4 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. I don't u

by 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.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
    I personally think this is a conspiracy theory, but I doubt there's anything I could say or do to convince you. Fortunately, it's a free country and you don't have to use one of these devices if you don't want to.
- harha 6y ago
  What’s important from a user perspective is that it’s not possible to verify these safety measures, while potentially exposing some of the most private pieces of information. I agree that usually it should be safe and anyone messing with logs would probably get terminated, but there’s not much more than to trust people there and I’m not sure all safeguards hold in all cases, e.g., if people were to collude within the organization. Therefore I wouldn’t put such a device in my home again and if I’m having a meaningful conversation somewhere, I’ll make sure no device is connected to power.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
    > What’s important from a user perspective ... I'd say that's important for a very tiny subset of users. For most users, the main question is whether the devices are useful. I have them, and I'm not sure myself. For the users who would want to verify that their stuff isn't being used any way they don't like, it's hard to say what could practically be done to convince them. Even if Google explained the inner workings of its privacy protection systems in detail (and it has, in some various contexts), you still can't watch the code running and verify that it's doing what Google says. Short of building from source and running it yourself, there's no way to verify that things are behaving as you desire. Not using devices in this class is the only option, I guess, at least until it becomes practical to move all the computation on prem, and until someone has an economic incentive to build a system with that feature.
harha 6y ago
It was a new device (already public though) at that time and it wasn’t mandated, I got it for free though. I did want to test it and see how it works and if it’s useful for me, I just don’t completely trust them and don’t think people should trust large corporations putting microphones in their houses, so I decided to put it in a room where I usually don’t have conversations until I either have a very strong assurance that it is safe and useful enough for me, or give it away to someone who doesn’t have these concerns, which is what I decided to do. If it were mandated though I would have left Google immediately and news of that policy would have probably made its way to HN, so no subtext here.
- zizee 6y ago
  Thank you for the clarification. Makes complete sense.

by zizee 6y ago

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.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
  I personally think this is a conspiracy theory, but I doubt there's anything I could say or do to convince you. Fortunately, it's a free country and you don't have to use one of these devices if you don't want to.
harha 6y ago
What’s important from a user perspective is that it’s not possible to verify these safety measures, while potentially exposing some of the most private pieces of information. I agree that usually it should be safe and anyone messing with logs would probably get terminated, but there’s not much more than to trust people there and I’m not sure all safeguards hold in all cases, e.g., if people were to collude within the organization. Therefore I wouldn’t put such a device in my home again and if I’m having a meaningful conversation somewhere, I’ll make sure no device is connected to power.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
  > What’s important from a user perspective ... I'd say that's important for a very tiny subset of users. For most users, the main question is whether the devices are useful. I have them, and I'm not sure myself. For the users who would want to verify that their stuff isn't being used any way they don't like, it's hard to say what could practically be done to convince them. Even if Google explained the inner workings of its privacy protection systems in detail (and it has, in some various contexts), you still can't watch the code running and verify that it's doing what Google says. Short of building from source and running it yourself, there's no way to verify that things are behaving as you desire. Not using devices in this class is the only option, I guess, at least until it becomes practical to move all the computation on prem, and until someone has an economic incentive to build a system with that feature.

harha 6y ago

It was a new device (already public though) at that time and it wasn’t mandated, I got it for free though. I did want to test it and see how it works and if it’s useful for me, I just don’t completely trust them and don’t think people should trust large corporations putting microphones in their houses, so I decided to put it in a room where I usually don’t have conversations until I either have a very strong assurance that it is safe and useful enough for me, or give it away to someone who doesn’t have these concerns, which is what I decided to do. If it were mandated though I would have left Google immediately and news of that policy would have probably made its way to HN, so no subtext here.

zizee 6y ago
Thank you for the clarification. Makes complete sense.