6 ms·

i mean, is it any different than having any other conversation that potentially involves interpersonal conflict? if it's important to you and you're willing to

i mean, is it any different than having any other conversation that potentially involves interpersonal conflict? if it's important to you and you're willing to burn social capital on it, just politely ask that he not use it when [your boundaries here]. if you come to an impasse, then there's not much to be done other than part ways. i'd imagine this is similar to any other incompatible roommate situations, e.g. someone whose recent significant other recently started coming over and has annoying habits.

frereubu 7y ago
I think the idea is that, rather than fight hundreds of small battles like this every day, we should collectively agree (through democratic political means) what's acceptable without explicit permission.
- sansnomme 7y ago
  Well if you care about it so much, contribute either money or code and create ecosystem with the same level of layman UX. It's difficult to get legislation when you cannot demonstrate alternatives that do not severely reduce convenience. This is a forum of overpaid software engineers. Distributed neural network training isn't science fiction anymore. Go ship or pay others to do so. Brave and DuckDuckGo built entire businesses on the premise of privacy. Many an arrogant reader here HN have no qualms claiming that they can replicate Facebook in a weekend. Go forth and walk the talk. Yet another Mastodon client is cool, but do you know what's cooler? A production quality OCR competitive with Google Cloud Vision API, voice transcription on par with AWS Transcribe, or personal assistants with the ubiquity of Siri.
  - frereubu 7y ago
    I care about it enough to contact my local representative (my MP because I'm in the UK) and he agrees with me that there should be explicit legislation to control the use of these technologies. The EU's GPDR is a step in that direction when it comes to things like automated decision-making. Open source is not a solution here, and to suggest otherwise seems like it misses the wood for the trees. Besides which, I hardly think that restricting the use of cameras on doorbells (which is what this sub-thread is about) is "severely reducing convenience."
    - CamperBob2 7y ago
      Don't want a camera on your doorbell? Don't install one. I would like to have the freedom to decide differently.
      - cannonedhamster 7y ago
        Do I have the freedom not to be filmed by your doorbell and have it sent to the police without even your permission to be processed and stored for however long they want and possibly used against me at a later date for something that isn't even a crime now?
        CamperBob2 7y ago
        Sure. Just stay off my porch.
        travisporter 7y ago
        And don’t walk by my house? For that matter, don’t bother visiting me?
        CamperBob2 7y ago
        If you're walking by my house, you're in public, and you have no expectation of privacy. (Actually, that's not true -- my house isn't visible from the street, so if you're on my cameras, you're definitely on my property.) If you're visiting me, you're on my property, ditto. Any attempts to "fix" this will only make the world worse in the end. The people you empower to enforce your opinions about privacy in (semi-)public places will begin by exempting themselves from whatever well-intentioned rules you have in mind.
        dingojohnsons 7y ago
        s/my porch/the public roadway that my camera is recording 24x7/
  - jeegsy 7y ago
    Rather than working to devise "voice transcription on par with AWS", maybe we can also decide that some things are not necessary and should remain in the scifi realm. The novelty of yelling "Ok google navigate to...." wore off fairly quickly especially when I could just as easily type it. I use the "set an alarm for.." more often though. But really, imagine all the infrastructure required just so people can set alarms and timers with their voices!!!
- DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
  Could using a device like that violate some U.S. states' two-party-consent recording laws [0]? If so, then perhaps the courts are the best remedy. [0] https://recordinglaw.com/party-two-party-consent-states/ https://recordinglaw.com/party-two-party-consent-states/
3pt14159 7y ago
It is different. The reason it is different is that when things like always on microphones are legal it implies that they are safe. My roommate isn't technically savvy. He works as a project manager of in construction. He's a great guy, but we didn't talk about always on mics when we first met and frereubu is right that fighting battles like this isn't the way to do it. Legislation should solve this problem.
- zamadatix 7y ago
  The assumption being everyone agrees what "privacy" should look like and will be happy with legislation around that. The majority of people don't seem to care about always on microphones.
  - 9dl 7y ago
    If they do not care why not ask them some mp3 with their sex scenes Thousands subcontractors of google/amazon/ms already hear it, why you can't?
    - CDSlice 7y ago
      There are quite a few reasons. First of all the recordings made by voice assistants aren't connected to your identity (or at least most people don't expect it to). Uploading it yourself for the world to hear links it to you in the minds of most people. Second of all most people expect that the recordings made by voice assistants aren't going to be shared beyond the walls of Amazon/Google. A few random contractors you won't ever meet hearing you feels different than the entire world including people you know hearing it. Lastly, Amazon/Google has a good reason to listen to the recordings: improve the technology so it works better for everyone including you. Random strangers have no good reason to listen to recordings of you, only bad reasons. It really bugs how most people here seem to go "oh if you like using voice assistants why don't you just share everything with the whole world?" Privacy is a spectrum, not a binary choice. Somebody can be comfortable with Amazon/Google using the audio and not be comfortable with a live audio stream accessable to everyone on the internet.
- 7y ago

frereubu 7y ago

I think the idea is that, rather than fight hundreds of small battles like this every day, we should collectively agree (through democratic political means) what's acceptable without explicit permission.

sansnomme 7y ago
Well if you care about it so much, contribute either money or code and create ecosystem with the same level of layman UX. It's difficult to get legislation when you cannot demonstrate alternatives that do not severely reduce convenience. This is a forum of overpaid software engineers. Distributed neural network training isn't science fiction anymore. Go ship or pay others to do so. Brave and DuckDuckGo built entire businesses on the premise of privacy. Many an arrogant reader here HN have no qualms claiming that they can replicate Facebook in a weekend. Go forth and walk the talk. Yet another Mastodon client is cool, but do you know what's cooler? A production quality OCR competitive with Google Cloud Vision API, voice transcription on par with AWS Transcribe, or personal assistants with the ubiquity of Siri.
- frereubu 7y ago
  I care about it enough to contact my local representative (my MP because I'm in the UK) and he agrees with me that there should be explicit legislation to control the use of these technologies. The EU's GPDR is a step in that direction when it comes to things like automated decision-making. Open source is not a solution here, and to suggest otherwise seems like it misses the wood for the trees. Besides which, I hardly think that restricting the use of cameras on doorbells (which is what this sub-thread is about) is "severely reducing convenience."
  - CamperBob2 7y ago
    Don't want a camera on your doorbell? Don't install one. I would like to have the freedom to decide differently.
    - cannonedhamster 7y ago
      Do I have the freedom not to be filmed by your doorbell and have it sent to the police without even your permission to be processed and stored for however long they want and possibly used against me at a later date for something that isn't even a crime now?
      - CamperBob2 7y ago
        Sure. Just stay off my porch.
        travisporter 7y ago
        And don’t walk by my house? For that matter, don’t bother visiting me?
        CamperBob2 7y ago
        If you're walking by my house, you're in public, and you have no expectation of privacy. (Actually, that's not true -- my house isn't visible from the street, so if you're on my cameras, you're definitely on my property.) If you're visiting me, you're on my property, ditto. Any attempts to "fix" this will only make the world worse in the end. The people you empower to enforce your opinions about privacy in (semi-)public places will begin by exempting themselves from whatever well-intentioned rules you have in mind.
        dingojohnsons 7y ago
        s/my porch/the public roadway that my camera is recording 24x7/
- jeegsy 7y ago
  Rather than working to devise "voice transcription on par with AWS", maybe we can also decide that some things are not necessary and should remain in the scifi realm. The novelty of yelling "Ok google navigate to...." wore off fairly quickly especially when I could just as easily type it. I use the "set an alarm for.." more often though. But really, imagine all the infrastructure required just so people can set alarms and timers with their voices!!!
DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
Could using a device like that violate some U.S. states' two-party-consent recording laws [0]? If so, then perhaps the courts are the best remedy. [0] https://recordinglaw.com/party-two-party-consent-states/ https://recordinglaw.com/party-two-party-consent-states/

3pt14159 7y ago

It is different. The reason it is different is that when things like always on microphones are legal it implies that they are safe. My roommate isn't technically savvy. He works as a project manager of in construction. He's a great guy, but we didn't talk about always on mics when we first met and frereubu is right that fighting battles like this isn't the way to do it. Legislation should solve this problem.

zamadatix 7y ago
The assumption being everyone agrees what "privacy" should look like and will be happy with legislation around that. The majority of people don't seem to care about always on microphones.
- 9dl 7y ago
  If they do not care why not ask them some mp3 with their sex scenes Thousands subcontractors of google/amazon/ms already hear it, why you can't?
  - CDSlice 7y ago
    There are quite a few reasons. First of all the recordings made by voice assistants aren't connected to your identity (or at least most people don't expect it to). Uploading it yourself for the world to hear links it to you in the minds of most people. Second of all most people expect that the recordings made by voice assistants aren't going to be shared beyond the walls of Amazon/Google. A few random contractors you won't ever meet hearing you feels different than the entire world including people you know hearing it. Lastly, Amazon/Google has a good reason to listen to the recordings: improve the technology so it works better for everyone including you. Random strangers have no good reason to listen to recordings of you, only bad reasons. It really bugs how most people here seem to go "oh if you like using voice assistants why don't you just share everything with the whole world?" Privacy is a spectrum, not a binary choice. Somebody can be comfortable with Amazon/Google using the audio and not be comfortable with a live audio stream accessable to everyone on the internet.
7y ago