Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google Privacy Technology

Google Says the Built-in Microphone it Never Told Nest Users About Was 'Never Supposed To Be a Secret' (businessinsider.com) 103

Posted by msmash from the surprise dept.
An anonymous reader shares a report: In early February, Google announced that its home security and alarm system Nest Secure would be getting an update. Users, the company said, could now enable its virtual-assistant technology, Google Assistant. The problem: Nest users didn't know a microphone existed on their security device to begin with. The existence of a microphone on the Nest Guard, which is the alarm, keypad, and motion-sensor component in the Nest Secure offering, was never disclosed in any of the product material for the device. On Tuesday, a Google spokesperson told Business Insider the company had made an "error." "The on-device microphone was never intended to be a secret and should have been listed in the tech specs," the spokesperson said. "That was an error on our part."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Says the Built-in Microphone it Never Told Nest Users About Was 'Never Supposed To Be a Secret' More

Google Says the Built-in Microphone it Never Told Nest Users About Was 'Never Supposed To Be a Secret'

Comments Filter:

  • I thought it was kind of revealed... (Score:3)

    by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Wednesday February 20, 2019 @11:58AM (#58152418)

    In one of the responses from Nest I read, it seemed you could disable the microphone via the app - so maybe you could have known that way before?

    They should have let users know for sure, I was just wondering if that control was there the whole time and few if any noticed.

    • In a world of cheap hardware components, often devices have components that are not used, so they are not advertised. They may be a software update away from being used, but the software may just not use it, until later updates.

      I have a System76 Laptop. There is an integrated fingerprint reader on it, however System76 never advertised it. Because it was a Linux Laptop and Linux doesn't support that type of fingerprint reader, however after installing windows on it as well, it did find and I can use the f

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Companies rightly get flack for advertising features that don't actually work at launch and only get activated later with a software update. Sometimes they even get sued over it, e.g. Tesla with autopilot features.

        On the other hand if they don't state up front that the hardware has something like a microphone, even if it doesn't do anything yet, the conspiracy theories start flying.

        • Re:I thought it was kind of revealed... (Score:4)

          by fluffernutter ( 1411889 ) on Wednesday February 20, 2019 @12:26PM (#58152642)
          So I don't have to know a hacker is one firmware away from activating the microphone in my device? Don't assume I am the only one altering the firmware.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by lgw ( 121541 )

          "Google is spying on you" is hardly a conspiracy theory - it's the fundamental truth of the modern age. Whether they're recording this microphone is dubious, but you can hardy be shocked when it turns out the thing you bought from Google is harvesting your personal data, however it does it.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by green1 ( 322787 )
          The problem isn't in advertising hardware that doesn't work yet. The problem is in promising features or timelines and then failing to meet them. Tesla didn't get in trouble for putting hardware on it's cars that wasn't used yet. It got in trouble for selling a feature as imminent when it wasn't, and for advertising capabilities that were never delivered. There's a big difference.

          There's nothing wrong with listing in the specs: "microphone (disabled at present, reserved for future firmware features)"

          There I

      • For most un-revealed features I don't think it would be a big deal, but some people are careful not to buy devices that have microphones so I could see it being more of an issue that it turned out there was one...

        • Agreed. Unmentioned hardware that would only be useful to the user is one thing. Unmentioned surveillance-capable hardware is something else entirely. At best you get conspiracy theories circulating - and quite possibly you get actual covert surveillance - either by the manufacturer themselves (we all trust Google not to spy on us, right?...Right?), or by hackers of various stripes.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by thomn8r ( 635504 )

        There is an integrated fingerprint reader on it, however System76 never advertised it.

        I think it's a bit disingenuous to try and equate a hidden microphone with a very obvious fingerprint reader.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by pnutjam ( 523990 )

        Because it was a Linux Laptop and Linux doesn't support that type of fingerprint reader, however after installing windows on it...

        Your a monster, do you also get your jollies feeding ham to pigs and tuna to fish? What an abomination.
        ;)

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hawguy ( 1600213 )

      In one of the responses from Nest I read, it seemed you could disable the microphone via the app - so maybe you could have known that way before?

      They should have let users know for sure, I was just wondering if that control was there the whole time and few if any noticed.

      A software-disabled microphone is not the same as having no microphone at all, which is what many people thought they had.

  • As long as it wasn't able to be used by google or anyone else prior to this update that made it a virtual assistant, then this isn't all that big a deal. It seems like a bigger deal mostly because privacy hyper-awareness. Now..is there also a camera hiding in there somewhere? That I'd be far more concerned with.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      The only issue I could see is if you would not have bought it had you known about the microphone, but even then if they refused to give you a refund you would have to argue in court that disabling it in software was not adequate.

      Hopefully Google will refund if asked, but unfortunately I don't think there is much of a legal leg to stand on here.

      • There is some issue over whether or not you can trust that it's actually disabled. If you wanted to be certain, you'd need to disable it in hardware and require that such action not invalidate the warranty.

    • Re:Was it in use prior to disclosure? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anubis IV ( 1279820 ) on Wednesday February 20, 2019 @12:45PM (#58152778)

      As long as it wasn't able to be used by google or anyone else prior to this update that made it a virtual assistant, then this isn't all that big a deal.

      Pragmatically and without surrounding context? Perhaps. But given the frequency and scope of privacy violations happening on a regular basis, I don't think it's "hyper-awareness" that's leading people to express concern over this revelation. I think it's simply one more link in a long and constantly growing chain of "coincidences", "accidents", and worse (e.g. negligence, intentional violation), each of which undermines our privacy and each of which have served to undermine the public's trust in the companies engaging in these practices.

      If a friend every now and then started poking you so softly that you barely even noticed, you might dismiss it as an odd quirk, assuming you even noticed it. If, over the course of several years, this behavior escalated to the point that they're constantly flailing their arms, you won't be able to ignore it, particularly so if they deliver an occasional fist to your face. At some point most reasonable people would reconsider whether this "friendship" was worth the effort, but some people are more patient and tolerant than others, so they stick with that "friend". If one day this "friend" comes by your house for what has seemingly become a daily flailing session, only to head into your bedroom closet and come back out with a shovel, a tarp, and a box full of bleach, you'd have cause for concern. If they respond to your, "WHAT THE HELL?! WHERE DID THAT COME FROM?!", with an, "Oh, sorry, didn't I tell you that I shipped it here and snuck it into your closet a few years ago because I figured everyone loves this stuff? No? Oops!", you'd have good cause to question the motives and intent of this "friend" and whether they're actually looking out for your best interests.

      For some, this mic may feel like the first fist to the face from someone they think their friend. For others, an undisclosed microphone being planted in their home is nothing short of a declaration of hostile intent. Either way, I haven't yet found a normal person who responded to the news with, "That's neat!"

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by green1 ( 322787 )
      Depends if the update is optional.

      There's no problem with a company offering you additional features and functionality after purchase, however there is a problem if they force a change to the item that makes it less suitable for your use case.

      Unfortunately the normal way this works is that security updates, bug fixes, and new features are all rolled together, so you don't have the option to pick and choose which you get. Assuming you have the option to opt out of updates at all (not always the case), this g
  • Was getting caught, it was malice that it wasn't included (just like it was malice that there were shills galore saying they didn't have cameras [in spite of accepting hand gestures] or microphones when the devices came out.)

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission. And I want to help you. [postimg.cc]

  • My point of view is that the track record and business model of Google make them definitely out of the privacy game in term of credibility.
    We need independent and Open Source solutions on the mobile (such as https://e.foundation/ [e.foundation] and for personal assistant, just like Linux has a been the light in the 90s in a world dominated by proprietary Unix systems and Microsoft.
    If we don't make this happen, freedom and democracy will turn into private totalitarism soon.
    It's not too late..

    • Don't worry. Like all Google products, the microphone was going to be discontinued in the Nest. If you'd like, take a soldering iron to the leads to disconnect it now, or wait for the Google + message that will signal the discontinuance.

      In the meantime, I suggest running a small fan directly on the Nest to smooth its data, and mask your conversations.

  • I just had a hilarious thought, maybe google assumed that customers would realize there is a microphone in their product when you can talk to it? Unless they suddenly good at lip reading.

    • Unless they suddenly good at lip reading.

      I assure you, Dave, that Google would never do that.

    • I just had a hilarious thought, maybe google assumed that customers would realize there is a microphone in their product when you can talk to it? Unless they suddenly good at lip reading.

      You ... couldn't talk to it when they sold it to you.

      That's the whole point. It wasn't sold as having that capability.

  • If it was me, a common man, who makes a project a forgets to mention a detail, then it would be a mistake.
    For a company like Google, to wire a microphone to the innards of its security device, it is definitely not.
    Please, Mr Google, admit you did that on purpose and got caught with the hands in the candy jar.
    Please, publish a paper to physically remove or disable that part.

    Then, my personally humble opinion, this thing of these devices connected to the internet is getting scarier and scarier.

  • Nest devices were instantly crossed off my list as soon as Google bought Nest. Why would you install any sort of Google monitoring device in your home with Google's track record for collecting and storing data regardless of the ethics or propriety of doing so?

    Chickens invite wolves to guard henhouse, are surprised at the results.

    • I got a hub just so I could ask "Hey Google, At what point did Alphabet become a criminal organization?". It still isn't as witty with comebacks as Alexa.

  • "First, be Evil" (Score:3)

    by WillAffleckUW ( 858324 ) on Wednesday February 20, 2019 @12:39PM (#58152716) Homepage Journal

    Glad to see Google is living up to their corporate motto

  • "Don't Be Evil".... (Score:3)

    by ntsucks ( 22132 ) on Wednesday February 20, 2019 @12:44PM (#58152768)

    Unless you can make money doing it.

  • Knowing there's a microphone in an Internet connected device and still buying it is something that people make a conscious decision to do - but if you don't know there's a microphone then the company just saying it was an error isn't enough.
  • Come on, humans, stop bringing always-on/always-connected surveillance devices into your homes. Isn't it bad enough most of you carry a mobile wireless surveillance platform with you all day every day, you have to have them in every room of your house, too? Please, humans, you're embarassing yourselves.

  • You mean you have never.... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Pitawg ( 85077 ) on Wednesday February 20, 2019 @01:40PM (#58153112)

    You mean you have never searched behind your cable box IR filtered face using a digital camera? You know, to see the board mounted camera modules facing you TV consumers, that report which family members were watching the garbage on the screen? Like an IR snapshot every time the IR remote button is pressed, to log the one that did not like what was on, and what they changed it to? Why would they not be tracking how much income they are getting for the ads they see noone is watching, to determine the ratio of the swindle's profit from the ad buyers?

    This built-in mike thing is only audio. Well, the sonar images of the room, and people within, are useful. Also the intel of whether or not competing voice assistants are being used, that can aid plans as well.

  • Something tells me that using Google Home inside of a Nest device would allow Google's "Anything Goes" (lack of) privacy policy to supersede Nest's much more restrictive one.
    I won't be enabling this Trojan Horse, thank you. I'll do things the old-fashioned way and push the damn button myself.

  • Damage control.

  • Let's Suppose (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that Google is being 100% truthful here. The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth! They just forgot to mention the microphone in their marketing.

    OK, then. People are bringing this device into their homes. It's supposed to be a thermostat, even if a smart one. Can you understand how people might be a little alarmed to discover, that the thermostat might have been listening to them? Without permission, without notification, without any by-your-leave?

  • is going to voice print.
  • With all these scandals are you still using Google? The best way to protect your privacy is not to share any personal data at first with companies like Google. I am using /e/ (e.foundation) on my Galaxy S9 instead of Google Android. It is Android based mobile OS designed with privacy in mind. Does not send any private data like contacts, emails or location to Google. Instead of Google apps it uses open source android apps. So far it works great. You can check it at https://e.foundation/ [e.foundation]

Slashdot Top Deals

Genius is ten percent inspiration and fifty percent capital gains.

Close