level once every 10 minutes, store it in a uint32, and you'd get 5.6kbit/hundred days. You could ship the data over an SMS link. The units could be battery powered and last months.
sepranu 8y ago
This comment is both factually inaccurate (as other posters have pointed out re: the toilet sensor) and completely misguided. Nobody should need to trust an opaque algorithm running on complex hardware to ensure their own privacy. Even if your beliefs about what Google or another owner would do with this hardware are correct (which I seriously doubt they are, it's far more likely the data will be used as feed-in for machine learning), there is little to no assurance that the police or other parts of the state would not compel surveillance using these devices, nor that malicious actors would not use them for their own ends.

morogop 8y ago

The sensor used to flush a toilet does not capture detailed photos of me and promise to throw it away. It captures essentially no detail in the first place.

cryptoz 8y ago

There's a big difference in the attitude of the society that builds these things vs. not, which is what I'm trying to describe. I'm aware that Google can create technical solutions that help protect privacy, that's not the point. That's what everyone says about OK Google and Alexa, but it is clearly not really true. These devices malfunction, frequently, with scary results. I'm not ready to trust Google, or anyone, especially when they are so vague on all the topics, with such an incredible opportunity at city-owned-level surveillance, regardless of what technical safeguards they plan for it. > Is Google going to record thousands of hours of sidewalk microphone recordings and store them somewhere? Seems far more likely they're just going to stream a "Currently it's 60dB at this intersection"; meets their requirements with minimal bandwidth and infrastructure. It "seems" to you that Google will actively choose to not record data that would be considered invasive. That's not good enough, though. First, it doesn't seem that way to me at all, I completely disagree with how much data I would expect Google to collect in this situation, and I completely disagree that a dB reading at a lat,lng point will be sufficient for Google's algorithms to do their required work. Again, the main point I'm trying to bring is not the technical issues, but the societal ones. It is too much surveillance issued directly to a company with no regard for discussing the issues openly. It's just not right.

pdkl95 8y ago

> toilet that flushes itself automatically ... tiny camera Why would you use as camera as the sensor for simple presence detection? An IR LED+photoresistor is much cheaper. > No one ever worries about the privacy implications of this Yes, I certainly would be suspicious of both the camera and the attached microprocessor needed to "decide if it's light or dark" from "image data". Anybody that chooses to pay for that kind of massive over-engineering instead of using a cheap IR emitter+detector is trying to do more than just flush the toilet. > Is Google going to record thousands of hours of sidewalk microphone recordings and store them somewhere? Why not? It's a trivial[1] amount of data after you apply a simple noise gate and a low bandwidth codec. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16346416 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16346416

jwalton 8y ago
> An IR LED+photoresistor is much cheaper. You mean... A tiny camera? A photoresistor is a device which measures light hitting it. It's a 1-pixel camera. In exactly the same way a decibelmeter is a little microphone. My point is, OP is looking for some complicated algorithm to detect and eliminate speech, but you don't need that - you can just eliminate pretty much everything in the first place. > Why not? It's a trivial[1] amount of data after you apply a simple noise gate and a low bandwidth codec. 5.6kbit/s to record noise levels is like using a CCD camera and a microprocessor for image detection. You could sample the noise level once every 10 minutes, store it in a uint32, and you'd get 5.6kbit/hundred days. You could ship the data over an SMS link. The units could be battery powered and last months.

sepranu 8y ago

This comment is both factually inaccurate (as other posters have pointed out re: the toilet sensor) and completely misguided. Nobody should need to trust an opaque algorithm running on complex hardware to ensure their own privacy. Even if your beliefs about what Google or another owner would do with this hardware are correct (which I seriously doubt they are, it's far more likely the data will be used as feed-in for machine learning), there is little to no assurance that the police or other parts of the state would not compel surveillance using these devices, nor that malicious actors would not use them for their own ends.