8 ms·

This is just facebook all over again. Why can't people see trouble-tech? I never used facebook and won't ever use an alexa, nor whatever google's thing is.

Zelphyr 8y ago
I don’t know why this is getting downvoted. I feel the same way. Amazon and Google have yet to demonstrate to me that they value my privacy enough to take necessary steps to protect it. They, like Facebook, know most people foolishly don’t care enough to hold these companies feet to the fire on it. At the risk of stating the obvious; Facebook has more than demonstrated the opposite.
- lykr0n 8y ago
  The only company I've seen take demonstrable action to protect their customer's privacy is Apple. Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon have never given me a single reason to trust that they have my privacy concerns on their mind.
  - tfha 8y ago
    But with Apple's entire ecosystem being closed and intentionally locking you in, is Apple really a better choice. All it takes is one decision from the board that it would be more profitable to start violating privacy. The board's legal mandate is to make as much money as possible. As soon as privacy is no longer a fad that makes more money and growth than the opportunity cost to not violating it, Apple will flip a switch. That's their duty as a for profit company.
    - ceejayoz 8y ago
      > The board's legal mandate is to make as much money as possible. Why do people keep repeating this falsehood? https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co... Per SCOTUS in US v. Hobby Lobby: > While it is certainly true that a central objective of for-profit corporations is to make money, modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not do so. For-profit corporations, with ownership approval, support a wide variety of charitable causes, and it is not at all uncommon for such corporations to further humanitarian and other altruistic objectives. Many examples come readily to mind. So long as its owners agree, a for-profit corporation may take costly pollution-control and energy-conservation measures that go beyond what the law requires. A for-profit corporation that operates facilities in other countries may exceed the requirements of local law regarding working conditions and benefits. If for-profit corporations may pursue such worthy objectives, there is no apparent reason why they may not further religious objectives as well.
      - tfha 8y ago
        The key there being 'so long as it's owners agree'
        ceejayoz 8y ago
        That's a different issue entirely. Can Apple opt to do bad or short-sighted things? Yes. Are they legally required to do them to maximize profits? No.
  - bduerst 8y ago
    >The only company I've seen take demonstrable action to protect their customer's privacy is Apple. The same Apple that gave the Chinese government access to all their Chinese user's iCloud data? https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/17/apples-icloud-user-data-in-china-is-now-handled-by-a-state-owned-mobile-operator/ https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/17/apples-icloud-user-data-in...
    - mlindner 8y ago
      This is false. iCloud data doesn't contain phone call contents or iMessage data contents. Yes they gave access to metadata, but this is China where privacy basically doesn't exist, not a western country.
      - bduerst 8y ago
        Wrong - Apple moved all iCloud data, which includes text messages, email and other data stored in iCloud (according to Reuters) as well as the access keys. Apple even forced users to sign the updated TOS or drop service. The Chinese government access is _not_ limited to metadata. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-apple-icloud-insight/apple-moves-to-store-icloud-keys-in-china-raising-human-rights-fears-idUSKCN1G8060 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-apple-icloud-insigh...
        mlindner 8y ago
        Text messages are not stored in iCloud... https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303
      - B0btheBuilder 8y ago
        >iCloud data doesn't contain phone call contents or iMessage data contents. Literally the first paragraph of both of bduerst's links suggest otherwise. Also, I don't know if you've used iCloud on multiple devices before, but it very much contains iMessage data contents.
    - patrec 8y ago
      Is there anything Apple could have done to protect the privacy of its Chinese users better (whilst still having some)? You could say they shouldn't have Chinese users, but that's a different argument, I believe.
- danso 8y ago
  What evidence or steps would be sufficient for you?
  - aero142 8y ago
    Not parent, but I'll answer. 1) The implementation of the wake word recognition is implemented in hardware that cannot be updated remotely. 2) The device is unable to transmit information without lighting up a TX light. Implemented in unmodifiable hardware. 3) Voice recordings are processed and then deleted within one month. 4) The device is run by a company that doesn't make money through marketing or data analysis.
    - Karunamon 8y ago
      1 means it's impossible to offer better voice recognition accuracy or change the wake word, meaning they get pilloried by reviewers for offering a device that's strictly worse than the current gen, and they get pilloried by HN for contributing to tech waste. 1&2 get the company pilloried by HN the moment a vulnerability comes out. 3 is a requirement that doesn't actually solve any problems and ruins a legitimate need of ML - comparing performance against a known baseline. 4 is overbroad - most software companies make their money through data analysis of one form or another.
    - illumin8 8y ago
      Be honest, even if the manufacturer tells you #1 is true you're not going to believe them. You're setting up an impossible set of demands that no manufacturer is going to meet and no consumer really cares about (other than perhaps yourself and a few tinfoil hat wearing crypto-anarchists).
      - aero142 8y ago
        The iPhone hardware meets my standards. The secure enclave for touchID is detailed in it's description and security. The Apple business model is not data collection, and the legal fights they have put up give me a reasonable belief that they take my security and privacy seriously enough for me. They are also printing money so it seems to be workable as part of a business model. I think you are wrong on all accounts.
cheeze 8y ago
I disagree. Amazon seems to actually care about privacy and takes things like this pretty seriously. One could certainly criticize AMZN data collection, but I think Amazon has shown that it does care about privacy of this data. Mistakes do happen which is unfortunate, and I think there is a good argument for no company, no matter their intentions to record this much data. On the other hand, this is Facebook's business model.
- pixxel 8y ago
  “Amazon seems to actually care about privacy “ Not according to the NY Times this week. Amazon have been reading your private messages on Facebook. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/technology/facebook-privacy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/technology/facebook-priva...
  - CobrastanJorji 8y ago
    y'know, I never thought about it, but I think I agree with you that being willing to pay another company for access to private information about you probably counts as not caring about your privacy. It's not as bad. It's the difference between paying somebody to tell them secrets about you and selling secrets about you. But it's definitely not a thing a person respectful of your privacy would do.
  - tryagainacct 8y ago
    You might want to read the article again. No part of it says that Amazon read private messages on Facebook.
    - bduerst 8y ago
      Yeah, AFAIK it was login-with-facebook partners like Spotify. Were people ever able to login to Amazon with facebook?
- lorenzobr 8y ago
  I find it's funny how people these days think the problem is with Facebook. Literally every company that has access to users' data has in one way or another some kind of business model based on selling that data. Every day I come across 2 or 3 articles from big newspapers giving Facebook some shit about selling user data. But what about Experian? What about phone carriers? They all sell users' data, maybe anonymous maybe not but they are still making profit on people's privacy. And when some shit goes down, we make a big fuss about it for a few days and then we go back to normal. Equifax anyone? Honestly, companies in the position of making profit on users' data have been doing it for the better part of 15 years now, I don't understand why we are acting so surprised now.
matte_black 8y ago
The thing is that for most people avoiding this kind of tech and platforms is unlikely to have any kind of payoff for them. Life is too short. Most peoples lives are as simple as going to school and work, raising a family, taking vacations, paying bills, and then passing away. There will never be a moment where they can say “Yes! My avoidance of Facebook and Alexa for all my life has finally paid off! Hahaha!” The only people who can say that are people who have good reasons to hide: drug dealers with multiple lines of business, professional black hat hackers, home grown terrorists, life insurance fraudsters, etc. The average person has nothing of interest to offer except more information about them in order to better perceive trends and distribute ads to them so that maybe they buy something.
- bzbarsky 8y ago
  Your list is missing "pro-democracy advocates", "Muslims", "Christians", "Jews", "atheists", "women who want an abortion", "people trying to escape an abusive relationship", "people with interesting medical conditions", etc, depending on location. Please don't pretend that both "only criminals have something to hide" and "criminals are by definition bad people" are true statements. Neither is true.
  - matte_black 8y ago
    If you live under a government where those examples are a reason to hide, then in the eyes of that government you are technically a criminal. Doesn’t describe my government. Even under the most oppressive governments though, there will still be a sizable majority that doesn’t have anything to hide and can feel secure using most technology, and they’ll be fine.
    - justinclift 8y ago
      > Doesn’t describe my government. ... yet? :)
    - mokus 8y ago
      > Doesn’t describe my government. This mindset seems to be why the US political parties keep handing each other more and more federal power. Nobody can imagine their nation would be so stupid as to ever put the Other Guys back in power again.
notyourwork 8y ago
Do you use a cell phone? You seem to be wearing a tin-foil hat living under a rock.
- dang 8y ago
  Personal attacks will get you banned here. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and post civilly and substantively, or not at all.
Kiro 8y ago
It's the best thing I've ever bought. Whatever bad thing can happen is still worth it. It's a trade-off I'm actively choosing.
- summadat 8y ago
  What if a trade-off was that your Echo was actively recording and indexing every single word you've said within its range?
  - Karunamon 8y ago
    And while we’re talking about ridiculous what-ifs with no basis in reality, 5G could be giving you cancer!
illumin8 8y ago
I consistently hear this from the same people that own iOS or Android phones. You do realize that the mic on any phone produced in the last few years is also "always listening," right?
- e1ven 8y ago
  I hate this argument. A) It depends on if you enable it. B) Just because you're willing to accept something in one domain doesn't mean you are universally OK with it being applied everywhere. C) I trust Apple much more than I trust Amazon.
jacquesm 8y ago
> Why can't people see trouble-tech? I like that term. Would really like a definition. How does 'technology whose short term value is negated by long term negative effects' sound?

Zelphyr 8y ago

I don’t know why this is getting downvoted. I feel the same way. Amazon and Google have yet to demonstrate to me that they value my privacy enough to take necessary steps to protect it. They, like Facebook, know most people foolishly don’t care enough to hold these companies feet to the fire on it. At the risk of stating the obvious; Facebook has more than demonstrated the opposite.

lykr0n 8y ago
The only company I've seen take demonstrable action to protect their customer's privacy is Apple. Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon have never given me a single reason to trust that they have my privacy concerns on their mind.
- tfha 8y ago
  But with Apple's entire ecosystem being closed and intentionally locking you in, is Apple really a better choice. All it takes is one decision from the board that it would be more profitable to start violating privacy. The board's legal mandate is to make as much money as possible. As soon as privacy is no longer a fad that makes more money and growth than the opportunity cost to not violating it, Apple will flip a switch. That's their duty as a for profit company.
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
    > The board's legal mandate is to make as much money as possible. Why do people keep repeating this falsehood? https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co... Per SCOTUS in US v. Hobby Lobby: > While it is certainly true that a central objective of for-profit corporations is to make money, modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not do so. For-profit corporations, with ownership approval, support a wide variety of charitable causes, and it is not at all uncommon for such corporations to further humanitarian and other altruistic objectives. Many examples come readily to mind. So long as its owners agree, a for-profit corporation may take costly pollution-control and energy-conservation measures that go beyond what the law requires. A for-profit corporation that operates facilities in other countries may exceed the requirements of local law regarding working conditions and benefits. If for-profit corporations may pursue such worthy objectives, there is no apparent reason why they may not further religious objectives as well.
    - tfha 8y ago
      The key there being 'so long as it's owners agree'
      - ceejayoz 8y ago
        That's a different issue entirely. Can Apple opt to do bad or short-sighted things? Yes. Are they legally required to do them to maximize profits? No.
- bduerst 8y ago
  >The only company I've seen take demonstrable action to protect their customer's privacy is Apple. The same Apple that gave the Chinese government access to all their Chinese user's iCloud data? https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/17/apples-icloud-user-data-in-china-is-now-handled-by-a-state-owned-mobile-operator/ https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/17/apples-icloud-user-data-in...
  - mlindner 8y ago
    This is false. iCloud data doesn't contain phone call contents or iMessage data contents. Yes they gave access to metadata, but this is China where privacy basically doesn't exist, not a western country.
    - bduerst 8y ago
      Wrong - Apple moved all iCloud data, which includes text messages, email and other data stored in iCloud (according to Reuters) as well as the access keys. Apple even forced users to sign the updated TOS or drop service. The Chinese government access is _not_ limited to metadata. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-apple-icloud-insight/apple-moves-to-store-icloud-keys-in-china-raising-human-rights-fears-idUSKCN1G8060 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-apple-icloud-insigh...
      - mlindner 8y ago
        Text messages are not stored in iCloud... https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303
    - B0btheBuilder 8y ago
      >iCloud data doesn't contain phone call contents or iMessage data contents. Literally the first paragraph of both of bduerst's links suggest otherwise. Also, I don't know if you've used iCloud on multiple devices before, but it very much contains iMessage data contents.
  - patrec 8y ago
    Is there anything Apple could have done to protect the privacy of its Chinese users better (whilst still having some)? You could say they shouldn't have Chinese users, but that's a different argument, I believe.
danso 8y ago
What evidence or steps would be sufficient for you?
- aero142 8y ago
  Not parent, but I'll answer. 1) The implementation of the wake word recognition is implemented in hardware that cannot be updated remotely. 2) The device is unable to transmit information without lighting up a TX light. Implemented in unmodifiable hardware. 3) Voice recordings are processed and then deleted within one month. 4) The device is run by a company that doesn't make money through marketing or data analysis.
  - Karunamon 8y ago
    1 means it's impossible to offer better voice recognition accuracy or change the wake word, meaning they get pilloried by reviewers for offering a device that's strictly worse than the current gen, and they get pilloried by HN for contributing to tech waste. 1&2 get the company pilloried by HN the moment a vulnerability comes out. 3 is a requirement that doesn't actually solve any problems and ruins a legitimate need of ML - comparing performance against a known baseline. 4 is overbroad - most software companies make their money through data analysis of one form or another.
  - illumin8 8y ago
    Be honest, even if the manufacturer tells you #1 is true you're not going to believe them. You're setting up an impossible set of demands that no manufacturer is going to meet and no consumer really cares about (other than perhaps yourself and a few tinfoil hat wearing crypto-anarchists).
    - aero142 8y ago
      The iPhone hardware meets my standards. The secure enclave for touchID is detailed in it's description and security. The Apple business model is not data collection, and the legal fights they have put up give me a reasonable belief that they take my security and privacy seriously enough for me. They are also printing money so it seems to be workable as part of a business model. I think you are wrong on all accounts.

cheeze 8y ago

I disagree. Amazon seems to actually care about privacy and takes things like this pretty seriously. One could certainly criticize AMZN data collection, but I think Amazon has shown that it does care about privacy of this data. Mistakes do happen which is unfortunate, and I think there is a good argument for no company, no matter their intentions to record this much data. On the other hand, this is Facebook's business model.

pixxel 8y ago
“Amazon seems to actually care about privacy “ Not according to the NY Times this week. Amazon have been reading your private messages on Facebook. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/technology/facebook-privacy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/technology/facebook-priva...
- CobrastanJorji 8y ago
  y'know, I never thought about it, but I think I agree with you that being willing to pay another company for access to private information about you probably counts as not caring about your privacy. It's not as bad. It's the difference between paying somebody to tell them secrets about you and selling secrets about you. But it's definitely not a thing a person respectful of your privacy would do.
- tryagainacct 8y ago
  You might want to read the article again. No part of it says that Amazon read private messages on Facebook.
  - bduerst 8y ago
    Yeah, AFAIK it was login-with-facebook partners like Spotify. Were people ever able to login to Amazon with facebook?
lorenzobr 8y ago
I find it's funny how people these days think the problem is with Facebook. Literally every company that has access to users' data has in one way or another some kind of business model based on selling that data. Every day I come across 2 or 3 articles from big newspapers giving Facebook some shit about selling user data. But what about Experian? What about phone carriers? They all sell users' data, maybe anonymous maybe not but they are still making profit on people's privacy. And when some shit goes down, we make a big fuss about it for a few days and then we go back to normal. Equifax anyone? Honestly, companies in the position of making profit on users' data have been doing it for the better part of 15 years now, I don't understand why we are acting so surprised now.

matte_black 8y ago

The thing is that for most people avoiding this kind of tech and platforms is unlikely to have any kind of payoff for them. Life is too short. Most peoples lives are as simple as going to school and work, raising a family, taking vacations, paying bills, and then passing away. There will never be a moment where they can say “Yes! My avoidance of Facebook and Alexa for all my life has finally paid off! Hahaha!” The only people who can say that are people who have good reasons to hide: drug dealers with multiple lines of business, professional black hat hackers, home grown terrorists, life insurance fraudsters, etc. The average person has nothing of interest to offer except more information about them in order to better perceive trends and distribute ads to them so that maybe they buy something.

bzbarsky 8y ago
Your list is missing "pro-democracy advocates", "Muslims", "Christians", "Jews", "atheists", "women who want an abortion", "people trying to escape an abusive relationship", "people with interesting medical conditions", etc, depending on location. Please don't pretend that both "only criminals have something to hide" and "criminals are by definition bad people" are true statements. Neither is true.
- matte_black 8y ago
  If you live under a government where those examples are a reason to hide, then in the eyes of that government you are technically a criminal. Doesn’t describe my government. Even under the most oppressive governments though, there will still be a sizable majority that doesn’t have anything to hide and can feel secure using most technology, and they’ll be fine.
  - justinclift 8y ago
    > Doesn’t describe my government. ... yet? :)
  - mokus 8y ago
    > Doesn’t describe my government. This mindset seems to be why the US political parties keep handing each other more and more federal power. Nobody can imagine their nation would be so stupid as to ever put the Other Guys back in power again.

notyourwork 8y ago

Do you use a cell phone? You seem to be wearing a tin-foil hat living under a rock.

dang 8y ago
Personal attacks will get you banned here. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and post civilly and substantively, or not at all.

Kiro 8y ago

It's the best thing I've ever bought. Whatever bad thing can happen is still worth it. It's a trade-off I'm actively choosing.

summadat 8y ago
What if a trade-off was that your Echo was actively recording and indexing every single word you've said within its range?
- Karunamon 8y ago
  And while we’re talking about ridiculous what-ifs with no basis in reality, 5G could be giving you cancer!

illumin8 8y ago

I consistently hear this from the same people that own iOS or Android phones. You do realize that the mic on any phone produced in the last few years is also "always listening," right?

e1ven 8y ago
I hate this argument. A) It depends on if you enable it. B) Just because you're willing to accept something in one domain doesn't mean you are universally OK with it being applied everywhere. C) I trust Apple much more than I trust Amazon.

jacquesm 8y ago

> Why can't people see trouble-tech? I like that term. Would really like a definition. How does 'technology whose short term value is negated by long term negative effects' sound?