Except the privacy policy always warned about this. Everyone doing speech recognition is doing this — you have to in order to get any kind of QA.

The caveat is that it should be both anonymizes as well as only in respond to the wake up command. It seems to be both, so I don’t see the problem.

Actually I do — the editorializing of these headlines makes it seem nefarious when it’s not.

If the privacy policy was written in a language I could read (just because its english doesn't mean its readable english) then maybe I would have known that

It is pretty nefarious. In traditional research and product development protocols, you would have people opt into something like this, and optionally pay them for it.

If Google gave out a hundred thousand Google Home units for free to test subjects, with informed consent, there would be no big deal. It would cost Google $2.5 million, and it'd probably be enough data.

If my web site policy discloses "I may randomly send a thug to your house to shoot your children," and you come, visit, click through the license which warned you, and then I shoot your family, that doesn't mean I'm not doing something super-evil.

Google seems to be doing something super-evil here. Their response -- plugging the leak -- seems equally evil. People have a right to know what's being done with their data, and at least under European law, Google has a legal and ethical obligation to disclose things like this in language people can understand.

GDPR is rather well-written here. It looks like Google is breaking it, and currently trying to shoot the whistle-blower.

Thank you whistle-blower!

> If my web site policy discloses "I may randomly send a thug to your house to shoot your children," and you come, visit, click through the license which warned you, and then I shoot your family, that doesn't mean I'm not doing something super-evil.

You kinda had me until you lost me here. Analogies need to make sense. If you have to go this far with your analogy then that says more about your own argument than the other side's.

>If you have to go this far with your analogy then that says more about your own argument than the other side's.

I never got this argument. In mathematical proofs, reducto ad absurdum is an acceptable method of showing an assumption false. It shows that a statement ("Users agreed to TOS, so it's not malign") has an exception. The example is extreme to make sure nobody can argue the statement's still valid.

He's not saying the punishment should be on par with murder. He's just saying there is a line of moral acceptability, but where it lies is up for debate.

You're missing the point, which is that you can slip anything into a privacy policy or other long agreement, no matter how outrageous it may be, and nobody will read it. Putting anything there does not make it ethical or legally binding.

It also doesn't make it unethical. Putting privacy related issues in a privacy policy makes sense to me.

A privacy policy is definitely the right place for privacy issues. My point is exactly as vharuc made above: Putting something there neither makes it ethical nor unethical. A contract or license is not an excuse for bad behavior.

* If my privacy policy is a copy of HIPAA, that's an ethical privacy policy.

* If my privacy policy is as Google's here, it seems unethical without clear informed consent (which a disclaimer in a novel-long privacy policy doesn't provide).

* If your privacy policy says you'll collect incriminating information about me, and sell it to the highest bidder for use in blackmail, it's unethical even with attempts at informed consent.

Putting it in a privacy policy that you expect nobody to read, and using language that they are not accustomed to, is unethical.

You're confusing an analogy with a counterexample.

Analogies need to be analogous. Counterexamples can be extreme (and it is often helpful if they are; then they're obvious counterexamples).

Please take a minute to reread the discussion.

Coincidentally, I've noticed a pretty consistent pattern of downvotes on anything criticizing Google on Hacker News. Either a lot of readers from Google who drank the cool aid, or astroturf -- I'm not quite sure which.

What’s specifically super evil about humans transcribing random and anonymous commands to the google assistant? They’re hired and expected to be professional with their own contractual agreements around their own behavior and ethical standing.

Literally all the major companies in speech rec (aka assistants) do exactly this. The accuracy of the speech models would be extremely poor otherwise.

Come on, I'm sure Google's privacy policy allows them to listen to audio with no metadata in order to improve their service. The team is responding to the public leak of the audio, which is a violation of Google's privacy policy.

How does that contradict what I wrote above?

> the security and response team activated because someone disclosed that they do this

They're not chasing down a whistle blower for notifying the public that human transcription takes place. That information was already in the public domain in Google's privacy policy. The team is investigating the source of the leaked audio files, which was a violation of user privacy.

What do you mean? All tech companies train their algorithms by annotating real world samples. It was not a secret.

I think that the outrage doesn't come from supervised learning, rather that it's contracted out to a third party and seems to be done in a irresponsible way. I think that the fact that most of the public that uses these devices would be surprised by the fact that their voice is being recorded and transcribed is the irresponsible part. Of course a ML engineer is going to want to go the route of human labeling the audio data, and these folks seem to have won. You can blame the public for being uniformed, but it's new technology, and most aren't going to have read up on the methods used, even if it's no secret. Many have suggested other opt-in methods, which would also provide (arguably less real world) data. I think that many would prefer to trade a less accurate service for not having strangers listen to their conversations.