7 ms·

>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 t

>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.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- ncallaway 7y ago
  > Just that you traded it away for some (stupidly minuscule IMO) benefit. I think this is the disagreement. You are treating privacy as a binary thing. That once you trade any amount of privacy away, it is entirely gone. That is not how most people approach privacy. Most people view privacy as a spectrum. Someone can choose to sacrifice some (but not all!) of their privacy to get a benefit. What's key is they should be able to prescribe the limits as the poster above has described. We should be able to severely punish companies that lie about their behaviors, because that would make it impossible to make informed trade-offs about how much privacy we are truly giving up.
  - Klathmon 7y ago
    >We should be able to severely punish companies that lie about their behaviors I can't agree with this more, and I really hope we can see some legislation in the US that creates very strict penalties for lying about this stuff, and possibly some regulations that can make storing user data more risky to the company doing it, which would hopefully put pressure on them to reduce or eliminate data storage where possible.
  - tpxl 7y ago
    Privacy _is_ a binary thing, either something is private or it is not. There is of course a difference between _everything_ and _nothing_ being private, but once _something_ ceases being private it ceases being private forever. If you let some company, which will do who-knows-what, record voice in your house, you no longer can have a private conversation in your house, since the company will record them, possibly listen to them, and ultimately probably leak them. You completely lost that part of privacy, without for example losing privacy regarding visuals. >What's key is they should be able to prescribe the limits as the poster above has described. We should be able to severely punish companies that lie about their behaviors, because that would make it impossible to make informed trade-offs about how much privacy we are truly giving up. I do agree there need to be more regulations around this (yay GDPR), although even if you kill the company dead, you cannot un-ring a bell.

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.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
ncallaway 7y ago
> Just that you traded it away for some (stupidly minuscule IMO) benefit. I think this is the disagreement. You are treating privacy as a binary thing. That once you trade any amount of privacy away, it is entirely gone. That is not how most people approach privacy. Most people view privacy as a spectrum. Someone can choose to sacrifice some (but not all!) of their privacy to get a benefit. What's key is they should be able to prescribe the limits as the poster above has described. We should be able to severely punish companies that lie about their behaviors, because that would make it impossible to make informed trade-offs about how much privacy we are truly giving up.
- Klathmon 7y ago
  >We should be able to severely punish companies that lie about their behaviors I can't agree with this more, and I really hope we can see some legislation in the US that creates very strict penalties for lying about this stuff, and possibly some regulations that can make storing user data more risky to the company doing it, which would hopefully put pressure on them to reduce or eliminate data storage where possible.
- tpxl 7y ago
  Privacy _is_ a binary thing, either something is private or it is not. There is of course a difference between _everything_ and _nothing_ being private, but once _something_ ceases being private it ceases being private forever. If you let some company, which will do who-knows-what, record voice in your house, you no longer can have a private conversation in your house, since the company will record them, possibly listen to them, and ultimately probably leak them. You completely lost that part of privacy, without for example losing privacy regarding visuals. >What's key is they should be able to prescribe the limits as the poster above has described. We should be able to severely punish companies that lie about their behaviors, because that would make it impossible to make informed trade-offs about how much privacy we are truly giving up. I do agree there need to be more regulations around this (yay GDPR), although even if you kill the company dead, you cannot un-ring a bell.