6 ms·

I might sound like a grumpy old granddad to some of you (and I am not even that old), but did you really think that a huge company would offer to put microphone

I might sound like a grumpy old granddad to some of you (and I am not even that old), but did you really think that a huge company would offer to put microphones into your living room for your advantage? They are going to benefit from this and you are going to pay for it. How? For instance with dynamic pricing. Your loved ones tell you how much they want that vacation on that Greek island? Good luck finding a cheap flight. You are sharing your Netflix subscription? Sorry, but not while that person is in the same room. You are applying to that exciting position? Nah, with that statement we heard on your dinner table, we think you are a cultural bad fit for our team.

ineedasername 6y ago
Yes, sure, it could be a slippery slope, but there's a reason that phrase denotes a logical fallacy. As with most technologies, we don't need to ban something desirable, but we do need to develop a set of social norms and corporate transparency around responsible usage. We're at the very beginning stages of that process, because all of this stuff, at this scale, is relatively new. The GDRP is far from perfect, but it sets the stage for this sort of effort.
eloff 6y ago
Any of those things would be such massive trust violations that the fallout would almost certainly sink the product and badly tarnish the company. That's not saying a company wouldn't be stupid enough to try it, but it's very clearly a bad business decision - so logically they wouldn't do it.
- asddubs 6y ago
  sure, it's company policy not to. but if you do it anyway and don't get caught, your risk-taking will be rewarded, so it becomes a numbers game/informal policy.
  - ineedasername 6y ago
    That just means we need more than company policy. Regulations w/ teeth and verifiable audits, for example.
- ornornor 6y ago
  Just wait a little. It’s too soon now but then again, I suspect very few people if they were teleported from 20–30 years ago would accept all the privacy violations we take as a fact of life today.
- Santosh83 6y ago
  Likely not. Intangible damages rarely matter any more, and companies have become very adept at PR damage control in collusion with the elected representatives. If it doesn't cause huge financial losses or death (in the first world), then it won't sink these behemoths. Public memory outside tech circles in not very long or sharp. The public expectations and standards around privacy and security in particular are hopelessly toothless. The tech has vastly outpaced the understanding of ordinary people, and the "experts" are mostly busy building these systems, not asking themselves if they should. The technological hydra, driven by geopolitical fear and rivalry will sweep everything aside. I constantly hear "if we don't do it, the bad guys will..." even on this forum, and tight regulations, oversight and audits are unwelcome obstacles in this arms race.
- dongvsascript 6y ago
  it's absolutely a good business decision, because you place too much value in the bad pr. there is almost none. facebook has done a crazy number of bad things. a few nerds like me hopped of, and total their user base grew. but nerds like me never had facebook in the first place. linkedin used your password to log into your emails and download them, then spam people in your contacts with invites, coming from you. then they sold user data to facebook. now their app was caught copying clipboard data from your phone and computer. no one cares, except for me who has a harder time finding work -because i'm not on linked in. giving you bad flight prices when you're looking for flights? that literally happened. but surprise -you don't remember.
- Ijumfs 6y ago
  They already did it. It's done. The only thing to do now is cover the Internet in shills saying it won't or can't happen, even though it did. GPT-3 is up to the task.
- twirlock 6y ago
  >so logically they wouldn't do it No, logically they'll just try to hide the fact they're doing it, probably by rolling it into an ad hoc social credit packaged and sold to "marketers" behind the scenes.
- peacefulhat 6y ago
  Must be completely oblivious to every obscene tech scandal over the past ten years to make a statement like this.
- syshum 6y ago
  I have given up hope that the wide public cares at all about privacy Time and time again large companies get outed violating privacy, it hits the news for 5 mins then Trump tweets something stupid and it is all forgotten about The fact that Twitter, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, etc are all still massive companies with billions in revenue proves the public does not care about privacy
changoplatanero 6y ago
You're spreading conspiracy theories. There is no way Google is listening to your phone calls and using the information for ads.
- throwaway936482 6y ago
  Just like they would never scan the content of your emails and serve up targeted ads based on that... Oh, wait, they were doing that up until 2017...
  - function_seven 6y ago
    And they were upfront with it. When GMail was released, they straight up told users that’s how they were paying for the enormous 1GB storage.
    - TeMPOraL 6y ago
      Ask average person - hell, average techie - about it, and I'm pretty certain you'll discover they don't know what you're talking about. They really weren't up front about it, they might have just not been hiding it very hard. Part of the solution to the tech vs. privacy problems could be forcing companies to be actually up front about their business models. After all, it's not wrong for an individual to give up their data, after being informed about what is requested and what will be done with it. The wrong behavior is having a business model that depends on most customers not being aware their data is being mined and used against them.
      - lern_too_spel 6y ago
        It was obvious. The ads were displayed right next to the messages and we're relevant to the messages being shown. At launch, they prominently described how this worked on the sign up page. https://web.archive.org/web/20040410020148/http://gmail.google.com/ https://web.archive.org/web/20040410020148/http://gmail.goog... To my mind, the biggest privacy violator that doesn't admit it's privacy violations right now is Apple. Even as a non-Apple user, I have my WiFi location slurped up by Apple, and they don't give me any way to opt out. People who use Apple devices have it far worse.
1vuio0pswjnm7 6y ago
I do not think "they" (whoever likes these living room mics_ ever think that. I think they believe "convenience" is the advantage. In the long run, I predict that this idea of convenience will be long forgotten. Eventually, no one is going to think of these mics as "convenient". That is because there will be no alternative. In order to book that vacation, you will be required to use the mic. If people do not recognise the value in the alternatives that are being lost, certainly those providing them won't either.
notatoad 6y ago
>did you really think that a huge company would offer to put microphones into your living room for your advantage? can you not think of any advantage that google could gain from their smart speakers other than the nefarious ones? All these conspiracy theories here just seem so incredibly shortsighted. like yeah, google could listen in on your every word and do their best to fuck with you, but the instant they got found out everybody would chuck their smart speakers in the garbage. And tbh, google already has a ton of data about your preferences, your conversations at home probably aren't that good of a signal compared to your email, calendar, browsing, search, and location history. Dynamic pricing for a greek vacation sounds scary, but google doesn't sell vacations, so why would they bother abusing your trust in that way - it literally doesn't benefit them at all. They want the smart speaker in your home because they want to be the service that you ask for assistance - they want you to say "hey google, book me a flight to mykonos for the weekend" instead of "hey alexa, book me a flight to mykonos for the weekend", because they can charge a commission on that sale. If you don't have a smart speaker in your home, or if you have another brand, then they have no opportunity to make a piece of that sale.
- choeger 6y ago
  > can you not think of any advantage that google could gain from their smart speakers other than the nefarious ones? There is literally no advantage that you won't pay for. The commission you just mentioned? Your money. The advertisement they show you? Your rational decision being attacked. The browser they let you download for free? Your choice of a suitable alternative. They are not evil, mind you, but they are also not your friend or partner. They make money, lots of it, and that money comes from your pocket.
  - notatoad 6y ago
    >The commission you just mentioned? Your money. the price isn't going to be lower without the commission. the price is set by what people will pay. if a comission doesn't go to google, the money will just go to somebody else. it was my money, but if i'm booking a trip that same amount will be paid. Google isn't my friend, or my partner, but nor are they my enemy. They're just competing with all the other entities who want some piece of every purchasing decision I make, and the best way to do that is to be a bit more convenient and a bit more available than somebody else, rather than engaging in elaborate conspiracies or trying to make me angry at them.

ineedasername 6y ago

Yes, sure, it could be a slippery slope, but there's a reason that phrase denotes a logical fallacy. As with most technologies, we don't need to ban something desirable, but we do need to develop a set of social norms and corporate transparency around responsible usage. We're at the very beginning stages of that process, because all of this stuff, at this scale, is relatively new. The GDRP is far from perfect, but it sets the stage for this sort of effort.

eloff 6y ago

Any of those things would be such massive trust violations that the fallout would almost certainly sink the product and badly tarnish the company. That's not saying a company wouldn't be stupid enough to try it, but it's very clearly a bad business decision - so logically they wouldn't do it.

asddubs 6y ago
sure, it's company policy not to. but if you do it anyway and don't get caught, your risk-taking will be rewarded, so it becomes a numbers game/informal policy.
- ineedasername 6y ago
  That just means we need more than company policy. Regulations w/ teeth and verifiable audits, for example.
ornornor 6y ago
Just wait a little. It’s too soon now but then again, I suspect very few people if they were teleported from 20–30 years ago would accept all the privacy violations we take as a fact of life today.
Santosh83 6y ago
Likely not. Intangible damages rarely matter any more, and companies have become very adept at PR damage control in collusion with the elected representatives. If it doesn't cause huge financial losses or death (in the first world), then it won't sink these behemoths. Public memory outside tech circles in not very long or sharp. The public expectations and standards around privacy and security in particular are hopelessly toothless. The tech has vastly outpaced the understanding of ordinary people, and the "experts" are mostly busy building these systems, not asking themselves if they should. The technological hydra, driven by geopolitical fear and rivalry will sweep everything aside. I constantly hear "if we don't do it, the bad guys will..." even on this forum, and tight regulations, oversight and audits are unwelcome obstacles in this arms race.
dongvsascript 6y ago
it's absolutely a good business decision, because you place too much value in the bad pr. there is almost none. facebook has done a crazy number of bad things. a few nerds like me hopped of, and total their user base grew. but nerds like me never had facebook in the first place. linkedin used your password to log into your emails and download them, then spam people in your contacts with invites, coming from you. then they sold user data to facebook. now their app was caught copying clipboard data from your phone and computer. no one cares, except for me who has a harder time finding work -because i'm not on linked in. giving you bad flight prices when you're looking for flights? that literally happened. but surprise -you don't remember.
Ijumfs 6y ago
They already did it. It's done. The only thing to do now is cover the Internet in shills saying it won't or can't happen, even though it did. GPT-3 is up to the task.
twirlock 6y ago
>so logically they wouldn't do it No, logically they'll just try to hide the fact they're doing it, probably by rolling it into an ad hoc social credit packaged and sold to "marketers" behind the scenes.
peacefulhat 6y ago
Must be completely oblivious to every obscene tech scandal over the past ten years to make a statement like this.
syshum 6y ago
I have given up hope that the wide public cares at all about privacy Time and time again large companies get outed violating privacy, it hits the news for 5 mins then Trump tweets something stupid and it is all forgotten about The fact that Twitter, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, etc are all still massive companies with billions in revenue proves the public does not care about privacy

changoplatanero 6y ago

You're spreading conspiracy theories. There is no way Google is listening to your phone calls and using the information for ads.

throwaway936482 6y ago
Just like they would never scan the content of your emails and serve up targeted ads based on that... Oh, wait, they were doing that up until 2017...
- function_seven 6y ago
  And they were upfront with it. When GMail was released, they straight up told users that’s how they were paying for the enormous 1GB storage.
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    Ask average person - hell, average techie - about it, and I'm pretty certain you'll discover they don't know what you're talking about. They really weren't up front about it, they might have just not been hiding it very hard. Part of the solution to the tech vs. privacy problems could be forcing companies to be actually up front about their business models. After all, it's not wrong for an individual to give up their data, after being informed about what is requested and what will be done with it. The wrong behavior is having a business model that depends on most customers not being aware their data is being mined and used against them.
    - lern_too_spel 6y ago
      It was obvious. The ads were displayed right next to the messages and we're relevant to the messages being shown. At launch, they prominently described how this worked on the sign up page. https://web.archive.org/web/20040410020148/http://gmail.google.com/ https://web.archive.org/web/20040410020148/http://gmail.goog... To my mind, the biggest privacy violator that doesn't admit it's privacy violations right now is Apple. Even as a non-Apple user, I have my WiFi location slurped up by Apple, and they don't give me any way to opt out. People who use Apple devices have it far worse.

1vuio0pswjnm7 6y ago

I do not think "they" (whoever likes these living room mics_ ever think that. I think they believe "convenience" is the advantage. In the long run, I predict that this idea of convenience will be long forgotten. Eventually, no one is going to think of these mics as "convenient". That is because there will be no alternative. In order to book that vacation, you will be required to use the mic. If people do not recognise the value in the alternatives that are being lost, certainly those providing them won't either.

notatoad 6y ago

>did you really think that a huge company would offer to put microphones into your living room for your advantage? can you not think of any advantage that google could gain from their smart speakers other than the nefarious ones? All these conspiracy theories here just seem so incredibly shortsighted. like yeah, google could listen in on your every word and do their best to fuck with you, but the instant they got found out everybody would chuck their smart speakers in the garbage. And tbh, google already has a ton of data about your preferences, your conversations at home probably aren't that good of a signal compared to your email, calendar, browsing, search, and location history. Dynamic pricing for a greek vacation sounds scary, but google doesn't sell vacations, so why would they bother abusing your trust in that way - it literally doesn't benefit them at all. They want the smart speaker in your home because they want to be the service that you ask for assistance - they want you to say "hey google, book me a flight to mykonos for the weekend" instead of "hey alexa, book me a flight to mykonos for the weekend", because they can charge a commission on that sale. If you don't have a smart speaker in your home, or if you have another brand, then they have no opportunity to make a piece of that sale.

choeger 6y ago
> can you not think of any advantage that google could gain from their smart speakers other than the nefarious ones? There is literally no advantage that you won't pay for. The commission you just mentioned? Your money. The advertisement they show you? Your rational decision being attacked. The browser they let you download for free? Your choice of a suitable alternative. They are not evil, mind you, but they are also not your friend or partner. They make money, lots of it, and that money comes from your pocket.
- notatoad 6y ago
  >The commission you just mentioned? Your money. the price isn't going to be lower without the commission. the price is set by what people will pay. if a comission doesn't go to google, the money will just go to somebody else. it was my money, but if i'm booking a trip that same amount will be paid. Google isn't my friend, or my partner, but nor are they my enemy. They're just competing with all the other entities who want some piece of every purchasing decision I make, and the best way to do that is to be a bit more convenient and a bit more available than somebody else, rather than engaging in elaborate conspiracies or trying to make me angry at them.