501
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2024
501 points (89.0% liked)
Technology
60123 readers
3948 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Have you read the article? They're claiming (!) that they would use ads on websites to use mic data. If you know anything about Android or IOS, you'll know that you have to give mic permission to your browser for it to have access to anything. THEN the browser itself checks if a website needs access to your mic and you have to willingly give it. And lastly: Android indicates when your mic is hot with a green dot. So all of their claims are bs.
Come back if one of the OS developers admit to always listen on an OS level.
If the device does not listen at all times it cannot detect the wake word (Hey Google).
Edit: formatting.
If a device isn't using a local detection of the wake word it would have a constant stream of data sent back to the developer... Which is super obvious.
It also wouldn't be able to respond "Your device is offline" when the Internet is down.
It's not a thing and it doesn't happen.
Well look, not to be dismissive of what you're saying, but the technical aspects of it really don't matter. There is not (yet) any law in the US that would protect people from such surveillance, regardless of its current technical infeasibility. The point of getting people at large worried or upset about this is to get law established before it becomes a widespread problem, not after some company publicly admits to doing something despicable.
The fact that companies are thinking about this, trying to accomplish it, trying to buy this functionality from other companies... that should be enough to scare people and get them angry. It's certainly enough that we should all be talking about it, and publicly shaming them for the voyeuristic creeps that they are.
There should be riots in the streets over stuff like this, because you can't build a surveillance state without surveillance technology.
You should probably remove the tinfoil hat. Seems to be cutting off the circulation to your 3 brain cells.
If Cox is advertising this as a product, it's because they have a market that will buy it.
Wiretapping laws exist. There is no state in the US that allows for wholesale recording someone without consent. Even one party consent states still require ONE party to consent. Recordings taking in a private place without consent would fail to meet even that limited scope.
The problem is that when you accept the terms of service for smart devices and applications with voice interfaces, you give consent to be recorded.
Others around you don't. That consent isn't transferable. Nor does it grant wholesale recording even if the owner isn't expecting it, eg if google present "we need to record in order to do voice to text operations", then other shit gets used, that's a problem. And lastly, it doesn't transfer to other applications. If I consent to be recorded by "Google" that doesn't grant other ad partners access without explicitly stating so. EULA/TOS isn't law. Terms and conditions get abused all the time. Law often strikes them down when those terms make it to court.
I agree wholeheartedly :)