5 ms·

> "LG TVs process voice data only when the voice button on the remote control is pressed and held, or when a wake word such as 'Hi LG' is recognized after the u

by bryan0 20d ago

> "LG TVs process voice data only when the voice button on the remote control is pressed and held, or when a wake word such as 'Hi LG' is recognized after the user has activated the Far-Field voice recognition feature." > LG went on to say that beyond the aforementioned instances, "the TVs do not collect or record ambient conversations." LG is contradicting themselves here. In order to detect a wake word then they must be collecting or recording ambient conversations. I think the main questions are: 1. Is it fully supported to use LG TVs disconnected from the internet. 2. Are wake word voice controls and ACR truly opt-in. They claim it is in the statement but (as others have mentioned) I remain skeptical what definition of “opt-in” they are using. Update: some of this is becoming a semantic discussion on the definitions of “recording” and “collecting”, but to circumvent this I would say: If a device can detect words in my ambient conversations and depending on what it detects (accurate or not) it can send that audio to the cloud, I would describe that device as “collecting or recording ambient conversations”

gruez 20d ago
>LG is contradicting themselves here. In order to detect a wake word then they must be collecting or recording ambient conversations. No, it's arguably accurate because "record" implies it's being persisted. Otherwise something as simple as a sound meter (which needs a microphone to operate) is "recording".
- TZubiri 20d ago
  The word used by LG was processed, not record
crmd 20d ago
Seems like these weasels are using the James Clapper definition of the words “collecting” and “recording”.
Terr_ 20d ago
> In order to detect a wake word then they must be collecting or recording ambient conversations. There's a risk here that we will talk-past one another while using different meanings of the same words, so let me offer a scenario: AcmeTV has an isolated component which taps microphone input, records to a 5-second ring buffer, and on "Wakey-Wakey" triggers an alert flag. Assume it works perfectly accurately. Would you accuse AcmeTV of "recording or collecting ambient conversations" on the basis of that component constantly reading microphone data? Personally I wouldn't, because it's not the same kind of "recording" we consumers are concerned about.
- politician 20d ago
  Later, AcmeTV has a 1MB lookup table of wake words that can be updated OTA. Whenever a wake word is detected, it triggers an alert flag with the device id, word id, and timestamp, and then broadcasts it out as high-frequency sound through the speakers. Nearby, another AcmeTV or business partner device picks up the sound and sends it to AcmeHQ. The former device "never transmits your viewing behavior to Acme". The latter device "never records your viewing behavior".
  - Terr_ 20d ago
    I endorse the cynicism, but I feel that's moving the goalposts a tad, from "good is impossible" to "good is improbable". Or, in a heavily-paraphrased nutshell: Politician: "Watch-words are ALWAYS evil-mode. They have to be lying." Terr: "No. Here's a watch-word which would be good-mode." Politician: "Well, it'll still *become* evil-mode, eventually."
    - qlte 20d ago
      Plus, if you keep expanding the scope for definitions of objectionable behavior like "recording", you'll quickly reach a point where it would basically apply to any SoC made in the last decade attached to a microphone/speaker. Thus watering down labels to the point of meaninglessness. Which actually makes it easier for a future EvilTVCorp to get away with recording your conversations 24/7 in MP3 files sent to their server if cynical consumers assume every TV records you anyway, so what's the difference?
    - politician 20d ago
      Hmm, I see your point but I wasn't actually disagreeing with your post. I was just pointing out how something that starts innocuous and defensible can quickly spiral into dark patterns when the lawyers are properly incentivized to cover things up.
- bryan0 20d ago
  > Assume it works perfectly accurately. Well this is a silly assumption. Wake word false positives happen all the time. (“No Siri, I wasn’t talking to you…”)
microtonal 20d ago
LG is contradicting themselves here. In order to detect a wake word then they must be collecting or recording ambient conversations. I don't know how LG TVs do it, but e.g. many smartphones use a dedicated ASIC/audio processing chip that does not really record anything, but specifically listens for the wake word and discards all other audio to save power/battery life. I think this distinction is relevant, because there is a huge privacy difference between streaming a live audio stream to the cloud to detect a wake word and a specialized audio processor that has a small buffer only for detecting the wake word, where the audio does not leave that processor. Theoretically, you could call that few-second buffer recording, but I don't think that would be collecting/recording ambient conversations to most people, since it's ephemeral and does not leave your device. The question, of course, is what happens in LG TVs.
- IshKebab 20d ago
  I think that was only done back when the processing power needed was relatively high, or for power constrained devices. I'd be really surprised if they do that for a smart TV.
- bryan0 20d ago
  Fair points, but if a device can detect words in my ambient conversations and depending on what it detects (accurate or not) it can send that audio to the cloud, I would describe that device as “collecting or recording ambient conversations”
felixgallo 20d ago
I don't know how LG is doing it, but I suspect that they are taking the same approach for wakewords as Alexa does/did. When I worked for Alexa, it was public knowledge that we used relatively inexpensive and low power chips dedicated to wakeword detection, and those would wake up the main chips if they believed that they heard the wakeword. To my understanding, we did this because doing cloud-based wakeword detection was considered incredibly expensive and wasteful, and there are vendors with pretty decent and inexpensive wake word detection chips. Then, when the system was more awake, it would attempt to figure out whether the wakeword was real or not (e.g. sometimes certain words and word pairs have a very similar sonic signature to 'Alexa'), and if it felt confident enough then it would begin streaming audio to the back end for significantly improved voice recognition. Since Amazon took (and as far as I know still takes) voice privacy incredibly seriously, voice recordings and data were treated as essentially radioactive waste, deleted as soon as legally possible, and secured against even internal Alexa developer access. I personally don't have the same level of confidence in security with LG, who seem to think they don't have as much to lose as far as customer trust goes and might as well exploit the heck out of the systems they have. I suspect that problem, which Amazon has so far pretty successfully avoided for the most part, is self-correcting over time.
- 12_throw_away 20d ago
  > Since Amazon took (and as far as I know still takes) voice privacy incredibly seriously lol no https://apnews.com/article/amazon-privacy-echo-7fb3c19fa7f664bde5c5be259f8b23ee https://apnews.com/article/amazon-privacy-echo-7fb3c19fa7f66... > When I worked for Alexa Look I know it's easy to believe these things when your paycheck depends upon it, god knows I've convinced myself of a convenient fact or two when it was necessary for me to get through the day. But afterwards, without a financial interest, you owe it to yourself to go back and think about it again.
  - felixgallo 18d ago
    Man, an attempted "I am so smart" dunk by a throwaway account. Anyway, yes, Alexa took (and as far as I know still takes) voice privacy incredibly seriously, even if they did remove an attempted feature to do local-only voice response. Voice data in the Amazon cloud is well-defended.
aeve890 20d ago
>Hi LG Fuck that. Dystopian shit with people yelling brand names in their homes. Edit: I forgot people already be yelling Alexa/Siri/Google. I can't imagine a future when you have to yell to each brand in your home. "Hey Sony, turn on the PS7. LG what's on the fridge? Samsung, start the cycle in the dishwasher".

by bryan0 20d ago

gruez 20d ago

>LG is contradicting themselves here. In order to detect a wake word then they must be collecting or recording ambient conversations. No, it's arguably accurate because "record" implies it's being persisted. Otherwise something as simple as a sound meter (which needs a microphone to operate) is "recording".

TZubiri 20d ago
The word used by LG was processed, not record

crmd 20d ago

Seems like these weasels are using the James Clapper definition of the words “collecting” and “recording”.

Terr_ 20d ago

> In order to detect a wake word then they must be collecting or recording ambient conversations. There's a risk here that we will talk-past one another while using different meanings of the same words, so let me offer a scenario: AcmeTV has an isolated component which taps microphone input, records to a 5-second ring buffer, and on "Wakey-Wakey" triggers an alert flag. Assume it works perfectly accurately. Would you accuse AcmeTV of "recording or collecting ambient conversations" on the basis of that component constantly reading microphone data? Personally I wouldn't, because it's not the same kind of "recording" we consumers are concerned about.

politician 20d ago
Later, AcmeTV has a 1MB lookup table of wake words that can be updated OTA. Whenever a wake word is detected, it triggers an alert flag with the device id, word id, and timestamp, and then broadcasts it out as high-frequency sound through the speakers. Nearby, another AcmeTV or business partner device picks up the sound and sends it to AcmeHQ. The former device "never transmits your viewing behavior to Acme". The latter device "never records your viewing behavior".
- Terr_ 20d ago
  I endorse the cynicism, but I feel that's moving the goalposts a tad, from "good is impossible" to "good is improbable". Or, in a heavily-paraphrased nutshell: Politician: "Watch-words are ALWAYS evil-mode. They have to be lying." Terr: "No. Here's a watch-word which would be good-mode." Politician: "Well, it'll still *become* evil-mode, eventually."
  - qlte 20d ago
    Plus, if you keep expanding the scope for definitions of objectionable behavior like "recording", you'll quickly reach a point where it would basically apply to any SoC made in the last decade attached to a microphone/speaker. Thus watering down labels to the point of meaninglessness. Which actually makes it easier for a future EvilTVCorp to get away with recording your conversations 24/7 in MP3 files sent to their server if cynical consumers assume every TV records you anyway, so what's the difference?
  - politician 20d ago
    Hmm, I see your point but I wasn't actually disagreeing with your post. I was just pointing out how something that starts innocuous and defensible can quickly spiral into dark patterns when the lawyers are properly incentivized to cover things up.
bryan0 20d ago
> Assume it works perfectly accurately. Well this is a silly assumption. Wake word false positives happen all the time. (“No Siri, I wasn’t talking to you…”)

microtonal 20d ago

LG is contradicting themselves here. In order to detect a wake word then they must be collecting or recording ambient conversations. I don't know how LG TVs do it, but e.g. many smartphones use a dedicated ASIC/audio processing chip that does not really record anything, but specifically listens for the wake word and discards all other audio to save power/battery life. I think this distinction is relevant, because there is a huge privacy difference between streaming a live audio stream to the cloud to detect a wake word and a specialized audio processor that has a small buffer only for detecting the wake word, where the audio does not leave that processor. Theoretically, you could call that few-second buffer recording, but I don't think that would be collecting/recording ambient conversations to most people, since it's ephemeral and does not leave your device. The question, of course, is what happens in LG TVs.

IshKebab 20d ago
I think that was only done back when the processing power needed was relatively high, or for power constrained devices. I'd be really surprised if they do that for a smart TV.
bryan0 20d ago
Fair points, but if a device can detect words in my ambient conversations and depending on what it detects (accurate or not) it can send that audio to the cloud, I would describe that device as “collecting or recording ambient conversations”

felixgallo 20d ago

I don't know how LG is doing it, but I suspect that they are taking the same approach for wakewords as Alexa does/did. When I worked for Alexa, it was public knowledge that we used relatively inexpensive and low power chips dedicated to wakeword detection, and those would wake up the main chips if they believed that they heard the wakeword. To my understanding, we did this because doing cloud-based wakeword detection was considered incredibly expensive and wasteful, and there are vendors with pretty decent and inexpensive wake word detection chips. Then, when the system was more awake, it would attempt to figure out whether the wakeword was real or not (e.g. sometimes certain words and word pairs have a very similar sonic signature to 'Alexa'), and if it felt confident enough then it would begin streaming audio to the back end for significantly improved voice recognition. Since Amazon took (and as far as I know still takes) voice privacy incredibly seriously, voice recordings and data were treated as essentially radioactive waste, deleted as soon as legally possible, and secured against even internal Alexa developer access. I personally don't have the same level of confidence in security with LG, who seem to think they don't have as much to lose as far as customer trust goes and might as well exploit the heck out of the systems they have. I suspect that problem, which Amazon has so far pretty successfully avoided for the most part, is self-correcting over time.

12_throw_away 20d ago
> Since Amazon took (and as far as I know still takes) voice privacy incredibly seriously lol no https://apnews.com/article/amazon-privacy-echo-7fb3c19fa7f664bde5c5be259f8b23ee https://apnews.com/article/amazon-privacy-echo-7fb3c19fa7f66... > When I worked for Alexa Look I know it's easy to believe these things when your paycheck depends upon it, god knows I've convinced myself of a convenient fact or two when it was necessary for me to get through the day. But afterwards, without a financial interest, you owe it to yourself to go back and think about it again.
- felixgallo 18d ago
  Man, an attempted "I am so smart" dunk by a throwaway account. Anyway, yes, Alexa took (and as far as I know still takes) voice privacy incredibly seriously, even if they did remove an attempted feature to do local-only voice response. Voice data in the Amazon cloud is well-defended.

aeve890 20d ago

>Hi LG Fuck that. Dystopian shit with people yelling brand names in their homes. Edit: I forgot people already be yelling Alexa/Siri/Google. I can't imagine a future when you have to yell to each brand in your home. "Hey Sony, turn on the PS7. LG what's on the fridge? Samsung, start the cycle in the dishwasher".