Google chief: I'd disclose smart speakers before guests enter my home

Re:Google chief: I'd disclose smart speakers before guests e... by naasking on Thursday October 17, 2019 @11:07AM (#21282825)

> But people willingly bringing always on listening devices in to their homes (beyond what smartphones are already capable of) I just can't comprehend it.

Always-on listening doesn't seem like a huge deal. What matters is the policy of allowing Google people to listen to captured audio, even if it's for training purposes. This is skirting uncomfortably close to a dystopian surveillance society.

If you want to gather data from people, provide an incentive to voluntarily participate. For instance, on Google maps you can become a contributor and there are benefits and bonuses if you contribute enough. Yes, this group is self-selected so it's not as good as a random sample, but it's better than the dystopian alternative.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google chief: I'd disclose smart speakers before guests e... by pnw_hazor on Thursday October 17, 2019 @02:37PM (#21285071)

Also, while the owner of the device may have consented to recording as part of the TOS, guests certainly have not. Thus, in WA if you don't get affirmative consent from your guests on the actual recording you have committed a crime.

https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.73.030

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google chief: I'd disclose smart speakers before guests e... by mindcrime on Thursday October 17, 2019 @12:57PM (#21283998)

Always-on audio capture is a HORRIBLE idea in general. First, if it's stored - at all - then you have to ask "who else could get access to the recording besides (Google|Apple|whoever)?" Whether it's a nation-state via a search warrant, or some random script kiddie who hax0red the storage mechanism, once it's recorded you don't know WHO is going to get access, or what their intentions will be.

Secondly, even if it's not normally recorded, so long as the capability is there, you've basically bugged yourself. Now if you become a target for surveillance, all the other party has to do is arrange for (Google|Apple|whoever) to give them a real-time feed from your device and now all of your conversations are fair game.

Smart phones are bad enough, but why put more devices in your home (car, office, etc.) that make it trivial for others to monitor you?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google chief: I'd disclose smart speakers before guests e... by machello13 on Thursday October 17, 2019 @05:12PM (#21286404)

Isn't this true with any device that has an embedded microphone? Laptops and pre-smart cell phones have had the same vulnerabilities for a very long time, no?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google chief: I'd disclose smart speakers before guests e... by friendlybus on Thursday October 17, 2019 @08:43PM (#21287686)

The general public didn't have a reason to distrust the devices. Snowden, Assange, email scandals and general overbearing decisions from tech companies black-holing things has shown the average joe there could be a problem.

Combine that with a general rise in authoritarianism and living outside of the US where these tech companies are based.. I can see the problems arising.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google chief: I'd disclose smart speakers before guests e... by mindcrime on Thursday October 17, 2019 @08:27PM (#21287607)

It's a fair point... unless a device has a hardware mute switch, it's hard to know for sure if somebody can activate it remotely for listening. But why add more attack vectors unnecessarily?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google chief: I'd disclose smart speakers before guests e... by jeremyjh on Thursday October 17, 2019 @08:40PM (#21287668)

Everyone in my house finds the Echo convenient. It is not a big deal, but neither is our threat model. There is no profit to anyone in spying on our kitchen. I'm much more wary of devices that radios, GPS and cameras, but I still use those too since they are even more convenient.

[ Parent | on HN ]