4 ms·

Maybe a Google engineer can correct me but I'm pretty sure there is no meaningful distinction to be drawn between the Google Assistant running on the Home devic

Maybe a Google engineer can correct me but I'm pretty sure there is no meaningful distinction to be drawn between the Google Assistant running on the Home devices and the Google Assistant running on phones. Having a "smart phone" is also like having 24/7/365 surveillance in your home.

danShumway 6y ago
Voice assistants on phones can be set to only trigger on manual interaction, and they can be turned off entirely. Having an always on voice assistant is like having 24/7/365 surveillance in your home, regardless of what device it's on. But having a smart phone does not require you to have an always on voice assistant.
- danso 6y ago
  But how is the action (e.g. an over-the-air patch/hack) needed to secretly convert an Alexa to always-listen-and-transmit-home different than it would be for a smartphone?
  - danShumway 6y ago
    I'm not worried about an over-the-air patch or hack[0], I'm worried about the existing problem Alexa has with false positive wakewords. Voice recognition isn't reliable enough yet to use as a security feature. https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/2/21/21032140/alexa-amazon-google-home-siri-apple-microsoft-cortana-recording https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/2/21/21032140/alexa-amazon-g... https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/amazon-echo-alexa-record-conversation-privacy-security-a8368231.html https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/ne... [0]: I mean, I am, but not in this specific case. I don't think smart speakers represent a particularly unique risk where hacking is concerned (Nest devices excluded).
- jnwatson 6y ago
  The entire point is that you're trusting the manufacturer that the device implement the behavior the manufacturer says it does. If you have a smart speaker, you're trusting they don't upload all speech. With a cell phone, it is actually tougher, because you're also trusting the manufacturer that their security model is such that 3rd party software can't violate the privacy policy you're expecting. Many, many free phone apps today collect data you don't want them to.
  - danShumway 6y ago
    > If you have a smart speaker, you're trusting they don't upload all speech. Well, you shouldn't be doing that because we've known for a while that smart speakers have a false-positive problem. That's the advantage of a physical gesture; the AI won't get it wrong. A physical action like holding down your home button is much less likely to trigger on accident. Not to mention, you can also full-on disable the voice assistant on your smartphone, in which case, there's practically zero risk of a false positive. > With a cell phone, it is actually tougher, because you're also trusting the manufacturer that their security model is such that 3rd party software can't violate the privacy policy you're expecting. Stealing my contacts is bad, getting access to my microphone is worse. If the argument is, "my phone might get malware, so having an always-on-microphone is exactly the same", that just seems really fatalistic to me. These are different risks that belong in different categories.
    - renewiltord 6y ago
      Sure, but without the phone OS source code, you can't know whether "disabling the smart assistant" just displays "disabled" and then keeps recording. Without a hardware switch, it could just lie to you.
      - danShumway 6y ago
        The risk of my phone OS being theoretically compromised to spy on me is different than the risk posed by a device that I know is listening to me, and that I know regularly misinterprets wakewords. It's fatalistic to say, "I can't see the source code, so I might as well install another microphone in my bedroom."
        renewiltord 6y ago
        Yep, you're right on this front. It's not a binary thing. That is, you are concerned at inadvertent data leakage that could be used against you. For what it's worth, there's a hardware switch on Echos by the way.
      - 6y ago

danShumway 6y ago

Voice assistants on phones can be set to only trigger on manual interaction, and they can be turned off entirely. Having an always on voice assistant is like having 24/7/365 surveillance in your home, regardless of what device it's on. But having a smart phone does not require you to have an always on voice assistant.

danso 6y ago
But how is the action (e.g. an over-the-air patch/hack) needed to secretly convert an Alexa to always-listen-and-transmit-home different than it would be for a smartphone?
- danShumway 6y ago
  I'm not worried about an over-the-air patch or hack[0], I'm worried about the existing problem Alexa has with false positive wakewords. Voice recognition isn't reliable enough yet to use as a security feature. https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/2/21/21032140/alexa-amazon-google-home-siri-apple-microsoft-cortana-recording https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/2/21/21032140/alexa-amazon-g... https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/amazon-echo-alexa-record-conversation-privacy-security-a8368231.html https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/ne... [0]: I mean, I am, but not in this specific case. I don't think smart speakers represent a particularly unique risk where hacking is concerned (Nest devices excluded).
jnwatson 6y ago
The entire point is that you're trusting the manufacturer that the device implement the behavior the manufacturer says it does. If you have a smart speaker, you're trusting they don't upload all speech. With a cell phone, it is actually tougher, because you're also trusting the manufacturer that their security model is such that 3rd party software can't violate the privacy policy you're expecting. Many, many free phone apps today collect data you don't want them to.
- danShumway 6y ago
  > If you have a smart speaker, you're trusting they don't upload all speech. Well, you shouldn't be doing that because we've known for a while that smart speakers have a false-positive problem. That's the advantage of a physical gesture; the AI won't get it wrong. A physical action like holding down your home button is much less likely to trigger on accident. Not to mention, you can also full-on disable the voice assistant on your smartphone, in which case, there's practically zero risk of a false positive. > With a cell phone, it is actually tougher, because you're also trusting the manufacturer that their security model is such that 3rd party software can't violate the privacy policy you're expecting. Stealing my contacts is bad, getting access to my microphone is worse. If the argument is, "my phone might get malware, so having an always-on-microphone is exactly the same", that just seems really fatalistic to me. These are different risks that belong in different categories.
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    Sure, but without the phone OS source code, you can't know whether "disabling the smart assistant" just displays "disabled" and then keeps recording. Without a hardware switch, it could just lie to you.
    - danShumway 6y ago
      The risk of my phone OS being theoretically compromised to spy on me is different than the risk posed by a device that I know is listening to me, and that I know regularly misinterprets wakewords. It's fatalistic to say, "I can't see the source code, so I might as well install another microphone in my bedroom."
      - renewiltord 6y ago
        Yep, you're right on this front. It's not a binary thing. That is, you are concerned at inadvertent data leakage that could be used against you. For what it's worth, there's a hardware switch on Echos by the way.
    - 6y ago