4 ms·

>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 availabl

by 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.
  - ncallaway 7y ago
    > Privacy _is_ a binary thing, either something is private or it is not. I strongly disagree. If I tell something to my attorney it is still relatively private, but obviously not if I had never told anyone. If I have a deep secret and I tell my significant other that secret asking for their confidence, it is still relatively private but not as private if I had never told anyone. I agree that, if you absolutely need total control of information, then the only way to 100% guarantee that privacy is to tell no one ever. But I think being absolutionist when it comes to privacy expectations means you may have a very hard time convincing others of your opinions. > If you let some company, which will do who-knows-what, record voice in your house This is exactly the point we are arguing. We should be able to find out from the company what they will do, and if they deviate from promises they make they should be held accountable. I should be able to let some company record my voice in my house, with strict conditions on what it will do.
wvenable 7y ago
> Clearly you agreed to google listening to and recording to all sound being made in your house, leading to privacy violations. That's not how these devices work.

by tpxl 7y ago

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.
- ncallaway 7y ago
  > Privacy _is_ a binary thing, either something is private or it is not. I strongly disagree. If I tell something to my attorney it is still relatively private, but obviously not if I had never told anyone. If I have a deep secret and I tell my significant other that secret asking for their confidence, it is still relatively private but not as private if I had never told anyone. I agree that, if you absolutely need total control of information, then the only way to 100% guarantee that privacy is to tell no one ever. But I think being absolutionist when it comes to privacy expectations means you may have a very hard time convincing others of your opinions. > If you let some company, which will do who-knows-what, record voice in your house This is exactly the point we are arguing. We should be able to find out from the company what they will do, and if they deviate from promises they make they should be held accountable. I should be able to let some company record my voice in my house, with strict conditions on what it will do.

wvenable 7y ago

> Clearly you agreed to google listening to and recording to all sound being made in your house, leading to privacy violations. That's not how these devices work.