5 ms·
I don't understand how this is a controversial claim that people refute when it's so easy to test with something like Wireshark. If someone is paranoid enough s
by freehunter 7y ago
I don't understand how this is a controversial claim that people refute when it's so easy to test with something like Wireshark. If someone is paranoid enough spread FUD on the Internet, they should be paranoid enough to actually check with freely available tools.
- jedberg 7y agoThe common retort is "they record everything and then upload it all when you use the wake word". The people who say that clearly don't understand audio file sizes (unless Amazon has invented a new, secret, super compressed audio format).
- andrerm 7y agoIf Google don't clearly states what it collect, people must assume its everything
- freehunter 7y agoWhen it's within your power to verify but you don't take the time to do so, you lose the authority to go online and claim your conspiracy theory has any merit at all.
- craftinator 7y agoNo. You don't lose authority, you lose credibility. Unfortunately, conspiracy theorists tend to believe and repeat information that sparks an emotional reaction in them or agrees with their paranoid worldview, regardless of the credibility of that information. However, because of Google's track record with user data, paranoid assumptions of them tend to be correct.
- andrerm 7y agoYou can make fun of people who don't read tiny little words hidden in a contract. But you also can say tiny words are dark patterns.
- bashinator 7y agoAssuming (pretty safely) that the connection to google is TLS encrypted, how exactly would someone be able to examine the data with wireshark? The times I've had to look at an HTTPS session, I ended up having to set up a TLS decrypting proxy with a custom root certificate. It doesn't seem likely you'd be able to do that with a closed IoT device.
- freehunter 7y agoYou shouldn't need to actually view the data. Just check the payload size. Compare the traffic at idle to the traffic that's sent when you speak to it. If it's comparable, now it's time to be suspicious. If there is a noticeable spike after saying the wake word, then you can be fairly certain it's actually waiting for the wake word.
- Someone1234 7y agoIf conspiracy theorists looked at facts, they wouldn't be conspiracy theorists. The common denominator of people who claim that these devices are always sending voice data, is that they have zero interest in learning how they actually work, the information is widely and easily available.
- andrerm 7y agoWhen people get to know things like this way after they bought and used this devices... Google should made this very clear before people bought it
- ColanR 7y agoif by 'conspiracy theorist' you mean the literal definition, then you're talking about anyone who theorizes regarding the existence of a conspiracy. There's nothing wrong with that. If by 'conspiracy theorist' you mean someone who suspects the government or corporations of foul play, then don't forget about 'government surveilance', one of the biggest conspiracy theories of the last several decades - until it turned out to be true. (did you dismiss them as well, before snowden put hard evidence behind the reasonable speculation?) Either way, you shouldn't talk down to people who find minimal, available evidence worthy of speculation. It's not conducive to reasonable discussion.