>Like Alexa - people are willing to have a Big Brother-esque speaker inside their homes for the convenience of playing some music? Is that all it takes?

Here's my workaround: my smart speaker is tied to the lightswitch. It's only on when I'm in that room and if Google can somehow make use of the fact I stream a podcast or the local NPR station while bathing and shaving more power to them.

Don’t forget safety, were often told it’s to monitor bad guys or people breaking the law.

Australia is great at this, see the new “Phone use while driving cameras”, insane.

After nearly 5 decades of declining traffic fatalities, the number has been increasing (at least in NL) for the past 3, with mobile use being one of the main drivers. I don't like surveillance everywhere, but I like people playing with their phones while driving even less, so I personally can't wait for those camera's to be anywhere.

Also, my Tesla is filming constantly while I drive, so that's a much bigger deal.

I’m also a cyclist, but I know there would be much safer ways of making this a reality if it’s actually a big problem.

For example in Japan the car navigation system can only be used while the car is in park. This would be more effective then using cameras which will only be semi-perfect and still people will try use their phone anyway.

There are thousands of speed cameras in Australia, people still speed all the time and time from high speed crashes.

You just proved his point frighteningly.

As a person who primarily walks and bikes to get around I am very okay with whatever measures are necessary to get phone drivers off the road.

We live in the safest world we have ever lived in yet it amazes me the willingness people have to give up privacy and Liberty under the guise of a marginal increase in "safety"

Pedestrian and cyclist deaths in the US are at a thirty year high: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-traffic-fatalities/pe...

But at the end of the day it's a cultural thing— this is the same America that rejects any form of common sense gun control because liberty is more important than kids not shooting themselves in their own homes.

Voice control of smart devices is extremely convenient. I can only imagine what a quality of life improvement it is for someone with physical disabilities.

Right, convenient for some, and I empathize with that use case. But why must we all be subjected to Big Brother's unblinking, creepy-as-fuck stare?

And why must all the data enabling the convenience be ripped away from my exclusive control and sent back to some centralized store?

Getting a Google home isn't mandatory, at least not yet. I personally use mine almost exclusively as an alarm clock. I have a tendency to wake up several times a night to check if I remembered to set an alarm, it's probably an anxiety thing. So I cast around my room for my glasses or press my face against my alarm clock or cell phone. Now when I wake up I just ask Google and it cheerfully informs me of the time. I also put a smart light bulb in my bedside lamp. In return Google may be able to gain some insight into my sleeping habits, and if I ever get back to having sex they can listen to that too.

Don't buy Alexa? I agree with you with regards to facial recognition, but expanding your views to optional smart home tech seems fairly vindictive.

Obviously I'll avoid purchasing optional "smart" devices that send my data everywhere, outside of my control. The problem is mass acceptance of ubiquitous surveillance, and those promoting and pushing it. I guess that means I will have to do my best to avoid visiting anyone who happens to have an Alexa (or whatever) hiding somewhere.

Even Google's devices chief, Rick Osterloh, says people using his product should warn guests that their conversations are being recorded. To his credit, he even does so(!):

https://www.komando.com/security-privacy/google-exec-warn-yo...

> “Does the owner of a home need to disclose to a guest? I would and do when someone enters into my home, and it’s probably something that the products themselves should try to indicate,” Osterloh said.

Osterloh hits on the truly insidious thing about about microphones -- they never indicate when they are listening and sending your data out of your control. (Camera LEDs also certainly cannot be trusted, but I digress).

To be clear, again, I have full empathy for anyone needing the conveniences this technology promises. I have zero empathy for the companies, "officials", and "authorities" who claim that they must exfiltrate my data so that it can be used for adding convenience, or security, or safety or whatever. It is unnecessary. Smart, creative engineers have proven they can do pretty amazing things with data processed locally, with no exfiltration required. Let them do their job, and let my personal data stay under my exclusive control.

I used to attribute this laziness to incompetence, but the advertising industry has proven over and over and over (decades!) that they are openly and unrepentantly hostile to users. They are malicious. I cannot and will never again trust them.

Or have any friends that want to buy one. I have one friend who's pretty in to home automation. Fortunately he doesn't host get togethers very often, but I've seriously considered declining invitations before because I don't want to be in a house with all that crap in it.

I have, and do, decline to attend events, dinners, parties at home where people refuse to depower their devices. Many were taken aback, and took it as a cue to examine their own stance. You start by having a spine, and follow through with action, while explaining your stance in a thoughtful way. The change starts with us.

> I've seriously considered declining invitations before because I don't want to be in a house with all that crap in it.

Why did you end up not declining them after all? (if I understand your "considered" wording correctly)

I'm not really sure how to answer that. I guess it amounts to peer pressure. If you're up against a group that has already decided that these kinds of devices aren't a problem, it's hard to articulate an argument against subjecting yourself to it that they find convincing.

And doesn't this perfectly demonstrate the issue with the "just don't buy one" argument? It's still _possible_ to make choices about your privacy (ex. don't get a smart phone, don't buy a smart speaker, etc.) but it requires progressively more conviction as acceptance of this kind of tech becomes mainstream.

That's true. I guess I live in a bubble with people who are aware of the surveillance aspects and so choose not to use smart devices.

> ... as acceptance of this kind of tech becomes mainstream.

It's not a foregone conclusion that will happen.

Recent weeks has shown increased mainstream media covering privacy aspects - often through the lens of creepy Facebook/Google/Amazon.

So it's definitely possible there will be sufficient push back to stop this crap becoming too ubiquitous.

Think back 200,000 years when modern humans first appeared. That is less than 20,000 generations of humans where for a long time, it was kill or be killed.

Think back to about a thousand years ago. That is less than 100 generations where for a long time, slavery and serfdom were common.

"Big Brother" is nothing more than a tool for the apex of the pyramid of human society. This is how "they" are able to get away with molesting hundreds of children while Joe who takes a drunken piss in the park at midnight is classified a sex offender for life.

So if you understand from _that_ perspective, it makes perfect sense. However, in contrast to every other time before, today the commoner "feels" like they are free. This changes the way they think and speak. The commoners don't feel inferior to the apex of humanity's pyramid. I expect if we get too far out of line, we'll be reminded.

Most people already carry a Big Brother-esque device with a camera and microphone in their pockets everywhere they go.

You can completely disable Siri or whatever your device's equivalent is. The entire purpose of Alexa is to be listening all the time. They're not equivalent.

Can you prove that you've disabled it? That it's not listening all the time and logging interesting sounds?

I don't see a huge difference between a speaker that's designed to have an always-on mic listening for a code-word and we're just going to trust that it doesn't log anything unless it hears that codeword, and a phone that's designed to have the same, but has a software option to turn it off.

Either way, we're trusting that the device isn't abusing the fact that it has a mic.

No, I can't prove that it's disabled, but that doesn't matter much. There are people out there who probably could and would be more than happy to publish their results if they did.

More importantly, the difference is in intent. I don't intend to carry around a device that's always listening to me. Anyone with an Alexa device is intentionally inviting Amazon to listen to every word spoken in (part of) their home.

Right but you just mentioned siri, which is included on every iphone. People do carry that around and don't expect it to be listening.

It is always listening. A coworker has Siri enabled and it regularly interrupts meetings because it thought some random noise was a wake word. It then proceeds to do whatever Siri does, which I assume involves sending whatever it hears after that point back to Apple.

I carry around and iPhone where I've done my best to completely disable Siri so I expect it not to be listening. That's antithetical to the use-case of Alexa and similar devices.

But the intent isn't there for Amazon to listen to everything you say - which is why hotword detection is done locally on Alexa and only then is an audio stream sent to their servers.

I have a coworker who has Siri enabled on his phone. It regularly wakes up and starts recording seemingly at random. Maybe "always listening" isn't the correct phrasing. "It might be listening at any time" might be better.

Sure, but the intent is there to not do that.

> ... the intent is there to not do that.

For now. Or so we're told.

Unless a court order (or bribed employee) decides otherwise. ;)

Of course, but the convenience of a smartphone does outweigh the potential surveillance. I getwork done on my phone, book cabs and flight tickets, get food delivered. I've tried living without my smartphone but it's not feasible.

A smart speaker I can live without all my life

But those are infinitely more useful than a smart speaker.

To be fair, everybody who has Alexa already has a phone constantly with them everywhere. So it's just one extra microphone, not something completely different.

Two wrongs don't make a right, and I make sure to disable all voice commands from my smartphone (which is admittedly useless if my device is compromised because I'd need a hardware killswitch, but it's a start). On the other hand those assistants' whole purpose is to work with voice controls, they're useless without them.

It's not completely different but it's far from completely the same in my opinion.

However, a smartphone is more transparent, relatively, over what it does. Not so much with Alexa.

A smartphone is more transparent than a device explicitly designed and advertised to record audio in entire rooms? Or did you mean the smartphones signal more system status?

In my experience a lot of people have privacy concerns over the speakers, and underestimate the smartphone.

I meant that security provisions for smartphones are way better than for Alexa type devices.

People do underestimate the smartphone, but I feel the problem with smart speakers is even more pronounced. I mean, voice is the primary interface for a smart speaker.

Not sure what specifically you mean. Most smartphones today come with one of the assistants (Google, Siri, Alexa, or Bixby) turned on by default.

..which you can turn off or disable..

Can you?

No matter how many damn Google Assistant settings I disable in how many fractal menus, it STILL "helpfully" pops up if I say out loud "ok google"!

Like, "heyy I noticed you're trying to talk to me though I'm disabled, would you like to enable me?"

Stop spying on me you piece of malware.

What kind of Android do you have? Are you sure you went through all the settings?

And, still, I can install LineageOS or other privacy-respecting systems on my phone. We don't have any custom firmware for an Echo or Alexa yet (to the best of my knowledge.)

The number of phones actually supported by lineageOS is a rounding error, unless you count unofficial incomplete builds by random untrusted people on some forum.

Disabling Google Assistant was trivial on my Android One/Google Fi phone. It was one of the first things I did.

Almost none of my family members understand the implications of the voice assistant let alone know how to turn it off. You’re a techy type and are thinking my uncles or grandparents operate at your level.

What fraction of iPhone users do you think have turned off Siri? Based on my circle, it's zero. Android seems a bit more complicated because registration for Samsung or Amazon might be decoupled from device setup, but I'd imagine those are mostly turned on. So most people do have an always or nearly always on microphone in their pocket as the post higher up was trying to point out.

Anecdata, but most of my friends that have iPhones has Siri enabled indeed, but the minority that is aware of the "Hey Siri" feature (the only thing that needs an always-on mic) has not enabled it. Most of them find it creepy.

Not sure if these are just uneducated posts or astro-turfing...

Astro-turfing for what? I guess this falls into the "uneducated" category. From my apparently uneducated perspective, phones need to be a concern if you're worried about your voice and activities being recorded. Most users have no idea that, for example, Google Assistant is always listening on Pixel.

Siri is not enabled by default, they use a different approach to get users to opt in. Step 8: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202033 has a much bigger button to enable Siri, but users are given a choice and skipping Siri takes less time so it’s easier if you’re not going to use it.

Completely deactivate it

If you choose to disable Google Assistant completely, follow these steps:

    Open the Google app and select Menu (the three bars)
    go to Settings
    Google Assistant section click Settings > Phone and disable the Assistant option

I have a custom domain and disabled it for my family:

Switch off Google Assistant (for entire custom domain) Click Search and Assistant. Tip: Scroll to see all services. ... Control who uses Search and Assistant in your organization

    At the left, select the organizational unit.
    Select On or Off.
    To keep the service turned on or off even when the service is turned on or off for the parent organizational unit, click Override.

Phones can’t hear very well from your pocket. Try recording something with the phone in your pocket.

That's the thing - smartphones are surveillance devices as well, but their utility makes them a necessity. It's possible to argue that you'd submit to the surveillance if you're getting all that you get from a smartphone.

But a smart speaker just plays some music and tells you the weather. It's not nearly enough utility to be worth the privacy risks.

To you maybe, but not for everyone. I get lots of utility out of my Echo (alarms, music, checking the weather, controlling lights, etc.) that I'm fine with some random Amazon contractor listening to my commands to Alexa.

And if you are worried about the companies lying about not recording 24/7 why do you trust them to disable the recording done by assistants on your phone?

And adding things to my shopping list!

The need to be observed and understood was once satisfied by God. Now we can implement the same functionality with data-mining algorithms.

I'm 100% fine being obscured and mysterious if it means corporations and the government aren't recording every thing I do.

Pretty much.