Hacker News Reader

Comment by RyanZAG | Hacker News Reader

"The first time you set up the system, it takes you through a 30-second process where you log in to your Microsoft account. Kinect then builds a personal profile it will associate with that account based on facial recognition but also the camera's basic skeletal model of your body. This process forms a unique biometric ID that the Kinect uses to automatically identify a user, logging them in to Xbox Live and bringing up a personalized menu that includes their recent apps and favorite items."

That doesn't sound very good. I remember all the complaints from Apple just taking your fingerprint - this is taking your picture, skeletal model of your body, and linking it to a record of everything you watch or play, along with always on camera and audio recording.

I don't think I'd put one of these things in my house even if you paid me. I'll stick to Steam, I guess.

View on HN

To each his own. I'm always impressed when I or my wife walk in front of the xbox and it figures out who we are during a kinect game. There's a wonderful sci-fi like feeling the Kinect produces that no other tech of mine does. It really does feel magical sometimes.

This whole "THE NSA HAS OUR MEMES!!" is a bit over the top. Being overly paranoid hurts innovation and limits what we can do. Also, if you think Gabe Newell and his people aren't storing all sorts of stuff about you, I think you have an overly rosey view of non-MS companies. Most of us a carry senor-laden devices that make the Kinect look like a potato in our pocket everyday.

Imagine if Tim-Berners Lee was on the receiving end of this in the 90s? "YOU WANT TO STORE COOKIES ON MY COMPUTER? YOU'RE STORING IP ADDRESSES AND USER-AGENTS?!?!?! RUN SCRIPT IN THE BROWSER???"

Yeah, the web wouldn't exist then. We'd have "GNU Privacy Gopher" and no one would use it other than Richard Stallman.

If your government is fascist then fix it. Don't blame the guys trying to make great games.

>the web wouldn't exist then

This statement is ridiculous. The web was not originally designed to be an application platform, it moved that way because business pushed it in that direction. I know the vast majority of sites I visit don't use cookies or javascript for anything important, because I have both of those turned off by default anyway. It seems very obvious that the majority of cookies and javascript these days are being used for tracking purposes, i.e. things that don't benefit the user in any way and should probably be blocked for practical purposes.

>Being overly paranoid hurts innovation and limits what we can do.

This statement is also ridiculous. Being concerned about your own privacy isn't paranoia, it's self-preservation. We have all the reason to expect these companies to think twice before going forward with some innovation that could be potentially harmful, but it appears you want to encourage them not to do that. What you're actually saying is "companies having to worry about ethical issues limits what we can do," which is absolutely true, and this is not a negative thing.

To me the reality of this technology is more Idiocracy than anything. The marketing hype is that it's somehow a futuristic sci-fi fantasy device. It's just another way to sit on the couch watching TV and playing games.

>To me the reality of this technology is more Idiocracy than anything.

You're aware we're discussing a game system designed for children, right? Its not some critique on society. Its mindless entertainment by design.

>but it appears you want to encourage them not to do that.

No, as I said this is a government regulatory issue. Attack your government for allowing these policies. I find it hugely hypocritical as well. You have a mobile OS duopoly by companies that are both horrible, horrible corporate citizens, yet the Kinect automatic person detector, which is stored locally for a game, is the thing people go apeshit over. This level of emotional reasoning isn't pretty, its counter-productive, and I suspect falls into politically correct and geek friendly MS bashing while Sony, Apple, and Google get largely free passes. I also feel there's this libertarian bent here in which we don't discuss proper regulations as solutions but wring our hands over the status quo of corporations being under-regulated and do this schoolmarm-ish "They shouldnt be doing that!" Guess what, they will because it makes money. This is what low regulation looks like.

I've heard more paranoid theories about Kinect, with zero proof, than real concern over google tracking me and storing my wifi passwords. Or the various hacks and leaks like Adobe and Linode, which affected and arguably victimized me legitimately.

There's this "contrails in the sky" hysteria when it comes to the kinect which is 100% irrational. Let's not contribute to it.

It's not "just a government issue," by saying this you complete sidestep from the real issue which is privacy in general. The government is really not the only party that anyone should be worried about spying on them. I personally would say that any company that amasses personal data on users, as well as distributes locked devices, DRM, proprietary software, etc, is not one that anyone should support. I'm not singling out this device, all locked-down devices like this with curated "online experiences" have just as much potential for abusive data harvesting, censorship, predatory business practices, dodgy vendor lock-in strategies, and all that other good stuff that these companies love.

I agree that, as users, complaining publicly to these cathedral-like entities serves little purpose. The responsible thing to do is to be aware of it and to either avoid as much of it as possible, or to be very cautious about what you do around it (and before you go taking that to mean something specific, I mean in a general sense). I would say this matters even more when children become involved, the fact that this is an entertainment device marketed towards them is somewhat of a trojan horse. This is the reality of what you must do to retain privacy. It's perfectly feasible, it just warrants some of your attention.

Kinect is optional. Also to be frank, our electronic gadgets are just a privacy leak devices. Apple has biometric system profiles, Google Now is always capturing voice, Kinect is also the same. Our facial profiles are already in some database through social media. Voice signatures through Skype and Cell talks.

how is kinect optional? It's bundled and required.

It is bundled, not required as of August. You can disable the Kinect in the settings or unplug it completely and the console will still function: http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2013/08/12/microsoft-re...

It is bundled, but you can choose to not plug it [1]. Kinect is useful in games like fitness and rival sports, besides obviously being used to add other functionality. Obviously, privacy implications are huge.

[1] - http://www.theverge.com/2013/8/12/4615586/xbox-one-no-longer...

ah, I missed that backtrack, thanks.

The biometric info isn't stored in the cloud (applies to both the Xbox and iPhone), so that helps reduce the risk.

I have set up Kinect profiles for my family with the Xbox 360, but it is a bit hit and-miss, and signing in and out becomes a hassle. If the recognition works as seamlessly as described in the article it would be a great improvement.

"The biometric info isn't stored in the cloud (applies to both the Xbox and iPhone), so that helps reduce the risk."

I'd bet they store their version of "meta-data" in the cloud. That way they can target ads to specific users based on attributes derived from people's physical attributes and characteristics. I also expect to see Microsoft (and others) explore the concept of 'pay-per-view' where an increase in viewers for media content results in an increased viewing fee using facial-detection to establish the cost.

This is going to sound flip, but I really don't know the answer: So what? Am I meant to get het up that advertisers will know that (in a very generous information-sharing scheme) a skinny guy five feet nine inches tall exists somewhere in America?

Maybe it's anonymized .... maybe it's not anonymized enough ... or maybe they change their policies to share this information more-liberally. Take OnStar ... one day they decided they were going to start sharing information about vehicles equipped with their technology even when the owner wasn't an OnStar subscriber. These consumers had no agreement with OnStar so they had no agreement that was being violated. Only when the public outcry and government investigations ramped up, did they backtrack.

Personally, I believe that meta-data collection is an interim-step towards more-aggressive sharing of this information. What does that mean? It means that your FitBit, Withings Scale, Nike Fuel, and Kinect Exercise regimen will one-day be sold to your health-care provider. Initially it'll be opt-in ... consumers can choose to reduce their rates if they share such data with an insurer --- but eventually it'll be mandatory. The XBOX One's early press boasted that the new Kinect sensor is so amazing it can detect your pulse. What would that data be worth to insurers?

Same goes for autos. OnStar opened the door showing that there's value in the data they collect. Progressive has a product called "Snapshot" ( http://www.progressive.com/auto/snapshot/ ) that feeds driving-data to the insurance company in order to inform how they adjust the policy rates they offer to you. Automatic ( http://www.automatic.com/ ) has their dongle that collect similar info. Cars will all be connected one-day, and it won't require extra hardware to collect and transmit this information. All of this data will be sold to insurers. First, it'll be opt-in ... but eventually it'll be required.

Is any of this paranoid? Sure - but the past 6 months of revelations about the level of data-collection taking-place wherever and whenever possible confirms that wherever there is data - it will be collected and sold to anyone that's buying. Just look at the $10 million+ that AT&T makes selling data to the NSA.

So yeah - I am concerned that information is being shared and sold on my behalf for no apparent personal gain.

It can trivially be requested though. Moreover this doesn't really matter much if you can send distributed queries to the consoles. You'll be able to identify and locate more than 50% of males between 18 and 30.

At some point we should stop being overly concerned about potential privacy issues as it would prevent alot of cool products otherwise. Your smartphone probably has more useful data about you than the Xbox ever will.

Imo you americans should fix your government and let companies continue to built great and innovative products.

That's a fair point. Personally, though, I see biometric data collection as an inevitable, uncontrollable future, so I figure the solution to it is going to have to be a social one. Why spend all my time being afraid of people collecting it? It's how they use it that I care about.

I understand the concerns about an always on camera and audio recording (even if I think your phone is probably a bigger danger in that regard), but I'm having a hard time envisioning what the actual danger would be for having a machine track my skeletal model. The issue with fingerprint scanning is (1) that you can build a fake finger to bypass authentication and (2) you leave your fingerprints everywhere.

At the moment, I don't really think anyone is building fake skeletons to hack my Xbox account. It might make for some creepy Minority Report-style advertising if Kinect cameras become ubiquitous and the data is uploaded to the cloud, but I don't think we're anywhere near that yet.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com