5 ms·

Should you never speak to be sure you aren't recorded?

by colecut 5y ago

imapeopleperson 5y ago
This is a perfect example of when the law shouldn’t be so far behind the tech.
- creato 5y ago
  Exactly which part of this do you think should be illegal?
  - ehnto 5y ago
    It doesn't have to be illegal but I think some defensive regulation here is smart. Things people are concerned about may already be illegal. Imitation, identity theft, slander and so on. Think about the new layer it adds to domestic disputes and criminal investigations. Perhaps a solution is a sound fingerprint requirement for voice imitation software so that it's easily identifiable in court if it's an imitation voice. It's somewhat of a new frontier, imagine during a divorce proceeding your ex-partner fabricates voice recordings of you threatening the kids so you don't get custody, how do you protect yourself against that, how to you prove that's what happened? Soon enough it'll just be an app on their phone that they use to record your voice during a discussion, then later spits out a sound file of you saying whatever they want you to say. That's clearly a socially dangerous tool.
  - shanlalit 5y ago
    Tomorrow a paid tool or a costly hidden company will allow anyone to get statement in your voice (based on sample). How you are going to proof, that it is not you? Fake calls to your relatives in your voice or even fake video with your face and voice asking for money! or illegal activities. Few years later a company will come and say we can detect if it's fake or not pay $10,000 for solution, or get ready to be in prison. Oops! legal system doesn't accept this as a proof, now what? Welcome to the prison. Both companies are making money, and you are paying by money and your life.
    - asiachick 5y ago
      What's your suggested solution? I can see the government banning using voice as a password. I can't see it banning the tech. The criminals will use the tech regardless of if it's banned. Looks like we'll need person to person authentication for our relatives soon.
    - creato 5y ago
      > How you are going to proof, that it is not you? If technology like this is plausible, then the recording shouldn't be considered a statement by me in the first place. People are just going to have to learn not to trust audio. People adapted to photoshop, they'll adapt to this.
      - ajuc 5y ago
        it's possible to forge paper signatures since forever yet it's still used
      - taneq 5y ago
        Yeah but history has shown that people do not, in fact, so that.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
daenz 5y ago
Appeal to ridicule. It's a valid concern to not want to give a random website a workable voice model. Just because you've talked on the phone or used speech-to-text before, doesn't make that concern invalid.
- colecut 5y ago
  But this website is not even asking for identifying information.. yes it could figure things out, but as privacy conscious HN readers we have VPNs and such right? =p
  - 14 5y ago
    And if they are using other techniques like browser fingerprinting or other techniques big tech uses to de-anonymize users then suddenly they have something to tie your voice to. Maybe the risk is low but I prefer to error on the side of caution.
  - k_ 5y ago
    Just need a facebook pixel or a google font? Some company (already known for dark practices) could hide behind a "random website" to get more data. /conspiracy
- syntheticnature 5y ago
  Upon reflection, I'm not so sure that our usage of our voice in real life can be dismissed so easily as a concern, even if the comment was intended to dismiss concerns about this website. Probably the folks who could best use this nefariously are the folks we already know, who have much greater availability to our voice. Those folks are in the best situation to capitalize on a working voice model to, say, call our manager, bank branch, or local emergency operator. A random website would have to go to some effort to accumulate the needed information to use our voice for much, whereas someone who already knows us could have us fired for the contents of a phone call to the manager, up on charges for prank-calling 911, or worse.

Should you never speak to be sure you aren't recorded?

imapeopleperson 5y ago

This is a perfect example of when the law shouldn’t be so far behind the tech.

creato 5y ago
Exactly which part of this do you think should be illegal?
- ehnto 5y ago
  It doesn't have to be illegal but I think some defensive regulation here is smart. Things people are concerned about may already be illegal. Imitation, identity theft, slander and so on. Think about the new layer it adds to domestic disputes and criminal investigations. Perhaps a solution is a sound fingerprint requirement for voice imitation software so that it's easily identifiable in court if it's an imitation voice. It's somewhat of a new frontier, imagine during a divorce proceeding your ex-partner fabricates voice recordings of you threatening the kids so you don't get custody, how do you protect yourself against that, how to you prove that's what happened? Soon enough it'll just be an app on their phone that they use to record your voice during a discussion, then later spits out a sound file of you saying whatever they want you to say. That's clearly a socially dangerous tool.
- shanlalit 5y ago
  Tomorrow a paid tool or a costly hidden company will allow anyone to get statement in your voice (based on sample). How you are going to proof, that it is not you? Fake calls to your relatives in your voice or even fake video with your face and voice asking for money! or illegal activities. Few years later a company will come and say we can detect if it's fake or not pay $10,000 for solution, or get ready to be in prison. Oops! legal system doesn't accept this as a proof, now what? Welcome to the prison. Both companies are making money, and you are paying by money and your life.
  - asiachick 5y ago
    What's your suggested solution? I can see the government banning using voice as a password. I can't see it banning the tech. The criminals will use the tech regardless of if it's banned. Looks like we'll need person to person authentication for our relatives soon.
  - creato 5y ago
    > How you are going to proof, that it is not you? If technology like this is plausible, then the recording shouldn't be considered a statement by me in the first place. People are just going to have to learn not to trust audio. People adapted to photoshop, they'll adapt to this.
    - ajuc 5y ago
      it's possible to forge paper signatures since forever yet it's still used
    - taneq 5y ago
      Yeah but history has shown that people do not, in fact, so that.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

daenz 5y ago

Appeal to ridicule. It's a valid concern to not want to give a random website a workable voice model. Just because you've talked on the phone or used speech-to-text before, doesn't make that concern invalid.

colecut 5y ago
But this website is not even asking for identifying information.. yes it could figure things out, but as privacy conscious HN readers we have VPNs and such right? =p
- 14 5y ago
  And if they are using other techniques like browser fingerprinting or other techniques big tech uses to de-anonymize users then suddenly they have something to tie your voice to. Maybe the risk is low but I prefer to error on the side of caution.
- k_ 5y ago
  Just need a facebook pixel or a google font? Some company (already known for dark practices) could hide behind a "random website" to get more data. /conspiracy
syntheticnature 5y ago
Upon reflection, I'm not so sure that our usage of our voice in real life can be dismissed so easily as a concern, even if the comment was intended to dismiss concerns about this website. Probably the folks who could best use this nefariously are the folks we already know, who have much greater availability to our voice. Those folks are in the best situation to capitalize on a working voice model to, say, call our manager, bank branch, or local emergency operator. A random website would have to go to some effort to accumulate the needed information to use our voice for much, whereas someone who already knows us could have us fired for the contents of a phone call to the manager, up on charges for prank-calling 911, or worse.