3 ms·

Google literally just settled for $68m about this very issue https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/26/google-privacy-suit-settlement-voice-assistant

Google literally just settled for $68m about this very issue https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/26/google-privacy-suit-settlement-voice-assistant https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/26/google-pr... > Google agreed to pay $68m to settle a lawsuit claiming that its voice-activated assistant spied inappropriately on smartphone users, violating their privacy. Apple as well https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jan/03/apple-siri-privacy-lawsuit-settlement https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jan/03/apple-sir...

romanows 8mo ago
The next sentence under the headline is "Tech company denied illegally recording and circulating private conversations to send phone users targeted ads".
- caminante 8mo ago
  That's a worthless indicator of objective innocence. It's a private, civil case that settled. To not deny wrongdoing (even if guilty) would be insanely rare.
  - romanows 8mo ago
    Obviously. The point is that settling a lawsuit in this way is also a worthless indicator of wrongdoing.
    - caminante 8mo ago
      > settling a lawsuit in this way is also a worthless indicator of wrongdoing Only if you use a very narrow criteria that a verdict was reached. However, that's impractical as 95% of civil cases resolve without a trial verdict. Compare this to someone who got the case dismissed 6 years ago and didn't pay out tens of millions of real dollars to settle. It's not a verdict, but it's dishonest to say the plaintiff's case had zero merit of wrongdoing based on the settlement and survival of the plaintiff's case.
monocularvision 8mo ago
“Google denied wrongdoing but settled to avoid the risk, cost and uncertainty of litigation, court papers show.” I keep seeing folks float this as some admission of wrongdoing but it is not.
- stackghost 8mo ago
  >I keep seeing folks float this as some admission of wrongdoing but it is not. It absolutely is. If they knew without a doubt their equipment (that they produce) doesn't eavesdrop, then why would they be concerned about "risk [...] and uncertainty of litigation"?
  - gildenFish 8mo ago
    It is not. The belief that it does is just a comforting delusion people believe to avoid reality. Large companies often forgo fighting cases that will result in a Pyrrhic victory. Also people already believe google (and every other company) eavesdrops on them, going to trail and winning the case people would not change that.
    - stackghost 8mo ago
      That doesn't answer my question. By their own statement they are concerned about the risks and uncertainty of litigation. Again: If their products did not eavesdrop, precisely what risks and uncertainty are they afraid of?
      - caminante 8mo ago
        I'm giving parent benefit of the doubt, but I'm chuckling at the following scenarios: (1) Alphabet admits wrongdoing, but gets an innocent verdict (2) Alphabet receives a verdict of wrongdoing, but denies it and the parent using either to claim lack of > some admission of wrongdoing The court's designed to settle disputes more than render verdicts.
- caminante 8mo ago
dieortin 8mo ago
That one is about incorrect activations, not about spying on anyone
orbital-decay 8mo ago
Those lawsuits are not about continuous background spying at all

romanows 8mo ago

The next sentence under the headline is "Tech company denied illegally recording and circulating private conversations to send phone users targeted ads".

caminante 8mo ago
That's a worthless indicator of objective innocence. It's a private, civil case that settled. To not deny wrongdoing (even if guilty) would be insanely rare.
- romanows 8mo ago
  Obviously. The point is that settling a lawsuit in this way is also a worthless indicator of wrongdoing.
  - caminante 8mo ago
    > settling a lawsuit in this way is also a worthless indicator of wrongdoing Only if you use a very narrow criteria that a verdict was reached. However, that's impractical as 95% of civil cases resolve without a trial verdict. Compare this to someone who got the case dismissed 6 years ago and didn't pay out tens of millions of real dollars to settle. It's not a verdict, but it's dishonest to say the plaintiff's case had zero merit of wrongdoing based on the settlement and survival of the plaintiff's case.

monocularvision 8mo ago

“Google denied wrongdoing but settled to avoid the risk, cost and uncertainty of litigation, court papers show.” I keep seeing folks float this as some admission of wrongdoing but it is not.

stackghost 8mo ago
>I keep seeing folks float this as some admission of wrongdoing but it is not. It absolutely is. If they knew without a doubt their equipment (that they produce) doesn't eavesdrop, then why would they be concerned about "risk [...] and uncertainty of litigation"?
- gildenFish 8mo ago
  It is not. The belief that it does is just a comforting delusion people believe to avoid reality. Large companies often forgo fighting cases that will result in a Pyrrhic victory. Also people already believe google (and every other company) eavesdrops on them, going to trail and winning the case people would not change that.
  - stackghost 8mo ago
    That doesn't answer my question. By their own statement they are concerned about the risks and uncertainty of litigation. Again: If their products did not eavesdrop, precisely what risks and uncertainty are they afraid of?
    - caminante 8mo ago
      I'm giving parent benefit of the doubt, but I'm chuckling at the following scenarios: (1) Alphabet admits wrongdoing, but gets an innocent verdict (2) Alphabet receives a verdict of wrongdoing, but denies it and the parent using either to claim lack of > some admission of wrongdoing The court's designed to settle disputes more than render verdicts.
caminante 8mo ago

dieortin 8mo ago

That one is about incorrect activations, not about spying on anyone

orbital-decay 8mo ago

Those lawsuits are not about continuous background spying at all