9 ms·

I'm in the 5th category. 5) Understand ML; concerned - won't allow any of these things in my house period because they will always use them for things behind th

by cronix 7y ago

I'm in the 5th category. 5) Understand ML; concerned - won't allow any of these things in my house period because they will always use them for things behind the scenes that they won't state. I don't care how well trained they are, or "ethical." Ethical... according to who, and at what time period in the future? Ethics change. The data they have on you won't. Look at all of the politicians and other people getting in trouble for things they said 15 years ago, which were generally more acceptable at the time but we've "progressed" since then. Who will be making decisions about you in the future based on last years data? Just don't give it to them.

foobiekr 7y ago
This. There’s nothing that binds today’s ethical company to voluntary ethical behavior when things get tough (or they get acquired).
- JaggedNZ 7y ago
  There's nothing that stops the most ethical companies from being completely compromised by state actors either.
50656E6973 7y ago
>won't allow any of these things in my house period because they will always use them for things behind the scenes that they won't state. As OP stated, "this extends beyond home speakers to any voice-enabled device in general". Unless you're living like the Unibomber, it's not a matter of "just don't give it to them". The moment you step outside your house and socialize with almost anyone anywhere, it's liable to being taken from you.
- lm28469 7y ago
  Neatpick: "unabomber" as in UNABOM (University and Airline Bomber).
  - jonsen 7y ago
    As in Not EAT PICtures, oKay ?
a3n 7y ago
I won't have one either. Well, I have my Android, which I guess is essentially the same. I was visiting my neighbor the other day. We were wondering something about special counsel mueller, and she decided to ask Alexa. This was new, and I was surprised she had this surveillance device, but I didn't say anything. There was some back and forth, then I said to her "I think you're ordering motor oil " "Alexa, stop! Alexa, stop!" As if a dog was chewing on the furniture. And now Amazon knows that I was discussing politics, and my opinion. That kind of analyzed data is going to be lucrative in some future military or law enforcement or political contract. Rule 1. Don't leave money on the table. Rule 2. Ever.
- gooberwonder 7y ago
  Are there microphone-blocking phone cases? All I can really find is https://www.privacycase.com/ https://www.privacycase.com/, and it seems like overkill.
- blacksmith_tb 7y ago
  Do they know it was you, specifically? I would say they know your neighbor was talking with someone else, and possibly that politics were being discussed (not really something they seem to have put a lot of effort into recognizing, since it doesn't lead to shopping...) If you're interacting with an Echo or gHome you can always ask it "who am I?" GOOG is sneaky enough to recognize you on any other device, Alexa, not so much (and in this case you shouldn't be on their radar to being with).
  - WalterBright 7y ago
    > Do they know it was you, specifically? Maybe not with today's technology, but in the future, they will still have the recording and will have the technology. It's the same thing with encryption. It's safe today, but in the future it'll be decodeable, and they'll still have the encrypted copies to work on.
  - a3n 7y ago
    What WalterBright says below. They can eventually know who I am by voice recognition, especially they can get corroboration by the fact that we live in the same building. I imagine we probably said something that would suggest I live nearby (... "Checking database" ...) or that I'm a regular visitor (... "Checking database." ...). They could be sending an inaudible tone, to be captured by an app on my phone. I don't have an Amazon app, but some other app might capture the tone and sell that fact to Amazon, so that they don't leave money on the table.
marzell 7y ago
Additionally, in order to be 'ethical' by any means, they still have to collect the data in the first place. Regardless of actual intentions around ethical/defined practices, that always leaves the possibility for someone else to access that data and do unintended things with it.
outworlder 7y ago
Before I go further: do you own a smartphone? If not, you can ignore the rest. So, assuming you have a smartphone. That is a device which has: - Permanent network connection. Doesn't matter what you do on your Wifi, it has the cellular data network. Which is controlled by an independent processor with its own firmware - Excellent noise-cancellation microphones. They may not be able to pinpoint the sound source like an Echo would, but they are still pretty sensitive - Accurate location updated via GPS. If you block GPS, it can still use the cell phone towers as an approximation, plus any SSID beacons nearby - Very powerful processor, capable of listening for 'interesting' data before sending anything - Similar functionality to an Echo / Google Home / Apple whatever. They'll be listening for "hey siri" or "ok google" And so on. Plus, anyone you interact with will have such a device in their pockets. Given that. why would an Echo be of any particular concern? At least you can monitor their network activity easily. Not so with a smartphone, which is a much higher threat. And yet most people sleep with them next to their beds.
- pdonis 7y ago
  On my smartphone I can at least turn off the apps that would automatically listen for voice commands; I can use the phone just fine without them. And if I thought there was enough of a threat that Google or someone else was listening in using my phone's microphone without my knowledge, even with the apps turned off, I would switch to a rooted phone that would give me more control. For the Echo/Google Home/etc. devices, I don't have any of the above options, so I simply don't buy them and don't use them.
  - rurban 7y ago
    Even a rooted phone will not help, since the monopolistic baseband processor will do it. The big ARM CPU is just for the users, the baseband is for control of the public masses and mass surveillance.
    - Iolaum 7y ago
      The surveillance problem is not black and white. A rooted phone may not help you if a state actor is after you, but it will help against companies that make money by building an invasive profile of who you are and what you do. Again how much a rooted phone helps in that depends on how many ties you want to cut with the digital-advertising ecosystem. Here's a paper describing the privacy invasive and potentially harmful properties of pre-installed apps [1]. I specifically saved this paper in my files so I can have a comprehensive answer when people ask me why I go through the trouble of rooting my devices. P.S. People who know more than me are saying that the baseband processor can be restricted with hardware practices such as IOMMU [2]. I don't really know how effective that can be. [1]: https://haystack.mobi/papers/preinstalledAndroidSW_preprint.pdf https://haystack.mobi/papers/preinstalledAndroidSW_preprint.... [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20151431 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20151431
WalterBright 7y ago
Imagine 20 years from now you decide to run for political office. Do you want someone "ethically" going through all your old recorded conversations looking for statements that will be politically incorrect 20 years from now?
- LocalH 7y ago
  Not only you, but your kids. People have lost sponsorships and contracts because of things one of their parents said before the person in question was even born. Look at last year's incident where Eli Lilly pulled their NASCAR sponsorship of Conor Daly over something his father had said a decade before Conor existed. https://www.indystar.com/story/sports/motor/2018/08/24/eli-lilly-pulls-sponsorship-conor-daly-nascar-ride-road-america-racial-slur-derek-daly/1089166002/ https://www.indystar.com/story/sports/motor/2018/08/24/eli-l...
  - gdy 7y ago
    That's nuts. Things like this should cost company its reputation.
    - LocalH 7y ago
      Fortunately, Eli Lilly took a bigger hit over this than Daly did. It's still disgusting on the principle of it, though.
- wolco 7y ago
  I would expect it. I would watch what I say now and in a few years what I think.
  - Erik816 7y ago
    Or intentionally don't watch what you say and stop giving this kind of system any power. If you run for office in 20 years planning to hide what you think now, or apologize for it, then you're in for a losing battle. Say what you think, admit when you're wrong, learn from your mistakes.
weq 7y ago
"oh but i deleted all my data through the helpful portal they provided. they said i had full control?" Data is Googles game. Once they have it, they have it. Nothing else matters. You own nothing. Your image, your voice, your ideas, your conversation, your habits, your medical records. Google wants it all. Thats is Googles world. Google aint giving that up. Everything they do is about getting more and more of it. Everything to the contrary is just PR spin.
diminoten 7y ago
What's strange about this conversation is that your refusal to trade privacy for convenience is passed off as some kind of no-loss decision, when in reality there are all kinds of downsides to living your life the way you claim you do. The conversation can't even be had until the facts are presented honestly, and when you present your position this way, it's not honest.
pryce 7y ago
If you visit your friends or relatives, you cannot fully protect yourself from this data collection by simply choosing not to own these devices yourself.
RobLach 7y ago
Could I ask your age? I have been casually tracking who actually owns these types of devices and have never met anyone under 25 who would even consider it whereas I go to the homes of people in their late 30's and 40's and see them all the time.

by cronix 7y ago

foobiekr 7y ago

This. There’s nothing that binds today’s ethical company to voluntary ethical behavior when things get tough (or they get acquired).

JaggedNZ 7y ago
There's nothing that stops the most ethical companies from being completely compromised by state actors either.

50656E6973 7y ago

>won't allow any of these things in my house period because they will always use them for things behind the scenes that they won't state. As OP stated, "this extends beyond home speakers to any voice-enabled device in general". Unless you're living like the Unibomber, it's not a matter of "just don't give it to them". The moment you step outside your house and socialize with almost anyone anywhere, it's liable to being taken from you.

lm28469 7y ago
Neatpick: "unabomber" as in UNABOM (University and Airline Bomber).
- jonsen 7y ago
  As in Not EAT PICtures, oKay ?

a3n 7y ago

I won't have one either. Well, I have my Android, which I guess is essentially the same. I was visiting my neighbor the other day. We were wondering something about special counsel mueller, and she decided to ask Alexa. This was new, and I was surprised she had this surveillance device, but I didn't say anything. There was some back and forth, then I said to her "I think you're ordering motor oil " "Alexa, stop! Alexa, stop!" As if a dog was chewing on the furniture. And now Amazon knows that I was discussing politics, and my opinion. That kind of analyzed data is going to be lucrative in some future military or law enforcement or political contract. Rule 1. Don't leave money on the table. Rule 2. Ever.

gooberwonder 7y ago
Are there microphone-blocking phone cases? All I can really find is https://www.privacycase.com/ https://www.privacycase.com/, and it seems like overkill.
blacksmith_tb 7y ago
Do they know it was you, specifically? I would say they know your neighbor was talking with someone else, and possibly that politics were being discussed (not really something they seem to have put a lot of effort into recognizing, since it doesn't lead to shopping...) If you're interacting with an Echo or gHome you can always ask it "who am I?" GOOG is sneaky enough to recognize you on any other device, Alexa, not so much (and in this case you shouldn't be on their radar to being with).
- WalterBright 7y ago
  > Do they know it was you, specifically? Maybe not with today's technology, but in the future, they will still have the recording and will have the technology. It's the same thing with encryption. It's safe today, but in the future it'll be decodeable, and they'll still have the encrypted copies to work on.
- a3n 7y ago
  What WalterBright says below. They can eventually know who I am by voice recognition, especially they can get corroboration by the fact that we live in the same building. I imagine we probably said something that would suggest I live nearby (... "Checking database" ...) or that I'm a regular visitor (... "Checking database." ...). They could be sending an inaudible tone, to be captured by an app on my phone. I don't have an Amazon app, but some other app might capture the tone and sell that fact to Amazon, so that they don't leave money on the table.

marzell 7y ago

Additionally, in order to be 'ethical' by any means, they still have to collect the data in the first place. Regardless of actual intentions around ethical/defined practices, that always leaves the possibility for someone else to access that data and do unintended things with it.

outworlder 7y ago

Before I go further: do you own a smartphone? If not, you can ignore the rest. So, assuming you have a smartphone. That is a device which has: - Permanent network connection. Doesn't matter what you do on your Wifi, it has the cellular data network. Which is controlled by an independent processor with its own firmware - Excellent noise-cancellation microphones. They may not be able to pinpoint the sound source like an Echo would, but they are still pretty sensitive - Accurate location updated via GPS. If you block GPS, it can still use the cell phone towers as an approximation, plus any SSID beacons nearby - Very powerful processor, capable of listening for 'interesting' data before sending anything - Similar functionality to an Echo / Google Home / Apple whatever. They'll be listening for "hey siri" or "ok google" And so on. Plus, anyone you interact with will have such a device in their pockets. Given that. why would an Echo be of any particular concern? At least you can monitor their network activity easily. Not so with a smartphone, which is a much higher threat. And yet most people sleep with them next to their beds.

pdonis 7y ago
On my smartphone I can at least turn off the apps that would automatically listen for voice commands; I can use the phone just fine without them. And if I thought there was enough of a threat that Google or someone else was listening in using my phone's microphone without my knowledge, even with the apps turned off, I would switch to a rooted phone that would give me more control. For the Echo/Google Home/etc. devices, I don't have any of the above options, so I simply don't buy them and don't use them.
- rurban 7y ago
  Even a rooted phone will not help, since the monopolistic baseband processor will do it. The big ARM CPU is just for the users, the baseband is for control of the public masses and mass surveillance.
  - Iolaum 7y ago
    The surveillance problem is not black and white. A rooted phone may not help you if a state actor is after you, but it will help against companies that make money by building an invasive profile of who you are and what you do. Again how much a rooted phone helps in that depends on how many ties you want to cut with the digital-advertising ecosystem. Here's a paper describing the privacy invasive and potentially harmful properties of pre-installed apps [1]. I specifically saved this paper in my files so I can have a comprehensive answer when people ask me why I go through the trouble of rooting my devices. P.S. People who know more than me are saying that the baseband processor can be restricted with hardware practices such as IOMMU [2]. I don't really know how effective that can be. [1]: https://haystack.mobi/papers/preinstalledAndroidSW_preprint.pdf https://haystack.mobi/papers/preinstalledAndroidSW_preprint.... [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20151431 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20151431

WalterBright 7y ago

Imagine 20 years from now you decide to run for political office. Do you want someone "ethically" going through all your old recorded conversations looking for statements that will be politically incorrect 20 years from now?

LocalH 7y ago
Not only you, but your kids. People have lost sponsorships and contracts because of things one of their parents said before the person in question was even born. Look at last year's incident where Eli Lilly pulled their NASCAR sponsorship of Conor Daly over something his father had said a decade before Conor existed. https://www.indystar.com/story/sports/motor/2018/08/24/eli-lilly-pulls-sponsorship-conor-daly-nascar-ride-road-america-racial-slur-derek-daly/1089166002/ https://www.indystar.com/story/sports/motor/2018/08/24/eli-l...
- gdy 7y ago
  That's nuts. Things like this should cost company its reputation.
  - LocalH 7y ago
    Fortunately, Eli Lilly took a bigger hit over this than Daly did. It's still disgusting on the principle of it, though.
wolco 7y ago
I would expect it. I would watch what I say now and in a few years what I think.
- Erik816 7y ago
  Or intentionally don't watch what you say and stop giving this kind of system any power. If you run for office in 20 years planning to hide what you think now, or apologize for it, then you're in for a losing battle. Say what you think, admit when you're wrong, learn from your mistakes.

weq 7y ago

"oh but i deleted all my data through the helpful portal they provided. they said i had full control?" Data is Googles game. Once they have it, they have it. Nothing else matters. You own nothing. Your image, your voice, your ideas, your conversation, your habits, your medical records. Google wants it all. Thats is Googles world. Google aint giving that up. Everything they do is about getting more and more of it. Everything to the contrary is just PR spin.

diminoten 7y ago

What's strange about this conversation is that your refusal to trade privacy for convenience is passed off as some kind of no-loss decision, when in reality there are all kinds of downsides to living your life the way you claim you do. The conversation can't even be had until the facts are presented honestly, and when you present your position this way, it's not honest.

pryce 7y ago

If you visit your friends or relatives, you cannot fully protect yourself from this data collection by simply choosing not to own these devices yourself.

RobLach 7y ago

Could I ask your age? I have been casually tracking who actually owns these types of devices and have never met anyone under 25 who would even consider it whereas I go to the homes of people in their late 30's and 40's and see them all the time.