Silicon Valley Is Listening to Your Most Intimate Moments
bloombergquint.com
bloombergquint.com
curl https://www.bloombergquint.com/amp/bq-blue-exclusive/silicon-valley-got-millions-to-let-siri-and-alexa-listen-in |sed -n 'N;/story-element-text">/p' > a.htm
firefox a.htm
Nice hack.
Here is a filter for WSJ.
sed -n '/<article/,/<\/article/{/./{/<h1/,/<\/h1>/p;};/<title>/,/<\/title>/p;/./{/<p>[^<]*/,/<\/p>/p;};}' a.htmOf course they record what you say, and of course a human is listening to it. How else would they train their models?
I also believe Amazon when they say that it isn't recording unless the blue light is on, and that only comes on when it thinks you said "Alexa".
I mute the device when I'm having a private conversation. If it activates otherwise, I'm pretty aware of that.
I guess it just doesn't really bother me. I have a pretty good idea of what it's recording.
Unfortunately I'd have to guess that many of the people not doing AI and security for 20 years would be considerably more surprised.
Like an 8 year old girl?[0]
Yeah, it's a Ring doorbell camera thingy, but Ring has been an Amazon product for just shy of two years now. Sure we can blame the mother for setting it up 'wrong', or for using an old password, or some other very common problem that <99% of all user will have. But creeps have shown that it's not just straightforward, but easy, to get into these devices.
It's better to just not have them in the first place.
[0] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/man-hacks-ring-camera-8...
Nowadays everyone of my friends has a alexa or google speakers which sound shitty compared to real speakers and they spy on our conversations. For what ? to turn the fucking lights on or play a tune on demand? those lazy dumbasses cant be bothered to get off their butt to turn the lights on ? If only I had privacy conscious friends.
I've tried to explain why he doesn't need them. His response (about the security cameras) is always, "If there's ever a break in, I'll be glad I have them." The fact that actually using a light switch sets in motion a 20-minute repair via iPad doesn't seem to bother him. He doesn't view the wiretaps as a problem. He (with my mother's help) recently bought a wifi-enabled fridge and kitchen sink.
I love my parents to death, but it's ridiculous. I'm to the point where I usually leave my phone in the next room over when I'm not using it (and please check me in at a psych ward if I ever buy a smart-watch with a cellular connection and an omni-directional microphone). Its beneficial for clarity of thought / lack of distraction as well as for privacy.
Connectivity for connectivity's sake will be the death of freedom.
This isn't the one they have, but it's similar:
https://www.amazon.com/Trinsic-Pull-Down-Activated-Technolog...
Or a pedal.
My siblings and I have drawn a line at DNA testing. She keeps talking about submitting her DNA to some mail order testing company and it has been made clear that would be the end of our relationship. We will try and help her protect her own privacy but have zero tolerance for her disrespecting ours.
It's sad that people don't recognize how DNA collected like that (whether by 23AndMe, Ancestry.com/Quest Diagnostics, or anyone else) is used. Almost 100% of the time, it goes into a database that's readily available for searches by law enforcement, without warrant. They can use the DNA of a close relative to figure out what they want to find in a suspect. It WILL be misused, and it is not in our best interest.
Nor is the surveillance net made by Blink and Ring cameras, and the pervasive network of microphones made by phones, smart-watches, smart TV's, smart faucets and fridges, smart ovens (seriously?), et cetera, ad nauseaum.
It's not only blind trust in the manufacturers of these devices to not misuse the data they collect, but it's blind trust that all of these devices will be properly secured and prevent would-be attackers from listening in to you no matter where you are. People cover up their webcams because they're afraid of hackers, but they put security cameras in their bedrooms, "to catch a thief", without a second thought.
I'm more worried that DNA companies are going to use my DNA to raise my insurance rates, raise them for all of my family, or use them to predict models that fuck over other people.
I also expect them to NOT release any useful data and to hoard that as long as possible.
Feels gross knowing that my DNA is largely known by so many organisations.
I don't care if they run a DNA search on a database that has such broad results that it includes bananas...
Why do I always see this sort of question phrasing on this site in particular?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_Information_Nondiscrim...
And if it wasn't illegal then insurance companies would simply just demand DNA before underwriting your policy.
Just send them a sample from someone else.
She went further, that everybody should be under observation via CCTV and other methods 24/7 “as I have nothing to hide”. It was a bit of a spit the tea out moment.
All I could do was weakly say something about “in a police state everyone is guilty of something”.
I think this is related to her near total devotion to reality TV. She almost only watch reality TV and seems to be primarily concerned with judging the behaviour of those involved.
I think, sadly, she’s far closer to the mainstream than I’ll ever be. She regards my demands of privacy from tech companies as “weird” :(
You sister in law doesn't realize the the people who would watch over her and her family's every move aren't considered ruthless criminals only by simple convention.
There are actual proper home automation products out there, and some of them can interface via these privacy invading microphones masquerading as speakers, but the microphones themselves aren't "home automation" by any useful definition, they're just another alternative remote control.
I wonder if they use the term "smart speaker" because "microphone" just brings up thoughts of Banksy artwork?
It would be like if you took a device with a camera and called it a portal or something.
You end up paying far more, way more often, for something vaguely more convenient than the old method. A clap light.
On the flip side, with the expansion of IoT comes creativity for people willing to tinker. We are pretty lucky to have resources like github, raspberry pi, self hosted services, just options from the mainstream consumer ad spam crap if you are willing to stick your head under the hood.
For simple ambient noise it does just fine. If I want better I have a Klipsch home theater system.
But I don't generally listen to a ton of music regardless so its not the primary reason I purchased either of them. If thats the reason someone picked up a smart speaker, then sure, they aren't getting the best for their dollar.
To be fair, I'm happy to order a pizza online, and I'd be (a little less) happy to order a pizza through a phone tree, but I don't want to order a pizza over the phone because I don't want to talk to the person on the other end. The amount of work involved in placing the order doesn't really come into it.
I would also note, though, that pizza orders given to a person over the phone are frequently messed up, while orders placed online come out correctly.
And if you have lost your sight, being able to play a tune on demand via an Echo voice command is a miracle. So is being able to listen to a podcast or audio book. Or being able to ask how old Tom Brady is, how many tablespoons in a quarter cup, what's the weather next week and how far it is between Dallas and Austin.
But also edge cases for which mass-market development would likely be infeasible.
The reality of market-capitalist R&D orientation is that if you want to support legitimate-need edge cases, at reasonable per-unit cost, a mass-market deployment is all but inevitable.
A reality I'm less than gruntled with.
You're a lazy dumbass who types on a smartphone who can't be bothered to etch it into rock instead.
When in others' homes, I typically ask whether there are listening devices. And if so, I request that they be disconnected. And if the host declines, I may leave -- or at least say nothing consequential.
My wife's phone is on 24/7 and almost always within easy reach. So I never say anything consequential, unless it's been moved to the utility closet. Lots of fan noise there.
Edit: From https://blog.cyberwar.nl/2016/02/some-elements-of-intelligen...
> 17. The greatest material curse to the profession, despite all its advantages, is undoubtedly the telephone. It is a constant source of temptation to slackness. And even if you do not use it carelessly yourself, the other fellow, very often will, so in any case, warn him. Always act on the principle that every conversation is listened to, that a call may always give the enemy a line. Naturally, always unplug during confidential conversations. Even better is it to have no phone in your room, or else have it in a box or cupboard.
What I really cannot stand are the people that will complain about an Alexa being in the room, while at the same time posting three Instagram stories a day, having their phone assistant listening constantly, maybe played around with tik tok ... at that point, you really don't care about privacy, you're just cherry picking. I think a large part of it stems from the fact that a "always listening smart speaker" is something where even the most technologically inept can add two and two together and figure out how it could be "used against you" so to speak. That their phone could technically be doing the same thing, and that throwing massive amounts of personal data at Facebook willingly could lead to similar privacy concerns, doesn't even cross their minds.
Many experiences drive my attitude.
Back in the 60s-70s, I was a casual LSD dealer. So I learned the importance of discretion.
And in my last career, I analyzed various sorts of data discovery for plaintiffs' firms and attorneys general. Everything from email and spreadsheets to enterprise "mainframe" datasets. So I learned the methodology of discovery. Piecing together bits of evidence, following leads, identifying people to depose, and so on.
But yeah, I'm thorough about it.
It's also a hobby. And something of a demonstration, and the occasional consulting gig.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_line_(telephony)
As someone mentioned, the money is in localizing many of the cloud services.. Or the modern version of shrink-wrap software, which removes the whole "you're the product" profit motive.
For the casual observer, the ongoing drama of merging your wallet, personal diary, communications, plus other activities and oozing metadata 24/7 is just too tempting for strangers. All of that money for nothing is high stakes nowadays. Caveat emptor...
I don't doubt there are people working for most major governments' intelligence departments who can use malicious software to facilitate listening through a computer connected speaker when surveilling a target (even if that speaker doesn't have an integrated microphone, in a very literal sense it is a microphone).
[1] https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/154343/can-a-sp...
Edit: precision of language
Government agenties are more likely to, for example, expand on publicly available research that uses malicious software and audio I/O built into (or connected to) computers to remotely access air gapped computers.[1] And, if it's possible to write a network protocol that runs over low quality mics and speakers up to 65ft apart, it doesn't sound unreasonable to similarly hack up audio drivers such that a speaker can function as a microphone for the purposes of espionage, without anyone breaking down your door or rewiring anything. Spies don't have to convince a jury with the intelligence/evidence they gather, so low quality can often be good enough.
Of course, an attempt to aggregate the compromising of countless bespoke proprietary audio drivers and operating system versions doesn't scale at all... Which is why I used the wording when surveilling a target and not when surveilling speakers everywhere. That latter claim would indeed be paranoid nonsense. Which is why I didn't make it.
As in, a government is surveilling a particular person or building, has compromised this a nearby computer remotely, but the computer has no microphone. If there's a connected speaker (or even an integrated speaker on the motherboard), deliver a payload that messes with the audio drivers to see what you can hear using the speaker.
[1] http://www.jocm.us/uploadfile/2013/1125/20131125103803901.pd...