6 ms·

I had one of these when I worked for Google, I didn’t quite trust it though, so I had it in the bathroom to limit what my employer could listen to. Imagine dis

by harha 6y ago

I had one of these when I worked for Google, I didn’t quite trust it though, so I had it in the bathroom to limit what my employer could listen to. Imagine discussing a product idea at home with friends, then having that stolen by an engineer at one of these companies (who figured out how to find the interesting conversations) for a promotion or new position. On a larger scale these might get hooked up with some advertising algorithms that manipulate you further based on conversations you didn’t know were recorded. I hope for more pressure to move these systems and other devices, that don’t necessarily need to be in the cloud to function, to a local solution or one that is closed to outsiders. Technologically this should be possible in so many cases.

croutonwagon 6y ago
I just dont have them in the house. Every now and then i get called paranoid. And sure, my phone can function the same (though i specifically have siri disabled on our iphones) Its just a cost benefit. I can get off the couch and flip a switch or use a remote to turn on a song. I really dont need speach recognition for those functions.
- ineedasername 6y ago
  Many of the same benefits can be had without always-listening devices. You can control things from your phone. Or in my case, I usually have a pair of bluetooth earphones around my neck, I push a button and say something and that's all it listens to. The always-listening "okay google" can be disabled.
- harha 6y ago
  Absolutely agree that the convenience doesn’t make up for the downsides. I do think that some cases can be covered without putting data out in the wild with some third party. Siri and similar apps don’t do well with complex commands, but just fine with simple things (light switch, calendar entry, alarm) that an offline tool might also understand. Same goes for fitness trackers, note taking apps, etc. We as consumers should choose such alternatives. As developers and entrepreneurs we should try to enable these solutions, so we don’t have to rely on apps that might monetize differently than advertised or turn off when some company decides it’s not profitable enough. There’s also work being done on decentralizing analysis and monetizing your own data, but I’m not sure it’s ready yet.
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  I unplug my parents' Google wiretap device when I enter the house for holiday parties. For some reason my parents can both know that I know way more about this topic than them, and still totally disregard me and spend hundreds on Google hardware devices because they seem cool. \o/
  - xparco 6y ago
    Your parents sound stupid
  - kaishiro 6y ago
    Some people are perfectly comfortable giving up some privacy for convenience.
  - deadmutex 6y ago
    This seems like a personal choice, and perhaps you can try to keep an open mind. Also consider the use case of your parents being alone and falling down and not being able to get up. They can just say 'ok Google, call ocdtrekkie' (if they have setup the device fully with contacts etc.). Disclaimer: I work for Google, but views are my own.
    - mehrdadn 6y ago
      I can't speak to the merits of the family relations, but telling people to "keep an open mind" to continuous monitoring is quite the ask. The right to privacy isn't some kind of pizza topping to be "open-minded" about just because some company happens to make a product that violates the norm. (And to be clear, my statement isn't isn't Google-specific in any way.)
      - vanviegen 6y ago
        What objective norm does this product violate? People should be free to share (or not share) their personal information any way they please. Is being "open-minded" about other people's choices in this regard so much to ask?
- IshKebab 6y ago
  > Every now and then i get called paranoid. I mean, that is paranoid. You've even admitted it doesn't change your vulnerability.
- WalterBright 6y ago
  I just use "The Clapper".
- WWLink 6y ago
  To me the worst part is you don't need to have constantly-connected-to-the-internet voice recognition. It certainly wasn't a thing until recently. That's why I tend to think of it as an act of malice.
ourmandave 6y ago
...so I had it in the bathroom to limit what my employer could listen to. Uh, this feels like Opposite Day.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  This is a good choice of location. If they snoop on GP, they'll hear exactly what they deserve to hear.
  - harha 6y ago
    And that is what I consider functioning as intended. While I don’t think they target me specifically, I can’t be really sure either and like many other companies the people there behave quite contrary to what is advertised. This is just too obvious of a potential attack to simply ignore and too easy to avoid.
  - NullPrefix 6y ago
    >they'll hear exactly what they deserve to hear You mean fart noises?
- escanda 6y ago
  Sounds awesome. I have three Google Home devices (two Nests and one Home) and I am going to send them to the trash.
- dehrmann 6y ago
  I'm just thinking of all the shower singing they'd get.
mjangle1985 6y ago
There's an open-source project that attempts to limit what things like Google home and Alexa hear using a pi. https://github.com/bjoernkarmann/project_alias https://github.com/bjoernkarmann/project_alias I'd never want an always on mic in my home but if I had to have it I'd be using this.
zizee 6y ago
> I had one of these when I worked for Google, I didn’t quite trust it though, so I had it in the bathroom to limit what my employer could listen to. I don't understand why you just didn't throw it away, or put it in a box powered down. A possible subtext to what you have written is that your employer (google) was mandating that you keep using the device at home as part of your employment... but that is outrageous and I would like clarification as I feel it cannot be true.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
  > A possible subtext to what you have written is that your employer (google) was mandating that you keep using the device at home as part of your employment... but that is outrageous and I would like clarification as I feel it cannot be true. The requirement to use a Google device at home has never been imposed to the best of my knowledge, at least unless this individual was working on the product. Even then they would not be required to have it on unless they were actively working on it. If they were working on it, then they should know its capabilities and trust or distrust would be irrelevant, since they would have actual knowledge instead. Also, the devices are not recording all the time. Presumably this experiment added the ability to treat fire alarms as a hot word, in support of the feature in question. That doesn't mean that Google has access to recordings of every conversation. Also, there is no way anyone would ever be permitted to run the type of conversation analysis that the GP proposes. Far more benign analyses are rejected all the time due to privacy concerns. It's unlikely that any single person could even run such an analysis due to various access controls (e.g. the inability to access logs as a person-user, system-enforced requirements to run only checked in, reviewed code over logs). Even if a person could run an analysis like this as a rogue, it would be extremely risky, because they would get terminated immediately if it were ever discovered. Also! Identifying useful, novel product ideas is beyond even Google's ML capabilities.
  - felbane 6y ago
    >Also, there is no way anyone would ever be permitted to run the type of conversation analysis that the GP proposes. I flatly disagree with this statement. I have experienced first-hand how conversation analysis can turn into targeted advertising... and there are many others who have shared similar experiences.

by harha 6y ago

croutonwagon 6y ago

I just dont have them in the house. Every now and then i get called paranoid. And sure, my phone can function the same (though i specifically have siri disabled on our iphones) Its just a cost benefit. I can get off the couch and flip a switch or use a remote to turn on a song. I really dont need speach recognition for those functions.

ineedasername 6y ago
Many of the same benefits can be had without always-listening devices. You can control things from your phone. Or in my case, I usually have a pair of bluetooth earphones around my neck, I push a button and say something and that's all it listens to. The always-listening "okay google" can be disabled.
harha 6y ago
Absolutely agree that the convenience doesn’t make up for the downsides. I do think that some cases can be covered without putting data out in the wild with some third party. Siri and similar apps don’t do well with complex commands, but just fine with simple things (light switch, calendar entry, alarm) that an offline tool might also understand. Same goes for fitness trackers, note taking apps, etc. We as consumers should choose such alternatives. As developers and entrepreneurs we should try to enable these solutions, so we don’t have to rely on apps that might monetize differently than advertised or turn off when some company decides it’s not profitable enough. There’s also work being done on decentralizing analysis and monetizing your own data, but I’m not sure it’s ready yet.
ocdtrekkie 6y ago
I unplug my parents' Google wiretap device when I enter the house for holiday parties. For some reason my parents can both know that I know way more about this topic than them, and still totally disregard me and spend hundreds on Google hardware devices because they seem cool. \o/
- xparco 6y ago
  Your parents sound stupid
- kaishiro 6y ago
  Some people are perfectly comfortable giving up some privacy for convenience.
- deadmutex 6y ago
  This seems like a personal choice, and perhaps you can try to keep an open mind. Also consider the use case of your parents being alone and falling down and not being able to get up. They can just say 'ok Google, call ocdtrekkie' (if they have setup the device fully with contacts etc.). Disclaimer: I work for Google, but views are my own.
  - mehrdadn 6y ago
    I can't speak to the merits of the family relations, but telling people to "keep an open mind" to continuous monitoring is quite the ask. The right to privacy isn't some kind of pizza topping to be "open-minded" about just because some company happens to make a product that violates the norm. (And to be clear, my statement isn't isn't Google-specific in any way.)
    - vanviegen 6y ago
      What objective norm does this product violate? People should be free to share (or not share) their personal information any way they please. Is being "open-minded" about other people's choices in this regard so much to ask?
IshKebab 6y ago
> Every now and then i get called paranoid. I mean, that is paranoid. You've even admitted it doesn't change your vulnerability.
WalterBright 6y ago
I just use "The Clapper".
WWLink 6y ago
To me the worst part is you don't need to have constantly-connected-to-the-internet voice recognition. It certainly wasn't a thing until recently. That's why I tend to think of it as an act of malice.

ourmandave 6y ago

...so I had it in the bathroom to limit what my employer could listen to. Uh, this feels like Opposite Day.

TeMPOraL 6y ago
This is a good choice of location. If they snoop on GP, they'll hear exactly what they deserve to hear.
- harha 6y ago
  And that is what I consider functioning as intended. While I don’t think they target me specifically, I can’t be really sure either and like many other companies the people there behave quite contrary to what is advertised. This is just too obvious of a potential attack to simply ignore and too easy to avoid.
- NullPrefix 6y ago
  >they'll hear exactly what they deserve to hear You mean fart noises?
escanda 6y ago
Sounds awesome. I have three Google Home devices (two Nests and one Home) and I am going to send them to the trash.
dehrmann 6y ago
I'm just thinking of all the shower singing they'd get.

mjangle1985 6y ago

There's an open-source project that attempts to limit what things like Google home and Alexa hear using a pi. https://github.com/bjoernkarmann/project_alias https://github.com/bjoernkarmann/project_alias I'd never want an always on mic in my home but if I had to have it I'd be using this.

zizee 6y ago

> I had one of these when I worked for Google, I didn’t quite trust it though, so I had it in the bathroom to limit what my employer could listen to. I don't understand why you just didn't throw it away, or put it in a box powered down. A possible subtext to what you have written is that your employer (google) was mandating that you keep using the device at home as part of your employment... but that is outrageous and I would like clarification as I feel it cannot be true.

asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
> A possible subtext to what you have written is that your employer (google) was mandating that you keep using the device at home as part of your employment... but that is outrageous and I would like clarification as I feel it cannot be true. The requirement to use a Google device at home has never been imposed to the best of my knowledge, at least unless this individual was working on the product. Even then they would not be required to have it on unless they were actively working on it. If they were working on it, then they should know its capabilities and trust or distrust would be irrelevant, since they would have actual knowledge instead. Also, the devices are not recording all the time. Presumably this experiment added the ability to treat fire alarms as a hot word, in support of the feature in question. That doesn't mean that Google has access to recordings of every conversation. Also, there is no way anyone would ever be permitted to run the type of conversation analysis that the GP proposes. Far more benign analyses are rejected all the time due to privacy concerns. It's unlikely that any single person could even run such an analysis due to various access controls (e.g. the inability to access logs as a person-user, system-enforced requirements to run only checked in, reviewed code over logs). Even if a person could run an analysis like this as a rogue, it would be extremely risky, because they would get terminated immediately if it were ever discovered. Also! Identifying useful, novel product ideas is beyond even Google's ML capabilities.
- felbane 6y ago
  >Also, there is no way anyone would ever be permitted to run the type of conversation analysis that the GP proposes. I flatly disagree with this statement. I have experienced first-hand how conversation analysis can turn into targeted advertising... and there are many others who have shared similar experiences.