4 ms·

Product Marketing does not 'document' they position, and write about features. If the 'mic' isn't part of feature or proposition, why would it even be in their

Product Marketing does not 'document' they position, and write about features. If the 'mic' isn't part of feature or proposition, why would it even be in their radar? The '1st order' response of marketing doing their job is 'who cares?'. Few people care about tech tidbits that are not user oriented. There's already tons of things to worry about and address - and every single bit of copy takes up valuable space. The issue also does not fit into the standard communications framework: Hey, should we should tell people that there is a microphone, even if it is not working and does nothing? How do we even do that? "Hey, your alarm has a microphone!" Wouldn't that seem odd, why does it have a microphone?! You'd even have to kind of explain it: "Your product has a microphone so that one day in the future, you might enable some other features that don't exist yet" "this has privacy implications" - no - it only has the perception of privacy implications. Because Google is not actually intervening on people's privacy, it's unlikely they really thought about the need to give people an unneeded affirmation. Maybe they had a discussion about it, maybe it just didn't rise to the level of 'very important'. Only with a very specific concern for a subgroup of customers who are wary of these things, would someone have enough leverage to get that "Hey, there's a microphone that does nothing!" notice on the box. Google is not doing specific evil. They are not trying to infiltrate your homes and take nude pictures of you so they can look at them or sell them. They are systematically evil, in the sense that it makes sense for them to sell you voice/video features that you want in order that they might provide you even better services. And their AI will use nudies of you in a backwards way to learn more about you. They're getting evil due to their scope of influence, and negative externalities, much like FB has problems with 'Russian interference in elections' - i.e. not a problem they are trying to create, not a problem they want, just a sensitive byproduct of their product and massive success.

pbhjpbhj 8y ago
>`"this has privacy implications" - no - it only has the perception of privacy implications. Because Google is not actually [intruding] on people's privacy [...]` I've got to disagree here: it has privacy implications because at Google's end they can issue a software update and now be monitoring all audio, and the T&C no doubt say they can be unilaterally varied without notification. That all means that Google think I accept Google snooping on me; of course I don't but in court Google lawyers would say I did, and them being in a position to do that is important. Also, if Google can enable the mic at some point then it's likely that's a possibility for a third party (crackers), OR that Google could do it in response to a legal demand from a government. There seems no good reason to me that the specification summary can't say "microphone - not in use yet, reserved for future applications"; with a sentence somewhere expanding on that explaining they want the ability to improve the device later and do shipped a mic because it could be useful to expand the products capabilities. Some of us actually do read instruction books; it would no doubt get some column-inches in a positive way ("what changes might Google make"). Google know everything they make is going to get a tear-down and that mics are going to be discovered in short-shrift: it's ignorant to not anticipate that. In fact one really has to assume they knew this "issue" would come up.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  Google is not going to all of a sudden start recording you in your home without your knowledge, and then say 'hey look, you signed a contract'. That would be an obvious PR disaster, not an 'I forgot disaster'. If/when Google enables this tech, it think it will be clear enough. If not, then definitely would be time to raise a real fuss. "There seems no good reason to me that the specification summary can't say" - I agree with you there - however, I suggest that they mighn't have even have thought of it. That would be the prudent thing to do, but again, there's no established procedure for it. There probably was not even a legal review hint etc. because as I say, they were not using it. So it's questionable, weird, but not nefarious. What they will do, with your ostensible permission, with a signed T&C - is to me, far more nefarious.

pbhjpbhj 8y ago

>`"this has privacy implications" - no - it only has the perception of privacy implications. Because Google is not actually [intruding] on people's privacy [...]` I've got to disagree here: it has privacy implications because at Google's end they can issue a software update and now be monitoring all audio, and the T&C no doubt say they can be unilaterally varied without notification. That all means that Google think I accept Google snooping on me; of course I don't but in court Google lawyers would say I did, and them being in a position to do that is important. Also, if Google can enable the mic at some point then it's likely that's a possibility for a third party (crackers), OR that Google could do it in response to a legal demand from a government. There seems no good reason to me that the specification summary can't say "microphone - not in use yet, reserved for future applications"; with a sentence somewhere expanding on that explaining they want the ability to improve the device later and do shipped a mic because it could be useful to expand the products capabilities. Some of us actually do read instruction books; it would no doubt get some column-inches in a positive way ("what changes might Google make"). Google know everything they make is going to get a tear-down and that mics are going to be discovered in short-shrift: it's ignorant to not anticipate that. In fact one really has to assume they knew this "issue" would come up.

sonnyblarney 8y ago
Google is not going to all of a sudden start recording you in your home without your knowledge, and then say 'hey look, you signed a contract'. That would be an obvious PR disaster, not an 'I forgot disaster'. If/when Google enables this tech, it think it will be clear enough. If not, then definitely would be time to raise a real fuss. "There seems no good reason to me that the specification summary can't say" - I agree with you there - however, I suggest that they mighn't have even have thought of it. That would be the prudent thing to do, but again, there's no established procedure for it. There probably was not even a legal review hint etc. because as I say, they were not using it. So it's questionable, weird, but not nefarious. What they will do, with your ostensible permission, with a signed T&C - is to me, far more nefarious.