6 ms·

I can no doubt see the value in this, even being a big skeptic of AI the ability for a computer to just pull up details from throughout the day or interject is

I can no doubt see the value in this, even being a big skeptic of AI the ability for a computer to just pull up details from throughout the day or interject is genuinely a powerful idea (if it works in practice is another question). However, I find it very frustrating that all of the tools that just record your mic or sell a pin or whatever never think about privacy. They seem to take the Google approach that the person who owns the device is allows to consent for everyone else around them (or any data they share with certain people) when that is not ok. That is before talking about the major concern of people doing this at work without their company knowing, bringing it into a meeting and potentially leaking sensitive information. I realize that unfortunately there is nothing that can be done at this point to stop this technology from being used by people, but I just wish the people that were making these tools thought about the fact that you are not asking for the consent of people around you.

amelius 2y ago
From the readme: "Open. Secure. You own your data."
- Cheer2171 2y ago
  That's not what they were saying. What comes across your screen and can be picked up by your device's mic includes other people's data. This is a nightmare for anyone in the EU or two-party consent state. If we are on a Zoom call, this is recording both sides of the conversation without notice or consent. If we are meeting in person, and I leave my device on the table with this installed, same problem.
  - piltdownman 2y ago
    Why would it be a 'nightmare' for anyone in the EU? Only single party consent is required for recording conversations whether on a phone or in person - Ireland, Italy, Czechia, Latvia, Poland, The Netherlands... in fact the only prominent country that comes to mind re: two party consent is Germany.
- nerdjon 2y ago
  Correction, you own my (if we are talking near your device) data if you are using this. That is the problem here.
  - bbqfog 2y ago
    That's not really an AI problem, it's an analog hole problem and the very nature of communication. If you give someone your thoughts, they now have them.
    - fwip 2y ago
      Well, the difference is that solutions like this automate the hoovering-up of everybody's data. I know that some things that people share with me are more or less sensitive, and I use my knowledge and empathy to decide what I should and shouldn't repeat. I would tell my friend "Oh yeah, Carl said he can't make it to the party tonight," but I wouldn't tell them "Carl is absent from the party due to an IBS flare-up." A well-meaning friend or coworker might never consider telling another person these personal details, but not think twice about it when enabling a service like this.
      - ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
        Neither I nor you would tell people about Carl's IBS if he told us. How would writing down what we are told change things, versus remembering it, considering what we write down wouldn't be shared with anyone but ourselves? How about recording, considering what we record wouldn't be shared with anyone but ourselves? How would somebody suffering from a disability such as hearing loss, vision loss, memory loss, or IBS change that? Should people with disabilities be forced to disclose them whenever they have a conversation? Does that include Carl with IBS? Or would some people with disabilities have to disclose while others are allowed to keep theirs private?
      - bbqfog 2y ago
        It is inevitable that this is the direction we're headed. It's already been happening, Google, browser plug-ins... can all read both sides of an email conversation. Your phone can (if it wants) listen to you and those around you. Cameras are everywhere... at least this is self-hosted and open source. Since there will never be an option for pre-electronics privacy again, it seems like this is the direction we should push to balance out the power of corporations and governments.
KolmogorovComp 2y ago
> I realize that unfortunately there is nothing that can be done at this point to stop this technology from being used by people Seems like you answered your own question? Since there's nothing they can do, what would you want them to do?
- nerdjon 2y ago
  Acknowledge the problem? Build in functionality so it only recognizes your voice and everything else is removed? Don't hide behind "privacy" promises or "your data is secure" when that doesn't fix the issue. Just because we can admit that the reality is the problem is not going away doesn't mean that we just give up and not talk about it.
- financetechbro 2y ago
  Come up with a solution, most likely. Since when has this crowd bowed down to a challenge because “there is nothing you can do”?
- mihaaly 2y ago
  Maybe not arguing for the acceptance of a bad situation just because it is ubiquitous?! I have a strong dislike against people knowing perfectly well that something is bad but still they raise their voice for the acceptance of that bad thing on the basis of size, of giving up and doing absolutely nothing against it, not even trying. ... or ... if I see it from a different standpoint then doing nothing is not that a bad idea actully. In my case I make it very hard sharing (accessing) pictures of my kids with relatives. Knowing how the big tech hijacking the communication that is used by average folk and how ignorant most are towards privacy implications on others I rather not share pictures except with those few being able to handle secure channel and private thing the way supposed to. Or they can come over in person. So I have to agree now, doing nothing, not using contemporary technology is a great idea! And ban it from (your own) children too.
- mihaaly 2y ago
  Plenty of signs in the 20m radius, something along this: https://www.thesignshed.co.uk/cdn/shop/products/24-hour-cctv-sign-111878.jpg https://www.thesignshed.co.uk/cdn/shop/products/24-hour-cctv... Possibly change the usual 'hi' greating to the more appropriate 'sign this release form before coming close or talk!' one.
the_snooze 2y ago
>They seem to take the Google approach that the person who owns the device is allows to consent for everyone else around them (or any data they share with certain people) when that is not ok. This is what's often overlooked (intentionally so?) in discussions about privacy. Too much of privacy is framed as "I am OK with sharing this data." But too often the data you hold is actually about other people: contact lists, conversations, associations. When you let a third party sift through your information, you're also making that decision for everyone else you interact with. I think the right way to think about privacy is: even if I have nothing to hide, I respect the agency of those I communicate with, so I won't make that decision to disclose unilaterally.
- nerdjon 2y ago
  I flat out refuse to let an app go through my contacts, there is just no reason for it. Photos is always what I select and never full access. etc. So when one of the social media sites recommends someone I may know, have no other contacts with this person and I recently shared my number with them. I get angry. I will never understand how we got to the point that someone else can consent to a company gathering up my data just because it happens to be on their phone. I don't think it's overlooked, some people talk about it. But a lot of companies try to push it away because they take "privacy" seriously while ignoring the consent problem.
  - caseyy 2y ago
    When I lived in a shared house, Facebook learned about my relation to my housemates without my consent. I didn’t use a single Facebook product at the time and used a VPN on my devices. A few years later, when I signed up to Facebook, my ex-housemates were all “people I may know”. I was wondering for a long time how it knew. I think it was because some of my ex-housemates shared their contacts with FB and it discovered us as a social group. It is really an eye-opening experience to sign up to Facebook for the first time in recent years. It already knows so much about you and your interests. It’s as if there was already a profile with your name on it that they were building, without even approaching to ask for consent.
thelastparadise 2y ago
> or interject Clippy?
- nerdjon 2y ago
  TBH I think the problem with Clippy was more a problem with its implementation than the core idea. It just wasn't helpful and we lacked the tech at the time to really make it helpful. My impression was that it was basically a glorified AIM Chatbot with some hooks into Office to get some context.
627467 2y ago
what do you think will happen faster? some "social" agreement that technology CANNOT be used to its full extent (ie. I can't use my tech to its fullest extend, like augmenting my own personal recording keeping) or just society to learn how to behave in this new environment - where anyone anywhere can be recording? Remember when cameras started appearing on phones and supposedly phones had to make noises when photos were taken, or when special phone models were made WITHOUT cameras? what happened to those conservative restrictions? Obviously, some personal responsibility on how this personally recorded data is handled, stored and shared must be upheld but I'm skeptical of attempts at banning these new capabilities - specially, as you say, organizations have long been able to do this, just not individuals (not easily at least)
- dbspin 2y ago
  I share your skepticism that rules can contain these technologies. But "society to learn how to behave in this new environment" underplays how continuous souveillance [1] limits our individual liberty. So much of our freedom in public (which has declined enormously in my lifetime) comes from our relative anonymity in public spaces. Sure we are being monitored by CCTV and so on, but until very recently we had a basic assurance of freedom to speak and act without being individually identified and monitored. The normalisation of AI + continual recording from audio or video recording devices (say future smart glasses) would create an entirely different order of self consciousness. The chilling effect of a subconscious awareness of being continually observed and recorded precludes many kinds of practical freedom. Political protest, 'controversial' speech, spontaneous performance etc. Just as paradoxically, being able to share our thoughts at any time reduces their value and their capacity to amuse entertain or instate change. Have you ever tried to have a conversation with someone who's filming you with their phone? Or tried to completely forget the 'hot' mic in an interview? There's a basic disingenuousness to performance, and if we're all forced to perform all the time - the healthy space for self is diminished to the interior. A place our technology will no doubt force into the light in due course. 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance
  - oriettaxx 2y ago
goldfeld 2y ago
Potentially.. I'd say absolutely leaking sensitive information.
matthewddy 2y ago
[dead]
louis030195 2y ago
to easily take advantage of all these recordings, we're making it easy to extend them and, as the LLM context grows every day and video/image/audio LLMs arrive, we'll be able to ingest a week or a lifetime of 24/7 human recordings
oriettaxx 2y ago
my point of view is different 1. I would submit data only to a private (in house and even on premises) LLM setup (think of ollama, for example) 2. By using this (especially experimenting with it in a contest as close as possible to your king of professional 'circle of trust'), users become conscious on power and risks It's not easy, but take a stupid example I've read about: Nothing better than having a colors printer in your office to show your workers that any document can be reproduced indefinitely (think of an 100$ bill)
- sdenton4 2y ago
  One year later: "To interact with our support bot, please enable screen recording and keyboard logging." "Thanks! Now go to the settings and enter your password." "Thanks! All your Bitcoin are belong to us!"
  - oriettaxx 2y ago
    yes, example gives the idea What scares me most is not "cash", but how culture (and world culture) is affected by this. Take HN, for example: yes, it's a great place and we like it... and we know the quality of its content, but the influence of HN in AI chats results is way too high. As an example: the other day I wrote a post here, where I asked to post AI answers to a question.. a couple of users posted their answer... and then, few hours later, I re-posted the question myself in perplexity and phind... well... and the first answer was a link to my post in HN (!) English content is then easily translated in other languages, ... which is great, but it's too much influence... it gives even more "power" to an already powerful "western" culture. Take what is was Esperanto vs. the predominant English culture So, I am more scared of what we'll lose. Take Pellagra, the disease, and how it spread in Europe: a total catastrophe just because we took the corn from the Americas ...loosing, on the way, how to prepare it (Nixtamalization); something (another thing) Mesoamerica's natives knew very well: such "details" can easily be lost, I'm afraid.
deegles 2y ago
We just have to look at the recent news about 23andMe planning to sell all of its user's data to whoever buys it. Sure, they can have a privacy policy and all that, but does it really matter when the company can be sold and they say "all previous agreements are null and void, your data is ours now"?
makeitdouble 2y ago
> the tools that just record your mic or sell a pin or whatever never think about privacy That's not the tool's job. Fundamentally this _has_ to be the operator's job to take consent and deal with the legal repercussions of how the tool they run on their own device for their benefit works. This is exactly how a physical microphones works: you don't have ethical safeguards that prevent you from pushing the record button if you're not using it according to your state's law. We had your approach for phone calls on smartphones, especially on iOS, and as a result the vast majority of people effectively can't record phone calls even when they have full right to do so. In the current situation companies will record the call while you won't, which sucks.

amelius 2y ago

From the readme: "Open. Secure. You own your data."

Cheer2171 2y ago
That's not what they were saying. What comes across your screen and can be picked up by your device's mic includes other people's data. This is a nightmare for anyone in the EU or two-party consent state. If we are on a Zoom call, this is recording both sides of the conversation without notice or consent. If we are meeting in person, and I leave my device on the table with this installed, same problem.
- piltdownman 2y ago
  Why would it be a 'nightmare' for anyone in the EU? Only single party consent is required for recording conversations whether on a phone or in person - Ireland, Italy, Czechia, Latvia, Poland, The Netherlands... in fact the only prominent country that comes to mind re: two party consent is Germany.
nerdjon 2y ago
Correction, you own my (if we are talking near your device) data if you are using this. That is the problem here.
- bbqfog 2y ago
  That's not really an AI problem, it's an analog hole problem and the very nature of communication. If you give someone your thoughts, they now have them.
  - fwip 2y ago
    Well, the difference is that solutions like this automate the hoovering-up of everybody's data. I know that some things that people share with me are more or less sensitive, and I use my knowledge and empathy to decide what I should and shouldn't repeat. I would tell my friend "Oh yeah, Carl said he can't make it to the party tonight," but I wouldn't tell them "Carl is absent from the party due to an IBS flare-up." A well-meaning friend or coworker might never consider telling another person these personal details, but not think twice about it when enabling a service like this.
    - ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
      Neither I nor you would tell people about Carl's IBS if he told us. How would writing down what we are told change things, versus remembering it, considering what we write down wouldn't be shared with anyone but ourselves? How about recording, considering what we record wouldn't be shared with anyone but ourselves? How would somebody suffering from a disability such as hearing loss, vision loss, memory loss, or IBS change that? Should people with disabilities be forced to disclose them whenever they have a conversation? Does that include Carl with IBS? Or would some people with disabilities have to disclose while others are allowed to keep theirs private?
    - bbqfog 2y ago
      It is inevitable that this is the direction we're headed. It's already been happening, Google, browser plug-ins... can all read both sides of an email conversation. Your phone can (if it wants) listen to you and those around you. Cameras are everywhere... at least this is self-hosted and open source. Since there will never be an option for pre-electronics privacy again, it seems like this is the direction we should push to balance out the power of corporations and governments.

KolmogorovComp 2y ago

> I realize that unfortunately there is nothing that can be done at this point to stop this technology from being used by people Seems like you answered your own question? Since there's nothing they can do, what would you want them to do?

nerdjon 2y ago
Acknowledge the problem? Build in functionality so it only recognizes your voice and everything else is removed? Don't hide behind "privacy" promises or "your data is secure" when that doesn't fix the issue. Just because we can admit that the reality is the problem is not going away doesn't mean that we just give up and not talk about it.
financetechbro 2y ago
Come up with a solution, most likely. Since when has this crowd bowed down to a challenge because “there is nothing you can do”?
mihaaly 2y ago
Maybe not arguing for the acceptance of a bad situation just because it is ubiquitous?! I have a strong dislike against people knowing perfectly well that something is bad but still they raise their voice for the acceptance of that bad thing on the basis of size, of giving up and doing absolutely nothing against it, not even trying. ... or ... if I see it from a different standpoint then doing nothing is not that a bad idea actully. In my case I make it very hard sharing (accessing) pictures of my kids with relatives. Knowing how the big tech hijacking the communication that is used by average folk and how ignorant most are towards privacy implications on others I rather not share pictures except with those few being able to handle secure channel and private thing the way supposed to. Or they can come over in person. So I have to agree now, doing nothing, not using contemporary technology is a great idea! And ban it from (your own) children too.
mihaaly 2y ago
Plenty of signs in the 20m radius, something along this: https://www.thesignshed.co.uk/cdn/shop/products/24-hour-cctv-sign-111878.jpg https://www.thesignshed.co.uk/cdn/shop/products/24-hour-cctv... Possibly change the usual 'hi' greating to the more appropriate 'sign this release form before coming close or talk!' one.

the_snooze 2y ago

>They seem to take the Google approach that the person who owns the device is allows to consent for everyone else around them (or any data they share with certain people) when that is not ok. This is what's often overlooked (intentionally so?) in discussions about privacy. Too much of privacy is framed as "I am OK with sharing this data." But too often the data you hold is actually about other people: contact lists, conversations, associations. When you let a third party sift through your information, you're also making that decision for everyone else you interact with. I think the right way to think about privacy is: even if I have nothing to hide, I respect the agency of those I communicate with, so I won't make that decision to disclose unilaterally.

nerdjon 2y ago
I flat out refuse to let an app go through my contacts, there is just no reason for it. Photos is always what I select and never full access. etc. So when one of the social media sites recommends someone I may know, have no other contacts with this person and I recently shared my number with them. I get angry. I will never understand how we got to the point that someone else can consent to a company gathering up my data just because it happens to be on their phone. I don't think it's overlooked, some people talk about it. But a lot of companies try to push it away because they take "privacy" seriously while ignoring the consent problem.
- caseyy 2y ago
  When I lived in a shared house, Facebook learned about my relation to my housemates without my consent. I didn’t use a single Facebook product at the time and used a VPN on my devices. A few years later, when I signed up to Facebook, my ex-housemates were all “people I may know”. I was wondering for a long time how it knew. I think it was because some of my ex-housemates shared their contacts with FB and it discovered us as a social group. It is really an eye-opening experience to sign up to Facebook for the first time in recent years. It already knows so much about you and your interests. It’s as if there was already a profile with your name on it that they were building, without even approaching to ask for consent.

thelastparadise 2y ago

> or interject Clippy?

nerdjon 2y ago
TBH I think the problem with Clippy was more a problem with its implementation than the core idea. It just wasn't helpful and we lacked the tech at the time to really make it helpful. My impression was that it was basically a glorified AIM Chatbot with some hooks into Office to get some context.

627467 2y ago

what do you think will happen faster? some "social" agreement that technology CANNOT be used to its full extent (ie. I can't use my tech to its fullest extend, like augmenting my own personal recording keeping) or just society to learn how to behave in this new environment - where anyone anywhere can be recording? Remember when cameras started appearing on phones and supposedly phones had to make noises when photos were taken, or when special phone models were made WITHOUT cameras? what happened to those conservative restrictions? Obviously, some personal responsibility on how this personally recorded data is handled, stored and shared must be upheld but I'm skeptical of attempts at banning these new capabilities - specially, as you say, organizations have long been able to do this, just not individuals (not easily at least)

dbspin 2y ago
I share your skepticism that rules can contain these technologies. But "society to learn how to behave in this new environment" underplays how continuous souveillance [1] limits our individual liberty. So much of our freedom in public (which has declined enormously in my lifetime) comes from our relative anonymity in public spaces. Sure we are being monitored by CCTV and so on, but until very recently we had a basic assurance of freedom to speak and act without being individually identified and monitored. The normalisation of AI + continual recording from audio or video recording devices (say future smart glasses) would create an entirely different order of self consciousness. The chilling effect of a subconscious awareness of being continually observed and recorded precludes many kinds of practical freedom. Political protest, 'controversial' speech, spontaneous performance etc. Just as paradoxically, being able to share our thoughts at any time reduces their value and their capacity to amuse entertain or instate change. Have you ever tried to have a conversation with someone who's filming you with their phone? Or tried to completely forget the 'hot' mic in an interview? There's a basic disingenuousness to performance, and if we're all forced to perform all the time - the healthy space for self is diminished to the interior. A place our technology will no doubt force into the light in due course. 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance
- oriettaxx 2y ago

goldfeld 2y ago

Potentially.. I'd say absolutely leaking sensitive information.

matthewddy 2y ago

[dead]

louis030195 2y ago

to easily take advantage of all these recordings, we're making it easy to extend them and, as the LLM context grows every day and video/image/audio LLMs arrive, we'll be able to ingest a week or a lifetime of 24/7 human recordings

oriettaxx 2y ago

my point of view is different 1. I would submit data only to a private (in house and even on premises) LLM setup (think of ollama, for example) 2. By using this (especially experimenting with it in a contest as close as possible to your king of professional 'circle of trust'), users become conscious on power and risks It's not easy, but take a stupid example I've read about: Nothing better than having a colors printer in your office to show your workers that any document can be reproduced indefinitely (think of an 100$ bill)

sdenton4 2y ago
One year later: "To interact with our support bot, please enable screen recording and keyboard logging." "Thanks! Now go to the settings and enter your password." "Thanks! All your Bitcoin are belong to us!"
- oriettaxx 2y ago
  yes, example gives the idea What scares me most is not "cash", but how culture (and world culture) is affected by this. Take HN, for example: yes, it's a great place and we like it... and we know the quality of its content, but the influence of HN in AI chats results is way too high. As an example: the other day I wrote a post here, where I asked to post AI answers to a question.. a couple of users posted their answer... and then, few hours later, I re-posted the question myself in perplexity and phind... well... and the first answer was a link to my post in HN (!) English content is then easily translated in other languages, ... which is great, but it's too much influence... it gives even more "power" to an already powerful "western" culture. Take what is was Esperanto vs. the predominant English culture So, I am more scared of what we'll lose. Take Pellagra, the disease, and how it spread in Europe: a total catastrophe just because we took the corn from the Americas ...loosing, on the way, how to prepare it (Nixtamalization); something (another thing) Mesoamerica's natives knew very well: such "details" can easily be lost, I'm afraid.

deegles 2y ago

We just have to look at the recent news about 23andMe planning to sell all of its user's data to whoever buys it. Sure, they can have a privacy policy and all that, but does it really matter when the company can be sold and they say "all previous agreements are null and void, your data is ours now"?

makeitdouble 2y ago

> the tools that just record your mic or sell a pin or whatever never think about privacy That's not the tool's job. Fundamentally this _has_ to be the operator's job to take consent and deal with the legal repercussions of how the tool they run on their own device for their benefit works. This is exactly how a physical microphones works: you don't have ethical safeguards that prevent you from pushing the record button if you're not using it according to your state's law. We had your approach for phone calls on smartphones, especially on iOS, and as a result the vast majority of people effectively can't record phone calls even when they have full right to do so. In the current situation companies will record the call while you won't, which sucks.