Google admits listening to some smart speaker recordings

Re:Google admits listening to some smart speaker recordings by mehrdadn on Thursday July 11, 2019 @01:38PM (#20413587)

> 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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google admits listening to some smart speaker recordings by vharuck on Thursday July 11, 2019 @03:36PM (#20414897)

>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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google admits listening to some smart speaker recordings by saagarjha on Thursday July 11, 2019 @02:25PM (#20414041)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google admits listening to some smart speaker recordings by UncleMeat on Thursday July 11, 2019 @03:05PM (#20414461)

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

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google admits listening to some smart speaker recordings by gibba999 on Thursday July 11, 2019 @06:52PM (#20416625)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google admits listening to some smart speaker recordings by saagarjha on Thursday July 11, 2019 @05:51PM (#20416220)

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

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google admits listening to some smart speaker recordings by gibba999 on Thursday July 11, 2019 @06:48PM (#20416610)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]