29 ms·

Google chief: I'd disclose smart speakers before guests enter my home

• LudwigNagasena 7y ago
  >"Gosh, I haven't thought about this before in quite this way," Osterloh said. "It's quite important for all these technologies to think about all users... we have to consider all stakeholders that might be in proximity." How much do they not care about privacy that a chief exec with an army of lawyers and advisors "haven't thought about this before"?
  • hardwaresofton 7y ago
    It's the wild west -- corporations are just doing what they want while governments are asleep at the wheel. Also, having an army of lawyers is exactly what allows for this -- you need to know which areas are gray in order to exploit them without risk of retribution/regulation. A basic minutes-long conversation would have likely arrived at the point of how recording of the owner themselves/third parties would affect the product.
    • bilbo0s 7y ago
      >corporations are just doing what they want while governments are asleep at the wheel. That assumes the governments aren't in on it. They probably want the data more than the corporations. I mean, you know, "security" and all.
      • nkrisc 7y ago
        The government itself doing the things these corporation do would generate loads of outrage. For whatever reason it's a lot more acceptable for a company to collect all this data so you can play music with your voice and then the government can secretly collect it all later if they wish.
        • Clubber 7y ago
          Are you not aware of the Ed Snowden revelations? I mean the NSA is piped into all these corporate data streams.
          • nkrisc 7y ago
            I'm very aware. That's kind of my point.
            • Clubber 7y ago
              I'm sure selling data to the NSA, federal, state and local governments is very lucrative to these companies and is a primary revenue stream.
              • nothrabannosir 7y ago
                A primary revenue stream? For a public company, which has to publish its financials yet somehow keep this hidden? This sounds far fetched, to be honest.
                • faceblob2 7y ago
                  Governments and corporations are filled with deceitful, self-serving, corrupt people. If there is a monetary interest, the transaction will take place. If that has to happen under the radar, it will. The agencies will excuse their actions by citing "defense". It is in the interest of National Security, therefore, that the data is handed/sold to the government, and the mechanism of this transfer is classified owing to National Security interests. Or maybe it's easier than that. Maybe Google is just a government agency. An Alphabet agency.
              • nkrisc 7y ago
                Unlikely, in my opinion. More likely the government can come along with national security letters or other means we might not even be aware of and just take what they need. On the other hand some companies have been shown to be very willing to sell data to any buyer, not just the government. Phone carriers come to mind.
      • navigatesol 7y ago
        >That assumes the governments aren't in on it. My theory is the opposite. Career politicians have a lot to lose from universal data collection. They are already running into issues caused by 5-year-old tweets; imagine if their whole digital history was leaked? This is the one silver lining regarding legislation prospects.
    • dmix 7y ago
      The government should regulate whether devices alert themselves to new guests in the house?
  • tunap 7y ago
    It is a scripted response tailored to convey a specific, albeit less than truthful, narrative Much like the Juul CEO telling the public not to use their product right before the next announcement they were under investigation. Hopefully, a similar investigation will be announced presently. Edited.intentiin > narrative
    • SomeOldThrow 7y ago
      > Hopefully, a similar investigation will be announced presently. This will never happen.
  • saiya-jin 7y ago
    C'mon, that a straight lie out there, plain and visible. The other alternative is that he is utterly incompetent at his role, which I don't believe for a second. He is probably be incompetent in speaking with media though
  • hos234 7y ago
    Corporate Robots are programmed with 2 rules - Everything has to be scaled up & It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission. Then they are let loose on the world where they fuck up, junked and a new model with the same programming is wheeled in. Can they be reprogrammed is the question.
  • arkitaip 7y ago
    Of course they know, they just need to cover their asses sue to the litigation risk.
  • XJ6 7y ago
    All "big tech" are at it, I tried to go to "My Pictures" the other day and microsoft asked me to run my pictures through facial recognition. They said that by consenting I was asserting I had the consent of anyone who appeared in any of my photos or might appear in future which is insane to ask of anyone, no-one can really give that third party consent. Then when I refused they showed me a nag screen which didn't have that warning. Then just yesterday I opened google camera and it really wanted to run face recognition on my photos. I refused. I wanted to try the google podcasts but it was a brick because I had disabled "youtube & web activity" in google account settings. There was no way to subscribe to podcasts without web activity, the application said. And without subscribing there was nothing the app could do. We have a company claiming that because I don't consent to have my web and youtube activity tracked that there's no way I could subscribe to a podcast that I explicitly choose to subscribe to in an application designed for subscribing to podcasts. They don't stop trying, everyone is trying to hoover up all data, all the time.
    • throw_xyzyz 7y ago
      If you're European report them for GDPR violations. A few billion dollars worth of fines will teach them not to do that again.
    • pintxo 7y ago
      In case you are in the EU, this is a pretty clear case of a GDPR violation [1], you might want to raise this with you data protection agency. (They might have no resources to assists you though) [1] https://gdpr.eu/gdpr-consent-requirements/ https://gdpr.eu/gdpr-consent-requirements/, https://gdpr.eu/Recital-42-Burden-of-proof-and-requirements-for-consent/ https://gdpr.eu/Recital-42-Burden-of-proof-and-requirements-...
    • jacobheric 7y ago
      I didn't even realize google had a podcast app. I just installed it and you're right, I can't subscribe to a podcast since I have disabled web activity history. That's a particularly egregious dark pattern.
    • wowamit 7y ago
  • wmeredith 7y ago
    They don’t care. They’re arguing in bad faith. It’s also called lying or being full of shit.
    • bilbo0s 7y ago
      You're wrong. They are not arguing in bad faith, because they are not arguing with you at all. They are informing you of what their products do, and what the products should likely do in the future. Debate, or argument, implies, at minimum, a two way discussion. That's not what's been going on. And I'm not sure that a debate ever will happen? The only politically palatable people even concerned about their loss of privacy are a few activists and people in the tech industry. (Can't really count on the pedophiles and the terrorists to be of any help in gaining the support of the larger populace.) Even worse, it's not even like the moms, grandmoms, grandpas, teenage girls, hell raising ex convict uncles, etc don't know that they lose their privacy to google, facebook, and youtube. They do know that they lose their privacy, and they just don't care anymore. Actually, maybe they never did care? I don't even know? It's sad.
      • asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
        Why should they care? Generally speaking, people want privacy when we fear that disclosure will cause us some harm. I'm aware that there is a spectrum of viewpoints on this issue, and that some people value privacy as an end itself. But I think for most people, if they do value privacy for its own sake at all, it can't be a very high priority. If it were, they wouldn't use Google, credit cards, or cell phones. Google, Amazon, etc. have a pretty good track record of not using private data against users. Which makes sense, because it is generally more profitable to act as the user's agent. This is exactly how most people think of private data in the hands of these big tech companies. There's still some data they'd rather these companies not have. Even if I trust my lawyer to act as my agent, I'd prefer they not have a video of me having sex with my wife. On the other hand, if they had access to an occasional snippet of conversation from an incorrect hotword activation, I wouldn't really care. I know, and my lawyer knows, that their economic interest is in maintaining my privacy. There's almost no value for them in disclosing my conversations, and they would lose my future business.
  • thisgoodlife 7y ago
    I guess the whole point of hiring an army of lawyers and advisors is that you don't have to do all the things by yourself.
  • have_faith 7y ago
    > stakeholders that might be in proximity I didn't realise visiting a friends house made me a stakeholder in all of their technology choices.
    • wongarsu 7y ago
      It does. If their light switch doesn't work when I press it I'm annoyed. The fact that I care makes me as stakeholder. It's just that traditionally my opinion didn't matter much and my stake was tiny.
    • snarf21 7y ago
      Or they might not even be friends. Walk down a street filled with Ring doorbells. You are being surveilled by strangers who have been fear mongered because a pedophile will steal their Amazon delivery.
      • dmix 7y ago
        A small Austrian retail shop got a $4k fine from GDPR because their surveillance camera pointed too broadly at a sidewalk. It'd be funny seeing regulators try to apply such restrictions on consumers.
    • diminoten 7y ago
      How about in their car? Or on their land? Or anywhere that you rely on others to provide for your safety at all?
  • UserIsUnused 7y ago
    >Ask forgiveness not permission. That's all that matters to big tech, that's what brings in the $$$
  • mtgx 7y ago
    This is why I've preached this for a long time: It's not that regular users "don't care about privacy" as many are quick to conclude, but the vast majority simply don't understand. If even big tech execs don't understand these issues, then how can regular people?
  • michannne 7y ago
    They are clearly at fault, but at this point customers need to be more cognizant of the fine print. I recently did a Google takeout of my data and found for most services they have no tracking on me after March, which is around the time I started actively hunting for options to turn off anything which reveals private information. Taking steps to learn how to reduce my online footprint also helped
    • JohnFen 7y ago
      > I recently did a Google takeout of my data and found for most services they have no tracking on me after March You found that they have no tracking data that they're willing to disclose to you. We don't know if that translates into actually having no tracking data.
  • csallen 7y ago
    He immediately admitted that he warns guests in his own home about being recorded, and the article discusses the fact that the cameras have an LED light that turns on when recording. So it's clearly not true that he hadn't thought of this before.
  • DaniloDias 7y ago
    If you are a privacy advocate, how could you work at google and sleep well? Why sign up for that kind of pain? To me- its more interesting that this exec is so clueless as to utter something so damning in such a cliched way. Gosh- was he really this earnestly naive? Or is it possible that this is sarcasm? How can you be a vp exposed to press and say something this unguarded or sarcastic IN FRONT OF PRESS?!? What is going on at Google that people like this are promoted/hired? “Our customers should consider warning guests and family that they use our products” -a google exec
  • jiveturkey 7y ago
    It was not an admission, it was a poorly thought out conversational device. He would have done much better to say, "good question". In the same interview, in the very next sentence of the article: > Osterloh then acceded that warning houseguests about Nest devices' recording capabilities is proper etiquette, stating that he already does so. Given that he already warns his guests, he absolutely 100% certainly has thought about "all stakeholders", in quite that way.
  • zaptheimpaler 7y ago
    Its a baldfaced lie. In 2019, with all the concern about privacy in the world it is inconceivable that they haven't thought about it. The transition of tech power to the sociopath overlords is complete.
  • hanniabu 7y ago
    They've thought about it but they won't say that outside of closed doors for plausible deniability.
• raverbashing 7y ago
  Does two-party consent even works if it's a 3rd party doing the recording and it goes who knows where? I'm sure this will also work just fine in Germany.
  • throwaway13337 7y ago
    It's a good question. I hope that the law comes down on these devices such that it only makes sense to keep and analyze all recorded data locally. If recorded data is never the property of the corporations but of the private owner of the device, a lot of the issues with them could be defanged. On the flip side, the value proposition for these devices may then be reduced - both for the corporations that produce them and the customers that use them.
    • deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    • vegardx 7y ago
      Not really, in many places you're not allowed to record conversations you're not actively engaging in, even on private property.
      • paulcole 7y ago
        Can you give an example of those places?
        • freeflight 7y ago
          Germany's Criminal Code, Section 201 Violation of the Confidentiality of the Spoken Word [0]: Punished with imprisonment up to three years or a fine, just the attempt is already punishable. [0] https://germanlawarchive.iuscomp.org/?p=752#201 https://germanlawarchive.iuscomp.org/?p=752#201
• pmlnr 7y ago
  I'm genuinely curious why only nest, alexa, google home[^1] devices get highlighted - aren't they all use the same tech as the Google App on android? Why are android phones not flagged as well? [^1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21262521 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21262521
  • madez 7y ago
    I wish it were socially accepted to tell people to turn their Android device off while they are in company. I wish I could tell people that visit me to turn their device off or put it into rf and sound shielded containers. I don't mind people using computers and their powers to ease their lives. I don't want to deny them that just because they are next to me or in my home. I just don't want them to use that power to collect and track and surveil everything at all times around them, wittingly or unwittinlgy.
    • macawfish 7y ago
      This is acceptable in some circles in certain circumstances.
    • DebtDeflation 7y ago
      >I just don't want them to use that power to collect and track and surveil everything at all times around them Unfortunately, the trend is to stick a camera and microphone (and compute/network stack) on every consumer device sold to you, including TVs and refrigerators. Not sure what the solution is, since the vendors can make a plausible argument for the convenience provided by voice control and additional features enabled by object detection. Perhaps some combination of local (rather than cloud) inferencing, immediate deletion of data, and privacy laws that clearly assign ownership of data to the consumer and dramatically limit what telemetry data can be sent back?
      • SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago
        > Not sure what the solution is A soldering iron?
      • 7y ago
• edoo 7y ago
  This happens to be a good example of how there are so many laws you likely break some all the time. California requires consent from all present who have vibrated the air while you record the air vibrations (but not with your ears and brain storage!). That means if the google phone in your pocket listens to people at a restaurant or your alexa listens to your delivery man for a second you are a criminal under California penal code.
  • DJHenk 7y ago
    In this case it's not the fault of the law though. Everyone with a basic level of intelligence and awareness of cultural norms, i.e. everyone working at Google developing and marketing these kind of products, is aware that this might cause an issue. But blinded by money and optimistic technobabble they do it anyway and make it near impossible or very unpractical for the user to turn it off. I would have no problem with some legal action against those people. Isn't here some law against tricking other people into breaking the law?
    • edoo 7y ago
      I'm pretty sure the burden would fall on the end user. They don't have to activate those features in an environment where using them would be against the law. Having them activated at your home and failing to inform visitors would be on the user.
      • pwagland 7y ago
        Although legally you might be right, and I'm _sure_ that this is written somewhere in that 4 pages of small print that you didn't read. In practice, no-one is going to be aware of this, and because the "big tech" company isn't ensuring that all users are aware of the contract that they have entered has been adequately explained to them, they are arguably at fault for not ensuring that proper authorisations have been obtained.
      • peteradio 7y ago
        Who is the end user of that data?
• Fnoord 7y ago
  Google could have the device say that it records conversations the moment it detects an unknown voice. Google could even ask that unknown voice for consent.
  • netsharc 7y ago
    Didn't Nest want to create devices with cameras? It should just do face recognition to detect people who hasn't consented.. /s And just like clicking "I'm under 18" on porn sites takes you to disney.com, or "continuing to use this site means you accept cookies", if they don't consent, stuff connected to Google would stop working... "Ok Google, turn on the kitchen lights". "Operation failed with error undefined!"
    • SparkyMcUnicorn 7y ago
      What's the point of a security camera if it can't record strangers?
  • koolba 7y ago
    That'd get really annoying if there's a TV in the room.
    • Fnoord 7y ago
      True, but it does not seem impossible for Google to detect a TV. Else, all Google Assist devices can be controlled via a TV ad starting with "OK Google" e.g. "OK Google search I am listening to an advertisement about Google Assist"
  • lqet 7y ago
    Isn't the voice recognition done on Google's servers? How can Google record the voice, send it to its servers, decide that it is someone unknown and play the consent notification if the person has not already given consent?
    • Fnoord 7y ago
• sorokod 7y ago
  What about recordings by that radar gizmo the new pixel is fitted with? Should owners warn "guest" that their movements are recorded? My promotion is not dependent on finding ways to monetize this data but Gait analysis is a thing.
• LoSboccacc 7y ago
  jUst PUT a GDPR nOtice on THE DOoR
  • njsubedi 7y ago
    You mean, a curtain [banner] that displays a notice, which the visitors need to move aside [close] to enter the house? ;)
• afpx 7y ago
  How is this even legal if wiretapping is illegal in many places?
  • IshKebab 7y ago
    I don't think there's anywhere where it's illegal to record conversations of both parties know about it.
    • hn_throwaway_99 7y ago
      That's the point though, if your Nest device starts automatically recording your guests and you don't warn them, could you be liable in a 2-party consent state? But on the flip side, Google Assistant devices don't start recording unless it gets the "OK Google" keyword, so it's not like it's randomly recording everything. You specifically have to turn it on (albeit it can be turned on accidentally if it misdetects an OK Google). Is this somehow different from Nest devices?
      • gmadsen 7y ago
        its listening for that keyword, whose to say its not listening for others
        • SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
          As an EE, this is the exact point of failure I see even from tech people on this topic. There is LITERALLY ZERO way to tell that your “Assistant” is not listening for words like Trump or Sanders then marking down in a log if they were mentioned with other words like “Fucking” or “Communist” or whatever. No one has or realistically can do a full reverse engineer of the firmware here, you’re talking about the same protections used in game consoles and smart phones. The “research” into “is my Alexa spying on me” looks at large pattern encrypted traffic and determines they aren’t always uploading. But they absolutely could be collecting metadata of what you talk about without the words themselves. The meta data of your habits and conversations for a month would be kilobytes at most and sent in a single HTTP/MQTT message that could look a ping or keepalive or some normal traffic.
• pfdietz 7y ago
  The Internet of Things I Won't Buy
• augustk 7y ago
  I think a device with a camera/microphone should have a physical on/off button and a LED which indicates when it's on. At least, that's how I would design it.
  • freeflight 7y ago
    Doesn't Google Glasses have an indicator LED for when they are recording?
  • tantalor 7y ago
    I'm sure any 0-day capable of eavesdropping on your phone can also disable the LED.
    • diffeomorphism 7y ago
      I'm sure that is why any device which includes such an LED insists on it being hardware not software. Even a magical 0-day is not going to break the laws of physics.
  • guyzero 7y ago
    Nest changed their camera to prevent users from disabling the light that indicate the camera is recording and users complained loudly and bitterly about it.
• pkrefta 7y ago
  I wonder - has Google became with "no-privacy" by default ?
• Santosh83 7y ago
  A few short years ago it was incomprehensible, even in the west, to have what is essentially a permanently bugged house. Now it has been normalised to such an extent that even people who claim to be aware of privacy use Alexa et al at home in a striking display of dissonance. The general public at large has been sold such attractive shiny toys that they don't realise that the price they pay for using them is to unconsciously disabuse themselves of any notion of assuming privacy, even in your private space and activities. This training has been so effective that they will actually defend these practices and claim that you're a 'tin foil hat wearer' and paranoid to be speaking up for reclaiming what was normal and natural as short as two generations back.
  • irq-1 7y ago
    People used to ask me why I don't use Facebook. I haven't been asked that in about two years. I predict that three years from now the majority will share our views about voice and video recording.
    • slouch 7y ago
      This is such an optimistic and hopeful comment. Thanks. I hope you're right.
    • faceblob2 7y ago
      I disagree. There has been so much anti-facebook hype over the last few years, yet many of the people I know, smart people, have it on/open/in-the-background 24/7, and instagram, and a hundred other services shipping their personal data. These people don't read about online privacy or ruminate on the consequences of their actions, because everyone around them does the same. For younger people, it's worse. Their entire lives are uploaded. They have been programmed to accept this as reality, and it would probably seem like social suicide to disconnect. Outside of places like HN, conversations about privacy and censorship, in my experience, are only ever instigated by me. And now the world seems to be in a mad rush to bug their houses. Obviously there are plenty of people who are repulsed by this, but we're all swept up in the surveillance state anyway. If people start to get the idea that these surveillance devices are bad, they'll be reminded to trust their govt with a brand new terror event.
• jstewartmobile 7y ago
  I have an ordinary thermostat that doesn't need firmware, an internet connection, or to eavesdrop on my conversations. It works great! What exactly is the advantage here?
  • WillPostForFood 7y ago
    They aren’t talking about Nest thermostats, which don’t have a mic. They are talking about the Nest Cam, and now the Google Home which has been rebranded a Nest device.
  • lotsofpulp 7y ago
    Automatically turning HVAC systems on and off depending if the place is empty, turning it back on remotely, cycling the fan on and off to circulate air more often, removing excess humidity, using data about sunlight to adjust temps. There must be energy savings for the utility companies to give them out for free or almost free. Although I prefer the HomeKit thermostats since I presume Apple has better privacy controls.
    • jstewartmobile 7y ago
      Don't know about other parts of the country, but where I'm at (low 80s @night, mid 90s @day), that's all false economy. Turning it down while away for a few hours just means a struggle to get the temps back down when I return. And in places where summer is less hateful, best option is to turn it off altogether and open the windows. To a utility company, just shaving a percent or two off consumption is a slam-dunk. Not so much out of eco-friendlyness as fear of having to add more capacity. Personally, I will gladly pay another percent or two on my power bill to not have any more SV awfulness in my house than necessary.
• a3n 7y ago
  Why would anyone come back to a home after such a warning? Think back 20 years. Would you come back to a home after the resident switched on audio and video recorders and said "you're being recorded." Now come back to the present, and add the word "thermostat." Does it make any difference?
  • WillPostForFood 7y ago
    The Nest thermostats don’t have microphones. Houses have had security cameras long before Google existed, as have a large percentage of retail businesses, banks, gas stations, convenience stores, government offices.
    • jbarberu 7y ago
      I'd wager most people adjust their behavior accordingly. I would absolutely expect privacy inside a home. If a friend had cameras inside their home I'd probably even opt to meet in public, where at least there's no false sense of privacy.
      • luckylion 7y ago
        Additionally, the cameras would usually record on their equipment only, it wouldn't be sent for further analysis to on of the largest data collection entities worldwide.
      • WillPostForFood 7y ago
        I get where you are coming from. How do you feel about things like Ring doorbells, where you are on camera approaching a home. Audio is being captured of at least some conversation inside the home, assuming there will be some proximity to the front door.
        • jbarberu 7y ago
          In the general sense I'd say I'm ok with a ring pointed at people's own property. I don't expect privacy in their front yard, might be a bit bothered in a backyard. A neighbor pointing their camera at the street accidentally capturing my coming and going would somehow feel like a privacy breach. Ironically I currently have 2 ring cameras setup on the outside of my house, installed by previous owner. I'm looking to replace them down the line as I don't trust Amazon with my data.
• karpodiem 7y ago
  Which is why I unplug my Nest from the wall socket when I get back to my apartment.
• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• kareemm 7y ago
  Since cameras and mics are embedded in all kinds of consumer devices these days, it makes me think we need a site that recommends devices that DONT include surveillance as a “feature”. Sort of a Wirecutter for privacy. Does this exist?
  • woodrowbarlow 7y ago
    well it really depends how far down the rabbit hole you want to go. a laptop running OSS is better than a laptop running win10, but then there's usually still intel ME doing goodness knows what. a phone running sailfish or f-droid is better than OEM android, but there's still your cellular service provider selling location data to goodness knows who. anyway, check out the pinebook (laptop), librem 5 (phone), mycroft (voice assistant).
    • username7 7y ago
      Yep. Two phones hacked already, could be a us-based three letter or could be something else. Can find the hacking only because of transperancy into some components of the network, but certainly that does not include my phone... Just another ant on the ant hill, the only difference is that I was able to identify that I had compromised security (with the phone)... I want to go all the way down the rabbit hole & can hardly wait for the lebrim 5. “Those that would give up a little liberty for security deserve neither liberty, nor security”- my attitude is those who were spying on me can go screw themselves!
  • neon_electro 7y ago
    Mozilla Foundation has a site called *privacy not included that I think attempts to accomplish what you're asking for: https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/privacynotincluded/ https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/privacynotincluded/
    • kareemm 7y ago
      This is pretty helpful. In a perfect world it picks a category (eg. smoke detectors) and recommends a privacy-aware product along with trade offs.
• FabHK 7y ago
  FWIW, I'm living a Google-free live now, and it works very well: - DuckDuckGo as default search engine - Own domain for email, forwarded to Apple's mail - Apple map, Yandex map, Waze, Here WeGo for maps (depending on the country) - For videos, I search them in DDG with "<searchterm> !yt", then copy the links I want and download them with `youtube-dl` - Firefox and Safari - Zoho as a replacement for online docs and spreadsheets etc. EDIT to add: I should say that I try to live Google-free...
  • criddell 7y ago
    You've certainly reduced your Google footprint. I don't think it's possible to reduce it to zero though.
  • g5pw 7y ago
    Just a heads-up: Waze is owned by Google [1] now. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waze#Google_subsidiary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waze#Google_subsidiary
    • CaptainZapp 7y ago
      Waze was recommended by family for a trip to Israel. The good news: Available for Windows Phone (which I had at that time) The bad news: In order to use it access to my address book. For a navigation app? WHAT THE FUCK!
      • thecatspaw 7y ago
        probably to suggest destinations
        • callalex 7y ago
          That would be true if it was optional, not required.
      • samfriedman 7y ago
        Peeves me that in order to control Spotify from Waze I have to agree to share my Waze location data w/ Spotify... I really wish we had regulations that limited companies from blocking functionality behind data-walls.
• saluki 7y ago
  I was a huge Google Fan but this is becoming lunacy. I understood trading some data and privacy for great search results, maps and free quality email. But people willingly bringing always on listening devices in to their homes (beyond what smartphones are already capable of) I just can't comprehend it. Why would people voluntarily do this in exchange for being able to ask for weather, play a playlist, add a todo and a few other parlor tricks. I guess I value my privacy more than others and don't like the idea of entities compiling a record of my data that they can sell and market. Imagine how some governments could use this data to limit freedoms, crack down on their opposition. And what about the first data breech that includes transcripts or even audio of all your household conversations/activities over the past three years matched up to your email or even address? It just sounds like we are heading down the wrong road.
  • tantalor 7y ago
    Do you own a cell phone?
    • dna_polymerase 7y ago
      Having a cell phone does not invalidate their legitimate critique.
      • davinic 7y ago
        Of course not, but phrasing it in this way (that phones are a separate exception) minimizes the legitimate critiques of always-listening cellphone privacy.
        • ntsplnkv2 7y ago
          Phones solve many more problems though. I'm willing to make some sacrifice so that I can get GPS/maps anywhere I go, ability to make emergency phone calls, etc. Smart speakers really don't have the same value add.
      • okmokmz 7y ago
• CelestialTeapot 7y ago
  They should be required to display a "premises under 24 hour surveillance and recording" at their front door when they have any of these sorts of devices.
• classified 7y ago
  So Google has made it official that they're a manufacturer of spyware. All that stuff should be illegal right off the bat since it merrily spies on people who never gave their consent.
• throwaway9983 7y ago
  Not being funny but i have a nest and i don't remember anything i the set up about any microphone at all, also i don't remember anything about agreeing to share personal data. I assumed it would be uploading usage and stats as nobody respects privacy but that is very different to actual recordings or images ffs. i live in the EU so this seems a pretty clear breach of GDPR no? i would have needed individual opt in consent for each of these (i would have thought)
• eth0up 7y ago
  Is it unfeasible to pursue expansion of dual/two-party consent laws to cover this in some way?
• RealObama 7y ago
  Make your own IoT Devices people!
• irishloop 7y ago
  I know it puts me in the minority, but I honestly do not care that much. It's obfuscation by volume. If Google wants to hear me and my roommate argue about Red Dead Redemption online or the new Bill Burr comedy special, good luck with that. When I worked in IT, people always used to say oh you can read my emails? Nobody wants to read about your boring-ass life. My understanding is they are using our speech to create better speech-recognition and it shows. I have much better luck with OK Google than Siri. I willingly give up my privacy for a superior product because most of my conversations are inane. And if I ever intend to murder anyone, I will turn off Alexa.
  • falcolas 7y ago
    This is simply a "I have nothing to hide" argument, and the rebuttals to this have been done frequently and better than I can manage.
    • okmokmz 7y ago
      Yup, here are a number of articles on the subject https://leastauthority.com/blog/debunking-the-nothing-to-hide-rhetoric/ https://leastauthority.com/blog/debunking-the-nothing-to-hid... https://www.techrepublic.com/blog/it-security/why-nothing-to-hide-misrepresents-online-privacy/ https://www.techrepublic.com/blog/it-security/why-nothing-to... http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/surveillance-you-may-have-nothing-hide http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/surveillance-you-may-have-nothing... https://www.wired.com/2013/06/why-i-have-nothing-to-hide-is-the-wrong-way-to-think-about-surveillance/ https://www.wired.com/2013/06/why-i-have-nothing-to-hide-is-... https://www.zdnet.com/article/privacy-is-innately-flawed-nothing-to-hide-does-not-exist/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/privacy-is-innately-flawed-not... https://mashable.com/2013/06/13/julian-sanchez-nsa/ https://mashable.com/2013/06/13/julian-sanchez-nsa/ https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130613/12180423457/if-youve-got-nothing-to-hide-youve-actually-got-plenty-to-hide.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130613/12180423457/if-yo... https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/tim-carney-even-law-abiding-people-should-oppose-surveillance https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/tim-carney-even-law-abidi... https://www.chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-if/127461/ https://www.chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-i... https://uproxx.com/technology/prism-why-you-should-care-even-if-you-have-nothing-to-hide/ https://uproxx.com/technology/prism-why-you-should-care-even... https://reason.com/2013/06/12/three-reasons-the-nothing-to-hide-crowd/ https://reason.com/2013/06/12/three-reasons-the-nothing-to-h... https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/05/the_value_of_pr.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/05/the_value_of_...
• iicc 7y ago
  Whatsapp stipulates that users are responsible for ensuring that their phonebook contacts consented to having their details uploaded to facebook inc.
• PeterBarrett 7y ago
  Having read the short article it's pretty clear that he was simply saying that if you have an indoor nest camera it would be proper etiquette to tell your guests that they are being recorded on your device. From how I read it, he wasn't saying to let your guests know that Nest/Google might be listening. Personally I'd never have one of these devices in my house but I would appreciate it if my friends gave me a heads up if I was in their house with one.
  • sb8244 7y ago
    Yes, I read it this same way. I'm not really sure that's an outrageous statement.... I thought initially that Nest meant thermostats and was shocked, but it's pretty clear he's talking about Nest Cameras.
• jklinger410 7y ago
  Also time to start asking people to leave their phones in their cars, taking them as they walk in your door, or warning them that you have your phone on as well. Anyone who uses a voice assistant should be warning others of this at all times.
• coding123 7y ago
  Maybe they can drop in Soli and have Nest warn them automatically...
• boringg 7y ago
  Darn, I just bought for nest smoke alarms - I figured that was safe from being spied on by google. Man thats super disapointing. Why do we need microphones in smoke alarms?!
• nesky 7y ago
  Your layman user has an very limited concept of what privacy actually is or represents. Conceptually speaking they don't understand this data is curated, profiled, stored, analyzed, and continually built upon 24/7 from dozens of sources and companies leaving the user with little to no capability of ever erasing or controlling said data. I've personally encountered numerous people/families who think it's the utmost importance for them and their children to know how to interface and learn with this technology as if they won't be able to survive without them in the future. What frightens me is how now these systems are able to start incorporating voice patterns, literal emotion in my voice that can be analyzed alongside any of the multitude of other data points they've already collected.
• UweSchmidt 7y ago
  No person or device has ever asked me for consent for their Siris, Cortanas and Alexas. So this time and place is as good as any: I do not consent to the audio-, image- or video recording of any "smart device" that is not my own. I ask that any such data about me that has been passively recorded be deleted.
• standardUser 7y ago
  Google Home/Assistant doesn't provide much value for me anyway. Half the time it doesn't even do what I say. I'd like to stop using it, but I use it to control a variety of smart lights and smart plugs, which are extremely useful in my very old apartment. Is there an app that can handle those and other connected devices without a Google Home or similar? Or would I have to use a different app for each individual component?
• chenning 7y ago
  Dumb question, but why are people so surprised by this? Can you honestly say at this point in the game that you had no idea this was happening or that this is news to you?
  • evross 7y ago
    One simple answer is that marketing (a.k.a. thought manipulation) works. Propaganda works. What's the advertisement/marketing spending for all these surveillance companies' products in the past 10 years? And, in comparison, what about the advertising spending for consumer awareness of privacy respect and personal information security? Combine that lopsided-ness with the general person's lack of technical/surveillance education and it's more understandable why people aren't rejecting these companies' creepy behaviour.
• jrobn 7y ago
  I have the original Nest thermostat. I think I’m going to rip it off the wall and replace it with something that isn’t front a scumbag company. This is exactly why I don’t own google phones, assistance, or home automation products. YOU ARE THE PRODUCT!
• buboard 7y ago
  Wonderful times when your thermostat cant work without spying on you having sex
  • kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
    All's good so long as you yell out "BB is great!"
• tweednose 7y ago
  We already are potentially bugged everywhere via our phones. That said, I refuse to install cameras anywhere except the outside of my house. I don't want a recording of friends coming over and talking to me.
• haxorito 7y ago
  I make my guest sign agreement before they enter my property... I don’t have many people visiting me anymore
• NelsonMinar 7y ago
  Don't forget all the TV panels in your house listening in on you too. Me, I don't plug any "smart" TV into the Internet. But a lot of folks do. I think the horse has left the barn on this kind of technology. What I hate most about it is that it's impossible for an ordinary person to understand exactly what all might be spying on them at any moment.
  • slouch 7y ago
    Sure, but TVs aren't always on like this Nest device.
    • bob1029 7y ago
      This is not always true anymore. Many modern Samsung TVs (and I am sure some other popular brands) have a standby update option, which would imply it is actually "always on". Ideally, it is only checking for the latest firmware version while you think it's off, but almost certainly it is doing other nefarious things you have zero visibility into.
      • slouch 7y ago
        > but almost certainly it is doing other nefarious things you have zero visibility into. I just can't get on board with that. https://www.consumerreports.org/privacy/how-to-turn-off-smart-tv-snooping-features/ https://www.consumerreports.org/privacy/how-to-turn-off-smar...
• cromwellian 7y ago
  I think the issue of smart speakers picking up a fragment of conversation is less an issue than security cameras which are designed for constant recording function. Nest sells inside the house security cameras. Regardless of whether these things are internet connected or not, recording people (eg house guests) on video without their consent is a problem. If a Nest cam was recording to VHS tape in the closet and didn’t have an internet connection at all it would still be an issue.
• lavezzi 7y ago
  Why has the original BBC article not been linked to instead? https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-50048144 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-50048144
• jacquesm 7y ago
  Hahaha. Sorry, really? Your bloody thermostat requires a consent form now for visitors to your house. This madness should really stop. All these appliances with microphones phoning home your every spoken word should be burned in a large pile. Let's start over, this is not going to end well.
  • NoNotTheDuo 7y ago
    I don't think the thermostats are included in this. The article talks about Nest Cameras
  • mrzimmerman 7y ago
    It's not including the thermostat, but he's specifically talking about etiquette, not legally binding EUAs with your house guests. Think of it more as "Oh, btw, I've got cameras in the living room, kitchen, and on the back patio if that's something that bugs you."
• khelenek 7y ago
  These comments are lunacy. He's suggesting etiquette if someone puts a Nest recording device (not a thermostat) inside their house purposefully, probably for security purposes. Security cameras have existed for decades and nothing has changed here.
  • tziki 7y ago
    Welcome to hacker news, where facts don't matter and big tech is always out to get you.
    • mav3rick 7y ago
      Watch this be downvoted and people post comments like "DuckDuckGo way better", "I want an offline smart speaker", "Google doesn't know technology".
      • scarejunba 7y ago
        These people are going to be easily outcompeted in society while they find terror in every corner and box shadows. On the Internet, this shrill outrage may pass for conversation but in real life people will walk away.
  • antisthenes 7y ago
    Security cameras usually monitor the exterior of the house for bad agents. Always-on listening devices and interior cameras are absolutely a new thing and to pretend like they aren't is what's actual lunacy.
  • pnw_hazor 7y ago
    He is saying it, because recording conversations is illegal (criminal) in some states unless all parties consent - and in some states consent must be on the actual recorded content. Video w/o sound is not an issue unless there is an expectation of privacy (e.g., in a bathroom)
• algaeontoast 7y ago
  Yeah, I’m definitely selling or throwing out my nVidia shield now. I think we should start shaming people who have these stupid “assistant” devices in their homes... I generally turn my phone off when I’m home and keep it in a cigar box. However, it sucks because it’d still be great to actually communicate with friends / use the internet without my device having a hot mic.
• pschastain 7y ago
  Just another example of why I want to be done with Google. Between privacy concerns and the way they drop their own hardware I simply no longer trust them. Time to start migrating away...
• luckydata 7y ago
  Or more simply not buy a nest product
• hkt 7y ago
  Conveniently moving the burden of privacy awareness from the company to the consumer. Sort of like how big oil wants us all to think the climate emergency is about our choices as individuals rather than their massive horrendous enterprises.
• tomcooks 7y ago
  https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-50048144 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-50048144 why wouldn't you post the original BBC article, I wonder.
• davidwitt415 7y ago
  For home automation usage, Voice UI doesn't need to be in the cloud. Does anybody here have any experience using Mycroft AI or other local solutions?
• pnw_hazor 7y ago
  It is a crime in WA and some other states to record conversations without consent of all parties.
• reaperducer 7y ago
  Quote A: "I haven't thought about this before in quite this way" and then B: "Does the owner of a home need to disclose to a guest? I would and do when someone enters into my home" If A is true, then B is a lie. If B is true, then A is a lie. If A is true, then Google doesn't have the smartest kids in the room running things.
• gtallen1187 7y ago
  I feel like this headline is a bit misleading. If you read the actual conversation, the question posed to this Google Exec seems to be more about manners than anything else. The question reads to me as: "Do you think you should let your houseguests know that you have a camera in the house?" to which the answer is clearly yes. The way this headline is structured seems to imply that the Google Exec is warning users that they're always being watched/recorded. Again, this is simply my interpretation of the conversation, but I feel as though it's a reasonable one. And one that was likely shared by the Google Exec in this article.
• _wldu 7y ago
  A friend of mine likes to say, "The P in IoT stands for Privacy".
• throwawaymanbot 7y ago
  Never a nest shall enter manbot manor. This is Zuckerbergian.
• dang 7y ago
  Url changed from https://www.pulse.ng/bi/tech/google-exec-says-nest-owners-should-probably-warn-their-guests-that-their/z1e1d5n https://www.pulse.ng/bi/tech/google-exec-says-nest-owners-sh..., which points to this.
• squarefoot 7y ago
  Then what about digital assistants, and cellphones, and connected car computers, and...?
  • jdgoesmarching 7y ago
    Seriously, most people here probably send location data to Google several times a day and have for almost a decade. We all make security tradeoffs for convenience, people high roading on this thread are no different. The people avoiding voice assistants and smart locks probably have 50 way more vulnerable security gaps in their personal lives
• intrepidkarthi 7y ago
  The mobile phones and apps are already eavesdropping when it is active. Smart speakers are just add-ons to collect data 24X7.
• beepboopbeep 7y ago
  I just don't understand the value added by a smart speaker or an "AI Assistant" of any kind. It seems like so much effort for such a minute return on convenience.
• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• RandomBacon 7y ago
  Legislation we need: "smart" devices need to come packaged with labels for people to put on their door warning guests that there is audio recording equipment inside and no expectation of privacy can be provided.
  • jdlyga 7y ago
    Is the distinction that it's private space? There's tons of recording equipment monitoring public roads, sidewalks, streets, inside stores, etc. In Manhattan, you're on camera way more than you're off camera.
• daveslash 7y ago
  >> Why would people voluntarily do this in exchange for I live in an apartment. Having a Nest thermostat installed was not my choice -- I would not have opted for that myself, but alas, my apartment complex installed them in every apartment. I have chosen not to connect it to any network. I've heard speculation that we're not far off from having hard social-discussions about the rights of renters -- what is the relationship between tenants and landlords going to look like in regards to smart devices?
• ByThyGrace 7y ago
  Law people of HN: say you went into someone else's home, someone who owns one of these devices, and recited, aloud, your own License Agreement, from start to finish, where you state that the speech following the terms agreed by the processor of your own spoken records must follow certain hard rules etc. (i.e. your run-of-the-mill ToS language), and then just behave normally. Imagine Google or whichever tracking corporation's server parses your speech and turns it to text. Which then gets labeled, processed, fed back into other databases, etc. The question is: Would it become binding at any point? Would it grant you any rights, produce any liability? Edit: added one key aspect.
• ThrowMeAwayOkay 7y ago
  I can guarantee you I'm not letting any of that smart crap into my home. The fact people willingly hook up something that records conversations and even video of their private lives...dumbfounds me.
• madrox 7y ago
  Every time an article like this comes up on HN it's the exact same concerns, the exact same HN comments, and the exact same arguments. I don't feel like the conversation has moved on significantly since Alexa came out. It makes me wonder why articles like these keep getting upvoted and commented on with the same stuff. Is this tabs vs spaces for the privacy world?
  • Sendotsh 7y ago
    Tabs vs Spaces, Windows vs Apple (vs Linux to a smaller extent), Xbox vs PlayStation, Coke vs Pepsi, people are opinionated and it’s as old as time itself (religion, nationality, us vs them). People like agreeing with those that agree with them, and disagreeing with those who don’t. Very rarely will any news on any of those topics actually progress anything, or change anyone’s beliefs/opinions, but people still like trying.
• yummypaint 7y ago
  Just wanted to point out that voice control doesnt have to involve audio from peoples homes being streamed over the internet. We already have the technology to do everything client side aside from the search request itself. You can bet companies have no interest in pursuing this though. The voice control vs privacy narrative is preferable to these companies because they can pretend there are no alternatives and keep collecting.
• gerash 7y ago
  I think that's how you end up with corp. speak. Anything an exec says is going to be blown out of proportion for grabbing clicks. Next time he gets a question he's going to read his answer from a legal and PR approved script.
• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• yannovitch 7y ago
  As this website is called HackerNews, I would suggest to install rather one of the numerous IoT platform such as Home Assistant or OpenHAB, and connect one of your devices to it. A Raspberry Pi is more than enough to do the job.