5 ms·

I suspect this is going to be an unpopular opinion, but I still don't get the fuzz. People buy crap like Amazon echo left and right, and have been carrying litt

I suspect this is going to be an unpopular opinion, but I still don't get the fuzz. People buy crap like Amazon echo left and right, and have been carrying little computers with microphones and an internet connection around all day for even longer. Apart from the fact that any sane person shouldn't trust any google product value their privacy in the first place, how many people are there consciously not buying a smartphone in fear of it being used to spy on them, then go buy this nest product and feel safe about it. I might be an asshole for it and rightly so get down voted, but I really feel schadenfreude from this story. And maybe now some more people will learn their lesson. You can tell a toddler a dozen times that the stove is hot. They really only learn after they touched it once.

specialist 8y ago
Some people want to receive what they pay for, nothing more, nothing less. If you had a peanut allergy, wouldn't you want to know if the candy bar has peanuts?
ncallaway 8y ago
> People buy crap like Amazon echo left and right People know the Amazon echo contains a microphone. > have been carrying little computers with microphones and an internet connection around all day for even longer People know that their phones contains a microphone. Surely the difference of being able to make an informed choice is still significant? > I might be an asshole for it and rightly so get down voted, but I really feel schadenfreude from this story I don't understand the schadenfreude here. Because some people make privacy choices that you disagree with, then we should take pleasure when companies stop presenting a choice at all? I guess I just fundamentally don't understand how you can equate the two categories of products together. In one category people make a knowing choice. In the other category they do not, and the company has outright lied to them to prevent them from making a knowing choice.
- ehsankia 8y ago
  I don't understand the shadenfreude either, but for the opposite reason. I think most people who have Nest products also are in the Google ecosystem, and are probably happy that they now have a Google Home for free. Considering half of the other Nest products contain microphones already, I don't think anyone who truly is worried about this stuff would've gotten a Nest ecosystem to start with. I agree, it's important to have all the facts so you can make informed decision, but this specific case has been way overblown, mostly by people who don't use Nest nor ever will. Almost anyone who's outraged probably would've never bought the product anyway.
  - justicezyx 8y ago
    What's the point of arguing who made the arguments, when we are debating how much validity do the arguments have.
orev 8y ago
There’s a difference between doing it knowingly vs unknowingly. In fact, that is the ONLY thing that matters.
- iforgotpassword 8y ago
  But that's people bullshitting themselves. It's not like you suddenly behave differently in your own home once you got an echo dot. You basically know you just sold your privacy to amazon, but you tell yourself it's OK since you know about it, which somehow puts you on top of the game. It doesn't.
  - viscanti 8y ago
    > But that's people bullshitting themselves. No it's not. What Google did here was illegal. There are also people who value their privacy and don't have an Amazon echo or other listening device. You're trying to argue that SOME people don't value their privacy so NO ONE should ever have an expectation that a device they buy isn't secretly listening in on them illegally. I fundamentally disagree with that take.
Zelphyr 8y ago
I think yours is an important question that few people realize which is; these companies are legally required to tell you when they are listening to you, or even potentially listening to you. Google "accidentally" forgot to tell people that they included a mic in those devices. That's still illegal.
- milkthefat 8y ago
  What happens if i created a device that has multiple speakers and through a software update I make one an (albeit)poor quality mic? Do I need to tell you before hand that this was possible? Are they still considered speakers?
  - code_duck 8y ago
    Obviously that change would be made in order to use the new microphone capability, and of course that would require informing consumers when you’re using the mic and why.
  - ineedasername 8y ago
    Uh, yes? I don't think it's an open question that product updates should detail the updates made. And since recording someone in any way without their knowledge is illegal in many contexts, that would go double for something like you describe.
    - foobarian 8y ago
      The point is that there are a million devices with speakers and we don't expect their manufacturers to disclose that it is possible to record us with them. As long as they are not actually doing it I don't see the big deal with the dormant microphone either.
      - ineedasername 8y ago
        They disclose the speaker. And I'm willing to bet the vast majority aren't wired to be an input device. Your comparison is a false equivalency.
ignoramous 8y ago
Couple of reasons why I think the fuzz is approp: 1. The fact that things are already bleak doesn't justify a more bleaker tomorrow. The fact that a large section of humanity is oblivious to privacy breaches doesn't mean the select few who do care about it should stop protesting against it, regardless of behaviour of the masses [0]. 2. The law makers (governments) and the king makers (tech conglomerates) shouldn't be given a free-pass to do as they please at the expense of security, privacy, free-speech, and other ethos that make internet such a powerful medium. Policies needs to be continually renewed in response to emerging threats at pace [1] and so it is important to keep naming/shaming said entities to drive the dialogue. -- [0] Bruce Schneier on Censorship, Surveillance, Propaganda, and User Control https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3NJ-Ow2Lvg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3NJ-Ow2Lvg [1] Bruce Schneier, again, on Security of Everything https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkJCI3_jbtg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkJCI3_jbtg
- iforgotpassword 8y ago
  Fair points. And I didn't intend to say google should go unpunished for this, in case it came across as defending them. Added those vids to my queue, thanks.
hedora 8y ago
The reason I think it’s news: I agree Google products are a privacy dumpster fire, and even think some people that bought the nest thingy agree. The part that is news for me: Google is (inadvertently?) moving the bar of acceptable behavior to “we’ll plant microphones (and other surveillance hardware capabilities) in devices now, wait until you start relying on unrelated functionality, then totally issue a press release before we turn them on and start slurping your data.”
renholder 8y ago
>...how many people are there consciously not buying a smartphone in fear of it being used to spy on them... I'd say that the number is relatively small to non-existent but that might have more to do with the fact that cell phones are more a requirement for day-to-day life than anything else. For example, try to sign-up for paging services, as a means to replace your cellphone with a passive-only device, and see how far you can actually get with that idea. Or try to buy a CRT-TV.[0] At some point you have to concede that means to go against society's trends are no longer there, unless you make them yourself - and most people either don't have the resources nor the time or a combinations of either to do that. [0] - https://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=lp_560864_nr_p_n_feature_three_br_0?fst=as%3Aoff&rh=n%3A560798%2Cn%3A%21560800%2Cn%3A560858%2Cn%3A560864%2Cp_n_feature_three_browse-bin%3A163733031&bbn=560864&ie=UTF8&qid=1552747507&rnid=161069031 https://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=lp_560864_nr_p_n_feature_thre...
- reaperducer 8y ago
  try to sign-up for paging services, as a means to replace your cellphone with a passive-only device, and see how far you can actually get with that idea. Pagers are still used in some industries, like healthcare, where people can die if a message doesn’t get through. Pagers are still more reliable than text messages and cell phones in many locations and especially inside large buildings like hospitals. Though the industry is switching.
  - pdkl95 8y ago
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/08/11/why-one-of-cybersecuritys-thought-leaders-uses-a-pager-instead-of-a-smart-phone/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/08/11... "Why one of cybersecurity’s thought leaders [Dan Geer] uses a pager instead of a smart phone"
  - renholder 8y ago
    >Pagers are still used in some industries... I never said that they weren't, yeah? I suggested it being a difficult alternative because of the wide-spread use of cell phones. For example, in my country, the national paging system was taken down in August of 2011; so, there's no consumer paging services. B2B (which hospitals would be inclusive of) still exist, to be sure, but that means nothing in the overall scheme of a consumer trying to not buy a cell phone.
reaperducer 8y ago
little computers with microphones and an internet connection around all day for even longer The difference is that we know our phones have microphones and cameras and internet. The reason people are upset is because there was no way anyone would know they added an internet-connected microphone to their home with this device unless they opened it up and reverse engineered the firmware. If anyone can prove that these microphones were turned on without the owner’s consent — even just for “telemetry” or “quality assurance” — then criminal charges will follow.
- iforgotpassword 8y ago
  > The difference is that we know our phones have microphones and cameras and internet. The question is, does that really matter? Isn't that just something you tell yourself to feel like you're still in control, ahead of the game? I have two colleagues who in general are pretty concerned with privacy, data protection etc. but still bought an echo. Then countered my surprise with the same argument: at least I know it's listening and how it works! Like somehow, that knowledge makes you immune to the Problem. In reality, you don't suddenly behave differently at home. You won't think twice before saying something. You just managed to fool yourself enough to deal with that cognitive dissonance. And I'm all for charges against google here, I mean I dislike them more every day because of something they did, including this story. It's just funny that some people still think you can trust them in any way.
  - ncallaway 8y ago
    > The question is, does that really matter? I absolutely think it does. I have also bought an Amazon Echo, but I unplug it when it's out of use for extended periods of time. I wouldn't purchase a similar product from Facebook, because I trust Amazon with my personal data more than Facebook. I've never purchased a Smart TV that contains a microphone. Just because I make some decisions you disagree with in balancing my privacy and convenience trade-offs doesn't mean I should be prevented from making those decisions at all.
    - reaperducer 8y ago
dontbenebby 8y ago
>I suspect this is going to be an unpopular opinion, but I still don't get the fuzz. People buy crap like Amazon echo left and right People are aware an Echo contains a microphone though. For consent to be valid, it must be informed consent. Keep in mind pretty much any sensor can be leveraged via court order, so it's valid for people to be upset they were unable to properly threat model due to a lack of information.
HALtheWise 8y ago
I agree. Remember Amazon's little dash buttons they sold to allow quick reordering of products? They contain a microphone. I'm pretty sure they didn't mention that in their public documents, and it never seems to have been used for anything except an ultrasonic pairing procedure with some iPhones, but it definitely exists. HN didn't get mad because Amazon has never claimed to be a morally good company, so they aren't the current corporate bogeyman. It seems to me like disclosing when I sell a product all of the nefarious ways it could possibly be OTA updated is a little bit of an extreme position, given that even a simple accelerometer can be used to track you and sometimes record sound. In short, if you think a company is actively working against your well being, don't put anything they make in your house. Otherwise, don't worry.
- wurst_case 8y ago
  They did? You are wrong, I find that equally concerning. I do make choices on electronics based on their hardware. I do not have any devices like he echo or homepod because I find them intrusive. Maybe you two don't but I definitely do. I have two devices with microphones and cameras connected to the internet as far as I know and I have taken the necessary precautions to ensure that those are safe. Now I have to open up my other Google products to check if they've been bugged. You bet your butt I'm a bit miffed.
abootstrapper 8y ago
If a stranger comes in your house uninvited and without your knowledge, what’s the big deal? You’ve let other people in your house, and your father in law is a terrible house guest!
arkades 8y ago
> People buy crap like Amazon echo left and right, and have been carrying little computers with microphones and an internet connection around all day for even longer. Consent. The difference is consent. You may get laid ten times a day for a week, but the time it happens without your permission is still a problem. I have trouble believing folks that “don’t get this” aren’t being purposely obtuse. Consent isn’t that complicated an idea.
- iforgotpassword 8y ago
  > Consent. The difference is consent. You may get laid ten times a day for a week, but the time it happens without your permission is still a problem. Interesting choice of analogy. Lets assume that you actually consented to your smartphone recording you at any time without telling you, and then google use that recording for whatever they like. That is most probably not true: you only want the mic to record you in very specific moments, and you also probably want to know exactly where any data that leaves your device is stored and how it's being used. You have to trust google (or any other company who's app you gave permission to access the mic) to comply with this. If you do, then the nest case shouldn't be an issue to you at all. You never consented to this mic being used for anything, so legally they can't use it for anything, and since you trust them in the smartphone case, you do here too. End of story. If however you wouldn't even trust google with the mic in your smartphone, then why would you buy anything from them at all? "Oh it doesn't have a mic so they'd only abuse all the other data they can collect from it." > I have trouble believing folks that “don’t get this” aren’t being purposely obtuse. Consent isn’t that complicated an idea. Common sense isn't either. Google is evil, and not just since yesterday. I wouldn't even buy a Chromecast.
rhizome 8y ago
"People" use Facebook and vote, but it's really not that simple now, is it?
brandon272 8y ago
I believe that one reason it grinds people's gears is that it's symbolic of a larger problem. Dumping microphones in products and then having it not occur to you to even note the microphone in a spec represents a blind spot in how this company views privacy, and indicates how they take for granted the ability to add whatever sensors and capture hardware into their products with the purpose of collecting information about their customers - with or without their consent.
- oh_sigh 8y ago
  Does it really grind peoples gears? As in, new people who weren't upset with amazon echos, google homes, apple homepods, etc? Or is it just the same people that were up in arms about 'spy devices' being welcomed into peoples homes that are also up in arms about Nests having a microphone in them?

specialist 8y ago

Some people want to receive what they pay for, nothing more, nothing less. If you had a peanut allergy, wouldn't you want to know if the candy bar has peanuts?

ncallaway 8y ago

> People buy crap like Amazon echo left and right People know the Amazon echo contains a microphone. > have been carrying little computers with microphones and an internet connection around all day for even longer People know that their phones contains a microphone. Surely the difference of being able to make an informed choice is still significant? > I might be an asshole for it and rightly so get down voted, but I really feel schadenfreude from this story I don't understand the schadenfreude here. Because some people make privacy choices that you disagree with, then we should take pleasure when companies stop presenting a choice at all? I guess I just fundamentally don't understand how you can equate the two categories of products together. In one category people make a knowing choice. In the other category they do not, and the company has outright lied to them to prevent them from making a knowing choice.

ehsankia 8y ago
I don't understand the shadenfreude either, but for the opposite reason. I think most people who have Nest products also are in the Google ecosystem, and are probably happy that they now have a Google Home for free. Considering half of the other Nest products contain microphones already, I don't think anyone who truly is worried about this stuff would've gotten a Nest ecosystem to start with. I agree, it's important to have all the facts so you can make informed decision, but this specific case has been way overblown, mostly by people who don't use Nest nor ever will. Almost anyone who's outraged probably would've never bought the product anyway.
- justicezyx 8y ago
  What's the point of arguing who made the arguments, when we are debating how much validity do the arguments have.

orev 8y ago

There’s a difference between doing it knowingly vs unknowingly. In fact, that is the ONLY thing that matters.

iforgotpassword 8y ago
But that's people bullshitting themselves. It's not like you suddenly behave differently in your own home once you got an echo dot. You basically know you just sold your privacy to amazon, but you tell yourself it's OK since you know about it, which somehow puts you on top of the game. It doesn't.
- viscanti 8y ago
  > But that's people bullshitting themselves. No it's not. What Google did here was illegal. There are also people who value their privacy and don't have an Amazon echo or other listening device. You're trying to argue that SOME people don't value their privacy so NO ONE should ever have an expectation that a device they buy isn't secretly listening in on them illegally. I fundamentally disagree with that take.

Zelphyr 8y ago

I think yours is an important question that few people realize which is; these companies are legally required to tell you when they are listening to you, or even potentially listening to you. Google "accidentally" forgot to tell people that they included a mic in those devices. That's still illegal.

milkthefat 8y ago
What happens if i created a device that has multiple speakers and through a software update I make one an (albeit)poor quality mic? Do I need to tell you before hand that this was possible? Are they still considered speakers?
- code_duck 8y ago
  Obviously that change would be made in order to use the new microphone capability, and of course that would require informing consumers when you’re using the mic and why.
- ineedasername 8y ago
  Uh, yes? I don't think it's an open question that product updates should detail the updates made. And since recording someone in any way without their knowledge is illegal in many contexts, that would go double for something like you describe.
  - foobarian 8y ago
    The point is that there are a million devices with speakers and we don't expect their manufacturers to disclose that it is possible to record us with them. As long as they are not actually doing it I don't see the big deal with the dormant microphone either.
    - ineedasername 8y ago
      They disclose the speaker. And I'm willing to bet the vast majority aren't wired to be an input device. Your comparison is a false equivalency.

ignoramous 8y ago

Couple of reasons why I think the fuzz is approp: 1. The fact that things are already bleak doesn't justify a more bleaker tomorrow. The fact that a large section of humanity is oblivious to privacy breaches doesn't mean the select few who do care about it should stop protesting against it, regardless of behaviour of the masses [0]. 2. The law makers (governments) and the king makers (tech conglomerates) shouldn't be given a free-pass to do as they please at the expense of security, privacy, free-speech, and other ethos that make internet such a powerful medium. Policies needs to be continually renewed in response to emerging threats at pace [1] and so it is important to keep naming/shaming said entities to drive the dialogue. -- [0] Bruce Schneier on Censorship, Surveillance, Propaganda, and User Control https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3NJ-Ow2Lvg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3NJ-Ow2Lvg [1] Bruce Schneier, again, on Security of Everything https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkJCI3_jbtg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkJCI3_jbtg

iforgotpassword 8y ago
Fair points. And I didn't intend to say google should go unpunished for this, in case it came across as defending them. Added those vids to my queue, thanks.

hedora 8y ago

The reason I think it’s news: I agree Google products are a privacy dumpster fire, and even think some people that bought the nest thingy agree. The part that is news for me: Google is (inadvertently?) moving the bar of acceptable behavior to “we’ll plant microphones (and other surveillance hardware capabilities) in devices now, wait until you start relying on unrelated functionality, then totally issue a press release before we turn them on and start slurping your data.”

renholder 8y ago

>...how many people are there consciously not buying a smartphone in fear of it being used to spy on them... I'd say that the number is relatively small to non-existent but that might have more to do with the fact that cell phones are more a requirement for day-to-day life than anything else. For example, try to sign-up for paging services, as a means to replace your cellphone with a passive-only device, and see how far you can actually get with that idea. Or try to buy a CRT-TV.[0] At some point you have to concede that means to go against society's trends are no longer there, unless you make them yourself - and most people either don't have the resources nor the time or a combinations of either to do that. [0] - https://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=lp_560864_nr_p_n_feature_three_br_0?fst=as%3Aoff&rh=n%3A560798%2Cn%3A%21560800%2Cn%3A560858%2Cn%3A560864%2Cp_n_feature_three_browse-bin%3A163733031&bbn=560864&ie=UTF8&qid=1552747507&rnid=161069031 https://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=lp_560864_nr_p_n_feature_thre...

reaperducer 8y ago
try to sign-up for paging services, as a means to replace your cellphone with a passive-only device, and see how far you can actually get with that idea. Pagers are still used in some industries, like healthcare, where people can die if a message doesn’t get through. Pagers are still more reliable than text messages and cell phones in many locations and especially inside large buildings like hospitals. Though the industry is switching.
- pdkl95 8y ago
  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/08/11/why-one-of-cybersecuritys-thought-leaders-uses-a-pager-instead-of-a-smart-phone/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/08/11... "Why one of cybersecurity’s thought leaders [Dan Geer] uses a pager instead of a smart phone"
- renholder 8y ago
  >Pagers are still used in some industries... I never said that they weren't, yeah? I suggested it being a difficult alternative because of the wide-spread use of cell phones. For example, in my country, the national paging system was taken down in August of 2011; so, there's no consumer paging services. B2B (which hospitals would be inclusive of) still exist, to be sure, but that means nothing in the overall scheme of a consumer trying to not buy a cell phone.

reaperducer 8y ago

little computers with microphones and an internet connection around all day for even longer The difference is that we know our phones have microphones and cameras and internet. The reason people are upset is because there was no way anyone would know they added an internet-connected microphone to their home with this device unless they opened it up and reverse engineered the firmware. If anyone can prove that these microphones were turned on without the owner’s consent — even just for “telemetry” or “quality assurance” — then criminal charges will follow.

iforgotpassword 8y ago
> The difference is that we know our phones have microphones and cameras and internet. The question is, does that really matter? Isn't that just something you tell yourself to feel like you're still in control, ahead of the game? I have two colleagues who in general are pretty concerned with privacy, data protection etc. but still bought an echo. Then countered my surprise with the same argument: at least I know it's listening and how it works! Like somehow, that knowledge makes you immune to the Problem. In reality, you don't suddenly behave differently at home. You won't think twice before saying something. You just managed to fool yourself enough to deal with that cognitive dissonance. And I'm all for charges against google here, I mean I dislike them more every day because of something they did, including this story. It's just funny that some people still think you can trust them in any way.
- ncallaway 8y ago
  > The question is, does that really matter? I absolutely think it does. I have also bought an Amazon Echo, but I unplug it when it's out of use for extended periods of time. I wouldn't purchase a similar product from Facebook, because I trust Amazon with my personal data more than Facebook. I've never purchased a Smart TV that contains a microphone. Just because I make some decisions you disagree with in balancing my privacy and convenience trade-offs doesn't mean I should be prevented from making those decisions at all.
  - reaperducer 8y ago

dontbenebby 8y ago

>I suspect this is going to be an unpopular opinion, but I still don't get the fuzz. People buy crap like Amazon echo left and right People are aware an Echo contains a microphone though. For consent to be valid, it must be informed consent. Keep in mind pretty much any sensor can be leveraged via court order, so it's valid for people to be upset they were unable to properly threat model due to a lack of information.

HALtheWise 8y ago

I agree. Remember Amazon's little dash buttons they sold to allow quick reordering of products? They contain a microphone. I'm pretty sure they didn't mention that in their public documents, and it never seems to have been used for anything except an ultrasonic pairing procedure with some iPhones, but it definitely exists. HN didn't get mad because Amazon has never claimed to be a morally good company, so they aren't the current corporate bogeyman. It seems to me like disclosing when I sell a product all of the nefarious ways it could possibly be OTA updated is a little bit of an extreme position, given that even a simple accelerometer can be used to track you and sometimes record sound. In short, if you think a company is actively working against your well being, don't put anything they make in your house. Otherwise, don't worry.

wurst_case 8y ago
They did? You are wrong, I find that equally concerning. I do make choices on electronics based on their hardware. I do not have any devices like he echo or homepod because I find them intrusive. Maybe you two don't but I definitely do. I have two devices with microphones and cameras connected to the internet as far as I know and I have taken the necessary precautions to ensure that those are safe. Now I have to open up my other Google products to check if they've been bugged. You bet your butt I'm a bit miffed.

abootstrapper 8y ago

If a stranger comes in your house uninvited and without your knowledge, what’s the big deal? You’ve let other people in your house, and your father in law is a terrible house guest!

arkades 8y ago

> People buy crap like Amazon echo left and right, and have been carrying little computers with microphones and an internet connection around all day for even longer. Consent. The difference is consent. You may get laid ten times a day for a week, but the time it happens without your permission is still a problem. I have trouble believing folks that “don’t get this” aren’t being purposely obtuse. Consent isn’t that complicated an idea.

iforgotpassword 8y ago
> Consent. The difference is consent. You may get laid ten times a day for a week, but the time it happens without your permission is still a problem. Interesting choice of analogy. Lets assume that you actually consented to your smartphone recording you at any time without telling you, and then google use that recording for whatever they like. That is most probably not true: you only want the mic to record you in very specific moments, and you also probably want to know exactly where any data that leaves your device is stored and how it's being used. You have to trust google (or any other company who's app you gave permission to access the mic) to comply with this. If you do, then the nest case shouldn't be an issue to you at all. You never consented to this mic being used for anything, so legally they can't use it for anything, and since you trust them in the smartphone case, you do here too. End of story. If however you wouldn't even trust google with the mic in your smartphone, then why would you buy anything from them at all? "Oh it doesn't have a mic so they'd only abuse all the other data they can collect from it." > I have trouble believing folks that “don’t get this” aren’t being purposely obtuse. Consent isn’t that complicated an idea. Common sense isn't either. Google is evil, and not just since yesterday. I wouldn't even buy a Chromecast.

rhizome 8y ago

"People" use Facebook and vote, but it's really not that simple now, is it?

brandon272 8y ago

I believe that one reason it grinds people's gears is that it's symbolic of a larger problem. Dumping microphones in products and then having it not occur to you to even note the microphone in a spec represents a blind spot in how this company views privacy, and indicates how they take for granted the ability to add whatever sensors and capture hardware into their products with the purpose of collecting information about their customers - with or without their consent.

oh_sigh 8y ago
Does it really grind peoples gears? As in, new people who weren't upset with amazon echos, google homes, apple homepods, etc? Or is it just the same people that were up in arms about 'spy devices' being welcomed into peoples homes that are also up in arms about Nests having a microphone in them?