6 ms·

I agree with you in principle, but I think the Nest actually only includes a hidden microphone, not a hidden camera.

ehsankia 8y ago
Many other Nest products, such as the Smoke alarm, doorbell and camera have microphones too. I agree that not disclosing that one was bad, but realistically if you have a Nest home, you probably have at least one microphone somewhere. It also comes down to much you trust them that the microphone was disabled. If you don't, then you probably also shouldn't be carrying a smartphone with you either.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
iamrobschiavone 8y ago
Yep, it's "only" a microphone, but it's still an inexcusable breach of trust.
- pdkl95 8y ago
  The breach of trust is bad enough, but the fact that it is a microphone opens the possibility of criminal wiretapping charges.
  - sneak 8y ago
    The rules for you and I are not the same rules for Google.
  - Gaelan 8y ago
    Even if the mic was never on?
    - harry8 8y ago
      Yes! Even if the gun to your head was never fired.
      - vsl 8y ago
        This is either stupid or dishonest. A gun to your head is a threat of violence - that’s the criminal act. Threatening murder is a crime in itself. The crime of wiretapping would be secretly listening/recording (and willfully so, not by accident as e.g. when baby monitors cross-talk). Having an inactive piece of hardware present, with no intention of using it for spying, is not a crime. Having the hardware present is extremely unlikely to be nefarious. It could have been (a probably was) future-proofing. It could be a bundled package (unlikely I think for a mic, but you e.g. pretty much can’t buy cheap motion sensors without temp and luminosity bundled, so things like Philips Hue motion sensors measure temperature too).
        harry8 8y ago
        I disagree strongly that characterisation of stupid and dishonest. Play ball. You didn't know about the gun to your head, are you ok with that? It was futureproofing in case you later might want the gun and we're claiming it's not loaded. Yes gun to the head is the extreme example, that's the point. Not switching it on does not absolve you of guilt. Same thing here. That is an entirely reasonable point of view and argument. If you really do find it stupid and/or dishonest reflect on that. If there is no law against putting secret wire taps in people's houses "by mistake" and claiming it wasn't switched on there should be because ethically its a crime worthy of the Stasi. I would prefer if we didn't have a turnkey solution to creation of a facist state of the kind the soviets could only dream of. Perhaps you like the idea? Ah but "google wouldn't" So there's no need for law surrounding google because they just wouldn't. I know some of the engineers and no way would they allow that. Democracy deserves better defence. Even if the gun to your head is never fired and you don't know about it. Criminal. If the law says otherwise, change it. Now I wonder if there is something you would like to disclose about your vested interests? Perhaps not. I'm old enough to remember smart and kind people being Soviet apologists then finding out later something approximating the truth to their revulsion. You don't have to be on the take to be an apologist. But there is a lot of defence of big silicon valley companies behaving badly around here and very little "Disclosure, I work for.." going on.
  - MertsA 8y ago
    Well first of all this isn't a phone call so there's no chance at all of wiretapping charges regardless of any other circumstances. Second of all, the only potentially related charge would be something like eavesdropping and while that would vary by state, that would have required Google to actually use the microphone. If they didn't actually eavesdrop on anyone or design that in with the intent to eavesdrop on anyone then they haven't committed any kind of eavesdropping crime. https://definitions.uslegal.com/e/eavesdropping/ https://definitions.uslegal.com/e/eavesdropping/
akira2501 8y ago
This is something I always ask people with those little "camera blockers" attached to their laptops: "How do you block the microphone?" and "Which is worse? Recording video of you all day, or recording audio of you all day?
- smelendez 8y ago
  That's a good point. I think it varies from person to person. Part of my reason for blocking video is I can never figure out when videoconferencing tools will default to transmitting video, which I never want, before I have a way to turn it off. Also, I don't think I'm a high profile enough target that somebody would bother sifting through everything I say in front of my laptop for something interesting. Capturing images every minute or so and looking for something embarrassing (someone showing lots of skin) seems much easier for malware to automate.
  - trevyn 8y ago
    >I don't think I'm a high profile enough target that somebody would bother sifting through everything I say in front of my laptop for something interesting. The threat model is closer to automated transcription, global history search, and parallel construction.
    - smelendez 8y ago
      I think that would be hard to pull off in the US, where I live. There are enough paranoid infosec people that would spot the data transmission or CPU usage. But certainly no harm done in muffling or ripping out a mic if you're concerned!
      - r00fus 8y ago
        Not if it’s intermittent / on-demand and hiding within existing traffic.
      - pdkl95 8y ago
        Why would anybody bother trying to hide traffic? Lots of apps already waste bandwidth and CPU to exfiltrate a wide variety of data, often sending it straight to Facebook[1]. They simply relabeled it "analytics", [1] https://media.ccc.de/v/35c3-9941-how_facebook_tracks_you_on_android https://media.ccc.de/v/35c3-9941-how_facebook_tracks_you_on_...

Many other Nest products, such as the Smoke alarm, doorbell and camera have microphones too. I agree that not disclosing that one was bad, but realistically if you have a Nest home, you probably have at least one microphone somewhere. It also comes down to much you trust them that the microphone was disabled. If you don't, then you probably also shouldn't be carrying a smartphone with you either.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

iamrobschiavone 8y ago

Yep, it's "only" a microphone, but it's still an inexcusable breach of trust.

pdkl95 8y ago
The breach of trust is bad enough, but the fact that it is a microphone opens the possibility of criminal wiretapping charges.
- sneak 8y ago
  The rules for you and I are not the same rules for Google.
- Gaelan 8y ago
  Even if the mic was never on?
  - harry8 8y ago
    Yes! Even if the gun to your head was never fired.
    - vsl 8y ago
      This is either stupid or dishonest. A gun to your head is a threat of violence - that’s the criminal act. Threatening murder is a crime in itself. The crime of wiretapping would be secretly listening/recording (and willfully so, not by accident as e.g. when baby monitors cross-talk). Having an inactive piece of hardware present, with no intention of using it for spying, is not a crime. Having the hardware present is extremely unlikely to be nefarious. It could have been (a probably was) future-proofing. It could be a bundled package (unlikely I think for a mic, but you e.g. pretty much can’t buy cheap motion sensors without temp and luminosity bundled, so things like Philips Hue motion sensors measure temperature too).
      - harry8 8y ago
        I disagree strongly that characterisation of stupid and dishonest. Play ball. You didn't know about the gun to your head, are you ok with that? It was futureproofing in case you later might want the gun and we're claiming it's not loaded. Yes gun to the head is the extreme example, that's the point. Not switching it on does not absolve you of guilt. Same thing here. That is an entirely reasonable point of view and argument. If you really do find it stupid and/or dishonest reflect on that. If there is no law against putting secret wire taps in people's houses "by mistake" and claiming it wasn't switched on there should be because ethically its a crime worthy of the Stasi. I would prefer if we didn't have a turnkey solution to creation of a facist state of the kind the soviets could only dream of. Perhaps you like the idea? Ah but "google wouldn't" So there's no need for law surrounding google because they just wouldn't. I know some of the engineers and no way would they allow that. Democracy deserves better defence. Even if the gun to your head is never fired and you don't know about it. Criminal. If the law says otherwise, change it. Now I wonder if there is something you would like to disclose about your vested interests? Perhaps not. I'm old enough to remember smart and kind people being Soviet apologists then finding out later something approximating the truth to their revulsion. You don't have to be on the take to be an apologist. But there is a lot of defence of big silicon valley companies behaving badly around here and very little "Disclosure, I work for.." going on.
- MertsA 8y ago
  Well first of all this isn't a phone call so there's no chance at all of wiretapping charges regardless of any other circumstances. Second of all, the only potentially related charge would be something like eavesdropping and while that would vary by state, that would have required Google to actually use the microphone. If they didn't actually eavesdrop on anyone or design that in with the intent to eavesdrop on anyone then they haven't committed any kind of eavesdropping crime. https://definitions.uslegal.com/e/eavesdropping/ https://definitions.uslegal.com/e/eavesdropping/

akira2501 8y ago

This is something I always ask people with those little "camera blockers" attached to their laptops: "How do you block the microphone?" and "Which is worse? Recording video of you all day, or recording audio of you all day?

smelendez 8y ago
That's a good point. I think it varies from person to person. Part of my reason for blocking video is I can never figure out when videoconferencing tools will default to transmitting video, which I never want, before I have a way to turn it off. Also, I don't think I'm a high profile enough target that somebody would bother sifting through everything I say in front of my laptop for something interesting. Capturing images every minute or so and looking for something embarrassing (someone showing lots of skin) seems much easier for malware to automate.
- trevyn 8y ago
  >I don't think I'm a high profile enough target that somebody would bother sifting through everything I say in front of my laptop for something interesting. The threat model is closer to automated transcription, global history search, and parallel construction.
  - smelendez 8y ago
    I think that would be hard to pull off in the US, where I live. There are enough paranoid infosec people that would spot the data transmission or CPU usage. But certainly no harm done in muffling or ripping out a mic if you're concerned!
    - r00fus 8y ago
      Not if it’s intermittent / on-demand and hiding within existing traffic.
    - pdkl95 8y ago
      Why would anybody bother trying to hide traffic? Lots of apps already waste bandwidth and CPU to exfiltrate a wide variety of data, often sending it straight to Facebook[1]. They simply relabeled it "analytics", [1] https://media.ccc.de/v/35c3-9941-how_facebook_tracks_you_on_android https://media.ccc.de/v/35c3-9941-how_facebook_tracks_you_on_...