Google Chief: I'd Disclose Smart Speakers Before Guests Enter My Home (bbc.com) 102
After being challenged as to whether homeowners should tell guests smart devices -- such as a Google Nest speaker or Amazon Echo display -- are in use before they enter the building, Google senior vice president of devices and services, Rick Osterloh, concludes that the answer is indeed yes. The BBC reports: "Gosh, I haven't thought about this before in quite this way," Rick Osterloh begins. "It's quite important for all these technologies to think about all users... we have to consider all stakeholders that might be in proximity." And then he commits. "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."
To be fair to Google, it hasn't completely ignored matters of 21st Century privacy etiquette until now. As Mr Osterloh points out, its Nest cameras shine an LED light when they are in record mode, which cannot be overridden. But the idea of having to run around a home unplugging or at least restricting the capabilities of all its voice- and camera-equipped kit if a visitor objects is quite the ask. The concession came at the end of one-on-one interview given to BBC News to mark the launch of Google's Pixel 4 smartphones, a new Nest smart speaker and other products. You can read the full conversation on the BBC's article.
To be fair to Google, it hasn't completely ignored matters of 21st Century privacy etiquette until now. As Mr Osterloh points out, its Nest cameras shine an LED light when they are in record mode, which cannot be overridden. But the idea of having to run around a home unplugging or at least restricting the capabilities of all its voice- and camera-equipped kit if a visitor objects is quite the ask. The concession came at the end of one-on-one interview given to BBC News to mark the launch of Google's Pixel 4 smartphones, a new Nest smart speaker and other products. You can read the full conversation on the BBC's article.
visitors (Score:2)
But the idea of having to run around a home unplugging or at least restricting the capabilities of all its voice- and camera-equipped kit if a visitor objects is quite the ask.
I'm no fan of smart crap but if any visitors object to what you have in your house they can visit somewhere else. I had someone come round who asked me to put my dog in the garden and they got told to fuck off.
Re:visitors (Score:5, Insightful)
He's a neo-libertarian. (Score:3, Insightful)
He thinks not being allowed to take other people's freedom and rights counts as his freedom and rights being taken.
And with that attitude, he certainly has no guests.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:He's a neo-libertarian. (Score:5, Insightful)
Making accommodations for guests who visit you is common courtesy.
It seems you are part of the very vocal subset of people who are so self-centered that they see common courtesy as some sort of infringement of their rights. Fortunately, we already have a term for that group of people; assholes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:He's a neo-libertarian. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Don't you get it, they WANT to record conversations in their home, delete the bits that make them look bad and keep everything that makes people look bad when they respond to bad behaviour of the individual. By law you are meant to disclose if private conversations are not private but in fact public and recorded. The exact same reason that Googlite chief likes, when you control the levers, you get to control what is recorded and what is edited out. Think of all the icky shit that Googlite probably gets up t
Nest cameras shine an LED light... (Score:1)
...when they are in record mode, which cannot be overridden.
It can be overridden easily if the case is easily opened.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you ask anyone to sign ToS when they're in front of you? Cause you know, having a phone in your pocket is in no way different from being in a home where there is a "smart device".
That's a great argument against letting smartphone vendors make them listen all the time. Someone should take them to court over that, with everyone in the world as members of the class.
Re: (Score:2)
No need for signature. Just post something like an EULA on your door "By entering this house, you agree to ....."
Re: (Score:2)
I certainly don't. I mean, I won't stop you from wearing pants.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
A plumber is not a 'visitor' they are a hired contractor on a job at work site. First they are on clock so they should be working on a plumbing task, not doing anything that requires privacy because they are on the clock anyway but second part of being a contractor means implicit accepting the work site conditions as part of the contract.
I would totally be in favor of having to post some sign in the side light next to your front door that indicates you use smart crap that might monitor in the home. I would
Re: (Score:2)
> accepting the work site conditions as part of the contract.
You missed the part about "accepting" including informed consent. Asshat.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
No I don't find any problems finding people to do work for me. Courtesy does not mean rolling over. I did not say I shout in their face get off my property.
I would however probably say "I am sorry I am not taking about my electronics setup, if that is a problem I'll have to find somebody else"
Reality is you don't need me to go crawling around behind the furniture to unclog a drain. I am not going to spend my time unpluging this stuff only to figure out why it does not reconnect etc; which happens often en
Re: (Score:1)
Re: He's a neo-libertarian. (Score:2)
Look if a service man asked you to turn off your security cameras wouldn't that sound any alarms in your head? Really? You wouldn't ask "why?" ? When you had service men or installers or whatever around that would be the prime time to turn them on! Or do you perhaps ask shops to turn off their cams when you visit?
(Also whoever wrote the article is quite silly with the idea that he wouldn't be able to disable some frigging leds on a device he physically owns. It's really simple to cut a trace off on the boa
Re: (Score:2)
I think that the point about the LED is that it can't be overridden *by software*. If someone has physical access to a device in your home, then they can easily install much more effective covert surveillance devices. Software though - who knows how many vulnerabilities and intentional back doors it may have? Hook it up to the internet and you must reasonably assume that you are supplying surveillance of yourself to every government and criminal agency that wants it.
A physically linked indicator light at
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
So you call a plumber, and when he objects to the privacy violation, you tell him to visit some other house?
Personally no, because I don't have that crap but there are plenty of plumbers out there.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Personally no, because I don't have that crap but there are plenty of plumbers out there.
Spoken like someone who's never tried to get a plumber.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally no, because I don't have that crap but there are plenty of plumbers out there.
Spoken like someone who's never tried to get a plumber.
Are you implying it's hard to find a plumber (it's not) or there aren't any plumbers (depends where you live I guess)?
Re: (Score:2)
Are you implying it's hard to find a plumber (it's not) or there aren't any plumbers (depends where you live I guess)?
Finding a plumber who (a) exists, (b) replies, (c) turns up and (d) isn't an incompetent bull in a china shop is really hard. Round here anyway.
Re:visitors (Score:5, Funny)
These spy devices are stupid but... (Score:2)
So you call a plumber, and when he objects to the privacy violation, you tell him to visit some other house?
Plumbers are hired help that are working for you, they are not what regular people would consider guests. There's no point in telling them even if every inch of your house is bugged with cameras and mics.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, depending on your jurisdiction it's quite likely illegal to record someone without their knowledge, so there *is* a rather large point in telling them.
Do you think that "This call may be recorded for quality control purposes" is inserted out of some sense of fair play?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Legally Google must obtain permission to process an individual's private data, so their smart speakers must do that when guests visit or disable their microphones.
Google would probably argue that they only listen when someone says "OK Google". I'm not sure how that would stand up in court - if someone says it then it seems that Google needs to check that individual has agreed every time, and probably can't pass that burden on to the owner.
Re: (Score:2)
Legally Google must obtain permission to process an individual's private data, so their smart speakers must do that when guests visit or disable their microphones.
I'm sure google et al would love the opportunity to have to stick a big logo on the outside of every house using their shit.
Re: (Score:1)
They can identify individual voices so if they hear a new voice they could have the speaker read out the privacy policy and ask for agreement. Might take it half an hour to read out but that's what they need to get affirmative, informed consent.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah...
It's in Google's DNA to solve any problem with technology and especially data processing. Which is not bad on its own but then again, if someone with product responsibility says things like
I would and do when someone enters into my home, and it's probably something that the products themselves should try to indicate
you just know that he will bring that back to the designers and engineers as "and that's why we need more cameras and face and voice recognition to recognize guests that needed to be given the option to opt-out"....
Believe me, that's how engineers tick... :-)
Re:visitors (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually you are wrong. The correct answer is:
"We need more camera's and microphones with better face and voice recognition so that we can determine if someone that we see or hear has ever previously consented or not consented to using our products. If we can identify them and they have previously answered, then we do nothing at all, and just record the location where the person was identified in our database -- you know, to avoid liability issues. If they we do not know who it is then we ask for consent. If they refuse to consent then we have to keep all the details so that we don't keep asking them. As a bonus, we now have a lawful cause for retaining that data in perpetuity and correlating it with all the other data retained from our widespread spying operations." To which the lawyers advise, "Until of course some one who does not give consent manages to successfully sue us to prevent us from retaining the data at all -- though that is unlikely and will have little financial or operational impact even if someone does and they are successful."
And thus will the course of action taken by Google be set.
Harvest (Score:2)
It is in Google's DNA to harvest everything you do and record every breath you take, to process it and use it in whatever way they can make money of it.
There is a difference between google making tools to assist and serve you at home and vampire tools which send everything to their database.
In both cases you can talk about engineers.
Re: (Score:2)
you just know that he will bring that back to the designers and engineers as "and that's why we need more cameras and face and voice recognition to recognize guests that needed to be given the option to opt-out"....
That's exactly how some websites in Europe interpreted the GDPR. Rather than removing (for example) cookies from their site, they added more cookies in order to keep track on whether users already agreed to the privacy policy of the site. And blocked access to users who didn't yet. With the result that sites that were formerly browsable with cookies blocked are now inaccessible.
Re: (Score:2)
Well meant is the opposite of well done.
Re: visitors (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where I live we have laws that require you to keep your dog in your own yard.
Well, I definetily wasn't going to put it in next door's.
Smart [sic] (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Smart [sic] (Score:5, Interesting)
If you use a smart eggbeater, it relieves you of having to think about how an eggbeater is used. If you use a smart concrete mixer (very similar devices btw), you no longer have to think about how concrete is mixed. Spellcheck as you type means you don't have to know exactly how to spell a word, only how to start typing it. Each "smart" device makes you dumber.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it that everything with the word smart in it's the name inevitably leads to a dumb situation?
Because it's pure marketing, like "clean coal". You're dumb if you buy "smart" things.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
The opaque box with magic smoke in it to which they call a "speaker" is an "always-on microphone" or an "always-listening device".
Now, if these devices were intelligently designed, you'd have (1) a physical switch
In Germany, it's the law. (Score:5, Interesting)
You have to ask people for permission, before making permanent records.
Even if you delete them later. As they can easily leak and go public before that.
Even in public, as it is not about keeping it private there, but about keeping it limited to that time and place, instead of somebody halfway around the world, 30 years later, using it (e.g. while missing context) to destroy your life.
Judges can grant exceptions though. E.g. since freedom of the press must be preserved too.
But don't count on it. Especially if you're being a dick.
Not that I would ever be friends with anyone, mentally insane and retarded enough, to even consider a "smart speaker" (read: bug).
Re: (Score:2)
And how many people are aware of being held to that law if worse comes to worst?
Being able to sue someone does not undo the damage unfortunately.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well considering smart devices make zero recordings unless someone is speaking to them, then no, I don't have to do anything at all.
If someone does go out of their way to speak to them, then that is implicit consent. And even if you don't think that's true, it is Google doing the recording, so take the fight up with them not me.
Re: (Score:2)
Obligatory XKCD (Score:5, Funny)
https://xkcd.com/1807/ [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
This.
Tell me, or I find out.
Funny enough, I don't get invited that often anymore... wonder why ...
I have a solution (Score:2, Flamebait)
Priorities (Score:2)
Wow interesting problem. I suppose a privacy mode would be a good solution.... I guess that tells us something about their actual priorities.
Run around unplugging all that cuz we will NOT turn off the hot mics.
Masking tape? (Score:2)
Nest cameras shine an LED light when they are in record mode, which cannot be overridden
Re: (Score:2)
Cannot be overridden?
My wirecutter disagrees.
Admit it, you'd live there in a second (Score:3)
2057: "Welcome. Warning, I have 17 smart speakers listening, 2 AI recognition devices looking for criminal faces, and three sex bots set to "random, whether you want it or not no safety".
Re: (Score:2)
sex bots set to "random, whether you want it or not no safety".
Installation tech: The safe word is unpronounceable. No no, it's not literally that -- you just can't form the phonemes necessary to pronounce it. Pronounceable stop word have an extra fee that you didn't sign up for. Have fun!!
"stakeholder"? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We do not have public discussions about the product, it considers it impolite.
Re: (Score:1)
Doesn't it make perfect sense that data vampires would worry about the stake-holder?
mDNS broadcast preferences (Score:2)
IF anybody actually cared, these devices could broadcast a trivally-quasi-open (predictable key) non-routable SSID that listened for user preferences and acted accordingly. These devices could chat amongst themselves to propagate such preferences, probably with positive-reconfirmation timeouts for people who wander out of range.
As a device maker and OS vendor, Google could get it together to write a mobile API to allow individuals to set a preference on their device that would opportunistically transmit th
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure I quite understand your proposal. Are you suggesting that people who don't want to be surveilled should carry a device which continually broadcasts that message to everyone within range?
Re: (Score:2)
"IF anybody actually cared, these devices could broadcast a trivally-quasi-open (predictable key) non-routable SSID that listened for user preferences and acted accordingly."
Not vulnerable to DOS or someone in your neighbors house disabling your smart devices AT ALL...
By stepping inside, you accepted the rules (Score:2)
Don't go places you don't want to. Unless someone forced you into their homes, you did it voluntarily and must accept all the consequences, including loss of privacy.
What's the difference? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I prefer devices that come with physical switches for their more interesting sensors.
Re: (Score:2)
Why are we concerned about the smart speakers in the vicinity, but not the smartphones that both parties are likely to have on hand? They're also constantly listening for their wake phrases, "Hey Siri" or "Ok Google".
Apple devices can be set to require a button be held down for Siri to trigger (which is what I do).* I assume Android devices have a similar setting.
*Of course, going with non-default settings requires you periodically re-check those settings after software updates since they can (and do) get reset. I've had to turn off "Hey Siri" multiple times. I also keep finding lots of apps get re-enabled to run in the background after software updates. Great quality control, Apple.
Do you see the lie exposed here? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If these devices aren't actively listening, as every manufacturer claims, why would it be imperative to inform your house guests of the device's presence?
They are actively listening. Nobody said they weren't. The caveat is they are only actively listening locally, on a short cyclic buffer, until they believe they've been directly addressed. You can argue over how well that works.
Re: (Score:2)
Humanity (Score:2)
Why me? (Score:2)
Why should this be a problem for the owner (to disclose or not) or for the visitor (to visit or not)? Why don't these "smart devices" simply avoid doing anything objectionable?
When guests come over, I don't have to disclose that I have a dildo in my nightstand. But that's because it won't jump out on its own and assault my guests.
Re: Smart Speakers ILLEGAL in 2-party consent stat (Score:2)
They could bundle them with stickers to put on front doors
Re: (Score:1)
There is a very sound argument to be made that it is ILLEGAL not to disclose the presence of a recording device and obtain consent, in a place where one has a reasonable expectation of privacy, and where consent is required before recording a person's speech or actions.
If I visit someone's private residence, I have a reasonable expectation that I am not being subject to systemic surveillance. A home is a private place where there is a reasonable and actual expectation of privacy.
In a two-party consent state, it is a CRIME to record me without my consent in a place where I have that expectation of privacy.
Nice try.
You are twisting and conflating the wiretap laws and surveillance laws.
Re: (Score:1)
Or, the simpler solution.... (Score:2)
White noise machine/app? (Score:2)
What does "smart" have to do with it? (Score:3)
Absolutely (Score:2)
State law might force you to disclose... (Score:1)
Other states also have two-party consent, so legally you are required to notify others, even in the privacy (if you can call it that) of your own home. WA state even includes a "stick" to help you comply as injured parties can sue for
Wouldn't be a problem if... (Score:2)
All "smart" things with voice command should, by default, send no voice/sound out of your network until the proper command initiates it. You would be able to OPT-IN "improve the user experience"
For thee, not for me (Score:3)
I'd wager all the top technology executives have deep-dive security consultants who harden their homes and scan for vulnerabilities and probably sweep them regularly for surveillance devices.
None of them probably have "smart home devices" unless they work directly for a smart speaker vendor, and even then they probably have special internal flags on their smart speaker devices/accounts that block logging, recording retention and so on to prevent line of business employees from gaining access to privileged communications as well as potentially embarrassing private details from leaking.
The elite could give a shit about the hoi polloi and literally hope the average slob has one of these and that they can grab a ton of data from it, but there's no way they would have one them in their own home.
the legal term is Eavesdropping (Score:2)
"The crime of eavesdropping means to overhear, record, amplify or transmit any part of the private communication of others without the consent of at least one of the persons engaged in the communication, except as otherwise provided by law. Private communications take place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance, but su
Disclose Before Guests Enter My Home (Score:2)
"Really?"
OTOH, your guests should tell you when they have mobile Siri, Google, Alexis, or BIxby. Or Clippy if it's a WinPhone.
Ask them to leave then (Score:2)
"But the idea of having to run around a home unplugging or at least restricting the capabilities of all its voice- and camera-equipped kit if a visitor objects is quite the ask."
It is your home, and you have to do nothing of the sort. I use smart speakers. If you don't understand how they actually work and/or wear a tinfoil hat to sleep, then you're free to leave.
End of story.
Surprised Google hasn't used this... (Score:2)
Google should just add another click-through agreement that, when you press the Nest doorbell, you agree to all that the homeowner has agreed to.
Happened recently when looking at buying a house (Score:1)
We were waiting in the house for about 90 minutes with our agent, while the inspector and sewer scope were done - talking about different offer options, what we wanted, what we thought they expected, what the seller might settle for.
And then as we were wrapping up, we noticed an Alexa sitting on a kitchen shelf. (Apparently, not supposed to be running a camera or microphone without notice.)
Our agent went on a tear after unplugging it. Calling the seller's agent immediately, then telling us that we could con
just indicate when certain network events occur (Score:2)
So there should be hard coded LEDs to indicate when the microphones are doing anything beyond listening for the wake word. Same goes for any video
Pointless paranoia (Score:1)
Completely nonsensical. Most people already walk around carrying a smart speaker with them everywhere.
iPhones and Android phones already have the same function as the scary smart speakers.