News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Google Clips is a new $249 wearable camera by joshuamorton on Wednesday October 04, 2017 @02:47PM (#15403201)
>It also doesn’t use any kind of network connection,

Bluetooth is not normally considered a network connection.

(I work at Google, but have nothing to do with Clips)

Re:Google Clips is a new $249 wearable camera by excalibur on Wednesday October 04, 2017 @03:02PM (#15403390)
If you stick to that (misleading) definition, then even if the part about not broadcasting the stuff it captures is accurate, the phrase before the "so" does not imply the phrase that comes after, meaning the sentence still is not factual.
Re:Google Clips is a new $249 wearable camera by joshuamorton on Wednesday October 04, 2017 @03:07PM (#15403440)
How is that definition misleading?

>the phrase before the "so" does not imply the phrase that comes after, meaning the sentence still is not factual.

This seems highly pedantic, unnecessarily so in fact. Sure if you take "so" to mean "implies" then your statement is reasonable, but "so" doesn't solely mean "implies".

The point seems to be that you're in control of the photos, and they aren't being sent off to a secret google dark site to mine for data about your toddler. Do you disagree with that, or just have further grammatical quibbles?

Re:Google Clips is a new $249 wearable camera by excalibur on Wednesday October 04, 2017 @03:13PM (#15403509)
I'm not saying Google IS collecting everything the camera sees, I'm saying they COULD. This statement is meant to give the reader a sense that the device is safe from privacy concerns because it physically can't be accessed remotely, which is not accurate.
Re:Google Clips is a new $249 wearable camera by joshuamorton on Wednesday October 04, 2017 @03:18PM (#15403579)
Can they? Bluetooth video isn't a thing (no really, it's not supported by the spec, I just looked). Whereas sending a boolean "my screen is blocked" is.

Edit: apparently it is a thing but not really, like very low bandwidth.

Re:Google Clips is a new $249 wearable camera by dwighttk on Wednesday October 04, 2017 @03:25PM (#15403652)
I can see video from my phone’s camera on my watch via Bluetooth.
Re:Google Clips is a new $249 wearable camera by maxerickson on Wednesday October 04, 2017 @03:25PM (#15403651)
Say someone compromised a clip and a nearby cell phone.

Can we be sure that the compromised clip isn't uploading images to the phone? Not the little video clips supported by the standard device, images created by additional software.

Of course this is pedantic, but is also a useful way of analyzing what internet of shit products might end up doing (that is, reasoning about the capabilities in addition to the advertised features).

Re:Google Clips is a new $249 wearable camera by jszymborski on Wednesday October 04, 2017 @03:24PM (#15403646)
This Clip networks with your phone which presumably sends that to Google servers for AI purposes which also presumably means for data storage so that better models can be trained.

Listen, this statement clearly is made to address privacy concerns, and it does so in an irresponsibly misleading way.

Re:Google Clips is a new $249 wearable camera by s17n on Thursday October 05, 2017 @04:32PM (#15412367)
They explicitly said that it doesn't sent the images to Google servers, AI is done locally on the phone.
Re:Google Clips is a new $249 wearable camera by bentruyman on Thursday October 05, 2017 @12:10PM (#15410296)
You've made a lot of assumptions and came to a conclusion based on it. Does it send that data to Google for processing? Or does it happen locally on device. That's a big difference.