3 ms·

>Although Skype's website says that the company may analyze audio of phone calls that a user wants to translate in order to improve the chat platform's services

>Although Skype's website says that the company may analyze audio of phone calls that a user wants to translate in order to improve the chat platform's services, it does not say some of this analysis will be done by humans. I'm sorry, but isn't this just nitpicking? Just because they don't say how it's analyzed doesn't make this a scandal.

jmull 7y ago
Yes. In fact, I think it would be hard to classify a totally automated mechanism as "analysis".
human20190310 7y ago
It's not nitpicking. If the word "analyze" was chosen because the word "eavesdrop" would result in users leaving the platform, and eavesdropping is what they're actually doing, then they're obscuring their actions with a euphemism.
- jmull 7y ago
  Well, eavesdrop means secretly listening to a conversation. If they communicate it in a reasonable way, it's not eavesdropping.
  - tjoff 7y ago
    Well, since they don't communicate it in a reasonable way it is eavesdropping then.
    - vinay427 7y ago
      If they communicate that they're eavesdropping, which is what was proposed here, it seems excessive to then claim that they're not communicating this monitoring or listening of calls in a reasonable way which would mean it's not eavesdropping.
godelski 7y ago
Yes and no. I think as techies we think "of course". Because we know how you would go about analyzing that information. I don't think the average person does (anyone in the bay is likely not your average person in this context). Analyze could be a whole lot of things. It doesn't mean that a human is listening in. So yes, I think to us this is nit picking. But to the general public this is news. I still remember a few years back having conversations with people about how companies like Google, Apple, and whatever hire people to listen to your recordings when you use services like Ok Google and Siri. Of course no techies bat an eye at this talk. But people in the general populous called me a conspiracy theorist. I don't think we realize the technical literacy divide that exists.
GuiA 7y ago
It’s an ambiguity that tech companies love to take advantage of. For instance, Google will say that they analyze your Gmail to improve the service etc, but that no human will ever read your email. How is the average person expected to keep track?
rhacker 7y ago
Well, going back to the origins of skype it was advertised as encryption that not even employees can read or listen to your calls. I know that broke around (or probably before) MS purchased it - but I just find it funny how much humanity is willing to let things slide. So much so that we go from the most secure peer to peer architecture ever to - oh yeah contractors are listening to skype calls. You know what I guess I am corrected - they said "employees couldn't read or listen". It's a contractor loophole!!! -/sarcasm
iamnotacrook 7y ago
"Shall we make it clear that no humans listened, and that 'analyze' meant via algorithms?" "No, leave it as it is; nobody's that concerned about their privacy being violated by other people listening to recordings captured by Alexa, Siri etc."

jmull 7y ago

Yes. In fact, I think it would be hard to classify a totally automated mechanism as "analysis".

human20190310 7y ago

It's not nitpicking. If the word "analyze" was chosen because the word "eavesdrop" would result in users leaving the platform, and eavesdropping is what they're actually doing, then they're obscuring their actions with a euphemism.

jmull 7y ago
Well, eavesdrop means secretly listening to a conversation. If they communicate it in a reasonable way, it's not eavesdropping.
- tjoff 7y ago
  Well, since they don't communicate it in a reasonable way it is eavesdropping then.
  - vinay427 7y ago
    If they communicate that they're eavesdropping, which is what was proposed here, it seems excessive to then claim that they're not communicating this monitoring or listening of calls in a reasonable way which would mean it's not eavesdropping.

godelski 7y ago

Yes and no. I think as techies we think "of course". Because we know how you would go about analyzing that information. I don't think the average person does (anyone in the bay is likely not your average person in this context). Analyze could be a whole lot of things. It doesn't mean that a human is listening in. So yes, I think to us this is nit picking. But to the general public this is news. I still remember a few years back having conversations with people about how companies like Google, Apple, and whatever hire people to listen to your recordings when you use services like Ok Google and Siri. Of course no techies bat an eye at this talk. But people in the general populous called me a conspiracy theorist. I don't think we realize the technical literacy divide that exists.

GuiA 7y ago

It’s an ambiguity that tech companies love to take advantage of. For instance, Google will say that they analyze your Gmail to improve the service etc, but that no human will ever read your email. How is the average person expected to keep track?

rhacker 7y ago

Well, going back to the origins of skype it was advertised as encryption that not even employees can read or listen to your calls. I know that broke around (or probably before) MS purchased it - but I just find it funny how much humanity is willing to let things slide. So much so that we go from the most secure peer to peer architecture ever to - oh yeah contractors are listening to skype calls. You know what I guess I am corrected - they said "employees couldn't read or listen". It's a contractor loophole!!! -/sarcasm

iamnotacrook 7y ago

"Shall we make it clear that no humans listened, and that 'analyze' meant via algorithms?" "No, leave it as it is; nobody's that concerned about their privacy being violated by other people listening to recordings captured by Alexa, Siri etc."