6 ms·

So does that mean that everyone "dumb enough" to have a smartphone deserves to have their privacy obliterated by the manufacturer of that phone? And of course

So does that mean that everyone "dumb enough" to have a smartphone deserves to have their privacy obliterated by the manufacturer of that phone? And of course anyone within earshot of any of those devices also deserves to have their privacy obliterated, even if they themselves don't own one? I really don't understand why people don't get the utility in these things. They're useful. Being able to control lights in the house, control the TV, set timers and reminders, listen to music and the news, manage grocery lists, and more are all super useful. I have Google homes, and I (and my family) use them on a daily basis, they're useful. That doesn't mean we forgo all privacy, that doesn't mean we deserve any violations, that doesn't mean we are okay with information being collected against our will. My family and I are comfortable with the tradeoffs that the device makes, we trust that the company won't break a ton of laws and won't be "listening" when they explicitly say it's not. We are able to delete information we don't want Google to keep, and we are even able to set the account to automatically delete all recordings after a specific period of time if we want. And we trust that the company isn't just lying when they very explicitly say that when you delete something it is actually deleted. I also support more laws and regulations around this, what they can store, how long they can store it, what they can do with it, and mandated ways of controlling your information. You may have different priorities, and that's okay, but I absolutely hate this idea that people who want the benefits of these devices deserve anything, and the implication that only those who don't care about privacy have them. And a token "I don't believe that" doesn't negate the sentiment you wrote right above it. I'm an adult, I'm able to make a conscientious decision to trade some of my privacy in a controlled way to get benefits from it, and that is no more wrong than you wanting to protect your own privacy.

_Codemonkeyism 7y ago
After a year with several Echos we ended up with listening to Spotify and getting the time of the day. Everything else looked like a gimmick. So we dropped the Echos, the tradeof between people listening into your conversations vs. using a light switch just wasn't worth it.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- asdf21 7y ago
  Yeah, I never understood what problem they were supposed to solve from the get-go. Besides gathering a huge "spoken language" data-set for machine learning.
  - apazzolini 7y ago
    Seems to me like you understand perfectly.
tpxl 7y ago
>That doesn't mean we forgo all privacy, that doesn't mean we deserve any violations, that doesn't mean we are okay with information being collected against our will You did forego all privacy and clearly you are okay with information being collected, otherwise you wouldn't have those devices. That being said, you do not "deserve any violations".
- Klathmon 7y ago
  >You did forego all privacy and clearly you are okay with information being collected Absolutely not! I would not be okay with people being able to listen to the audio they record without my consent, I would not be okay with a transcript being publicly available, I would not be okay with the history of the commands I say to it being publicly available. I'm also not okay with audio being recorded without me triggering it to record. Making limited tradeoffs with my privacy in specific situations is very different than not caring about privacy in general. And "privacy" isn't just one thing, there are tons of levels in many different areas. For example, I am not okay with cameras that upload anywhere off site IN my house. That's a line that I'm uncomfortable crossing. Not because I think that there is someone viewing every second of uploaded footage, but because the risk of a security breach is high enough and the information that camera would collect "private" enough that I don't think the tradeoff is worth it. But cameras that record the OUTSIDE of my house and upload it somewhere? I'm fine with that. The expectation of privacy is different on the other side of that wall for me, and i'm more than comfortable with the tradeoffs and risks of that going public. For you those lines might be different, but neither of us forego all privacy because of those decisions.
  - tpxl 7y ago
    >I would not be okay with people being able to listen to the audio they record without my consent, I would not be okay with a transcript being publicly available, I would not be okay with the history of the commands I say to it being publicly available. Something needn't be public to violate your privacy. Clearly you agreed to google listening to and recording to all sound being made in your house, leading to privacy violations. Also, the risk of security breach pretty much isn't if it happens, but when it happens. >Making limited tradeoffs with my privacy in specific situations is very different than not caring about privacy in general. And "privacy" isn't just one thing, there are tons of levels in many different areas. Agreed, however I didn't say you didn't care about privacy. Just that you traded it away for some (stupidly minuscule IMO) benefit.
eternalban 7y ago
None of these capabilities have an existential requirement for a centralized networked infrastructure spanning the globe. Stop and think how ludicrous it is that your being able to say to the room "pick a random song and play it loud" requires fiber on ocean floors and huge buildings running servers and the rest of it. We're being socialized into thinking privacy is an impediment to progress. It is just a very bad idea to create a turn-key surveillance society and hope and cross your fingers it never gets used.
- Klathmon 7y ago
  >None of these capabilities have an existential requirement for a centralized networked infrastructure spanning the globe. Yes, but I don't want to store every single movie, TV show, song, and news story locally and find a way to get them to myself without using the internet. I'd love if more stuff happened locally on these devices, and I experiment with various other systems every now and then. I even have a fully self-hosted home automation system running on open source software using local-only radio systems (z-wave) to control things like lights, garage doors, and door locks. There are things that do require some kind of internet access though, and other things that become much more reliable and easy to use when internet connected. >Stop and think how ludicrous it is that your being able to... I have, and so has my family. And we have made the decision that the tradeoffs are worth it for us. Why can't people understand that I'm an adult, everyone in my household is an adult, and we are able to understand and comprehend the situation, and make a conscientious decision to accept the trade offs. I'm not an idiot, I know there are risks, but the risks are low enough for me and my family to make it worth it. Just like how there are risks simply just getting in a car, and there are risks every time I turn my oven on, but they are all acceptable. Maybe you should stop and think just how ludicrous it is that you seem to think it's impossible that someone else could find value in these devices, and that some are okay with limited tradeoffs with their privacy in return for devices and services which improve their lives. And maybe you should listen when someone tells you that they've weighed the pros and cons and decided it was worth it, rather than quickly jumping to the conclusion that they are wrong, didn't give it any thought, or are somehow being tricked.
  - 7y ago
archy_ 7y ago
>And of course anyone within earshot of any of those devices also deserves to have their privacy obliterated, even if they themselves don't own one? If you don't warn others about a listening device you may even be running afoul of wiretapping laws, depending on your location.
- cameronbrown 7y ago
  If the device isn't actively listening, does this even apply?
- kbenson 7y ago
  Good to know since the police in that same state may be carrying their personal cellphones on them at the same time they interact with people...

_Codemonkeyism 7y ago

After a year with several Echos we ended up with listening to Spotify and getting the time of the day. Everything else looked like a gimmick. So we dropped the Echos, the tradeof between people listening into your conversations vs. using a light switch just wasn't worth it.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
asdf21 7y ago
Yeah, I never understood what problem they were supposed to solve from the get-go. Besides gathering a huge "spoken language" data-set for machine learning.
- apazzolini 7y ago
  Seems to me like you understand perfectly.

tpxl 7y ago

>That doesn't mean we forgo all privacy, that doesn't mean we deserve any violations, that doesn't mean we are okay with information being collected against our will You did forego all privacy and clearly you are okay with information being collected, otherwise you wouldn't have those devices. That being said, you do not "deserve any violations".

Klathmon 7y ago
>You did forego all privacy and clearly you are okay with information being collected Absolutely not! I would not be okay with people being able to listen to the audio they record without my consent, I would not be okay with a transcript being publicly available, I would not be okay with the history of the commands I say to it being publicly available. I'm also not okay with audio being recorded without me triggering it to record. Making limited tradeoffs with my privacy in specific situations is very different than not caring about privacy in general. And "privacy" isn't just one thing, there are tons of levels in many different areas. For example, I am not okay with cameras that upload anywhere off site IN my house. That's a line that I'm uncomfortable crossing. Not because I think that there is someone viewing every second of uploaded footage, but because the risk of a security breach is high enough and the information that camera would collect "private" enough that I don't think the tradeoff is worth it. But cameras that record the OUTSIDE of my house and upload it somewhere? I'm fine with that. The expectation of privacy is different on the other side of that wall for me, and i'm more than comfortable with the tradeoffs and risks of that going public. For you those lines might be different, but neither of us forego all privacy because of those decisions.
- tpxl 7y ago
  >I would not be okay with people being able to listen to the audio they record without my consent, I would not be okay with a transcript being publicly available, I would not be okay with the history of the commands I say to it being publicly available. Something needn't be public to violate your privacy. Clearly you agreed to google listening to and recording to all sound being made in your house, leading to privacy violations. Also, the risk of security breach pretty much isn't if it happens, but when it happens. >Making limited tradeoffs with my privacy in specific situations is very different than not caring about privacy in general. And "privacy" isn't just one thing, there are tons of levels in many different areas. Agreed, however I didn't say you didn't care about privacy. Just that you traded it away for some (stupidly minuscule IMO) benefit.

eternalban 7y ago

None of these capabilities have an existential requirement for a centralized networked infrastructure spanning the globe. Stop and think how ludicrous it is that your being able to say to the room "pick a random song and play it loud" requires fiber on ocean floors and huge buildings running servers and the rest of it. We're being socialized into thinking privacy is an impediment to progress. It is just a very bad idea to create a turn-key surveillance society and hope and cross your fingers it never gets used.

Klathmon 7y ago
>None of these capabilities have an existential requirement for a centralized networked infrastructure spanning the globe. Yes, but I don't want to store every single movie, TV show, song, and news story locally and find a way to get them to myself without using the internet. I'd love if more stuff happened locally on these devices, and I experiment with various other systems every now and then. I even have a fully self-hosted home automation system running on open source software using local-only radio systems (z-wave) to control things like lights, garage doors, and door locks. There are things that do require some kind of internet access though, and other things that become much more reliable and easy to use when internet connected. >Stop and think how ludicrous it is that your being able to... I have, and so has my family. And we have made the decision that the tradeoffs are worth it for us. Why can't people understand that I'm an adult, everyone in my household is an adult, and we are able to understand and comprehend the situation, and make a conscientious decision to accept the trade offs. I'm not an idiot, I know there are risks, but the risks are low enough for me and my family to make it worth it. Just like how there are risks simply just getting in a car, and there are risks every time I turn my oven on, but they are all acceptable. Maybe you should stop and think just how ludicrous it is that you seem to think it's impossible that someone else could find value in these devices, and that some are okay with limited tradeoffs with their privacy in return for devices and services which improve their lives. And maybe you should listen when someone tells you that they've weighed the pros and cons and decided it was worth it, rather than quickly jumping to the conclusion that they are wrong, didn't give it any thought, or are somehow being tricked.
- 7y ago

archy_ 7y ago

>And of course anyone within earshot of any of those devices also deserves to have their privacy obliterated, even if they themselves don't own one? If you don't warn others about a listening device you may even be running afoul of wiretapping laws, depending on your location.

cameronbrown 7y ago
If the device isn't actively listening, does this even apply?
kbenson 7y ago
Good to know since the police in that same state may be carrying their personal cellphones on them at the same time they interact with people...