Qualcomm's New Always-On Smartphone Camera Is a Privacy Nightmare (theverge.com) 53
At the Snapdragon Tech Summit 2021 yesterday, Qualcomm introduced their new always-on camera capabilities in the Snapdragon 8 Gen 1 processor, which is expected to arrive in high-end Android phones early next year. The company says this new feature will let users wake and unlock their phone without having to pick it up or have it instantly lock when it no longer sees their face. Even though Judd Heape, Qualcomm Technologies vice president of product management, said that the "always-on camera data never leaves the secure sensing hub while it's looking for faces," it raises a serious privacy concern that "far outweighs any potential convenience benefits," argues The Verge's Dan Seifert. From the report: Qualcomm is framing the always-on camera as similar to the always-on microphones that have been in our phones for years. Those are used to listen for voice commands like "Hey Siri" or "Hey Google" (or lol, "Hi Bixby") and then wake up the phone and provide a response, all without you having to touch or pick up the phone. But the key difference is that they are listening for specific wake words and are often limited with what they can do until you do actually pick up your phone and unlock it. It feels a bit different when it's a camera that's always scanning for your likeness.
It's true that smart home products already have features like this. Google's Nest Hub Max uses its camera to recognize your face when you walk up to it and greet you with personal information like your calendar. Home security cameras and video doorbells are constantly on, looking for activity or even specific faces. But those devices are in your home, not always carried with you everywhere you go, and generally don't have your most private information stored on them, like your phone does. They also frequently have features like physical shutters to block the camera or intelligent modes to disable recording when you're home and only resume it when you aren't. It's hard to imagine any phone manufacturer putting a physical shutter on the front of their slim and sleek flagship smartphone.
Lastly, there have been many reports of security breaches and social engineering hacks to enable smart home cameras when they aren't supposed to be on and then send that feed to remote servers, all without the knowledge of the homeowner. Modern smartphone operating systems now do a good job of telling you when an app is accessing your camera or microphone while you're using the device, but it's not clear how they'd be able to inform you of a rogue app tapping into the always-on camera. [...] But even if it's not found in every phone next year, the mere presence of the feature means that it will be used by someone at some point. It sets a precedent that is unsettling and uncomfortable; Qualcomm may be the first with this capability, but it won't be long before other companies add it in the race to keep up. Maybe we'll just start having to put tape on our smartphone cameras like we already do with laptop webcams.
It's true that smart home products already have features like this. Google's Nest Hub Max uses its camera to recognize your face when you walk up to it and greet you with personal information like your calendar. Home security cameras and video doorbells are constantly on, looking for activity or even specific faces. But those devices are in your home, not always carried with you everywhere you go, and generally don't have your most private information stored on them, like your phone does. They also frequently have features like physical shutters to block the camera or intelligent modes to disable recording when you're home and only resume it when you aren't. It's hard to imagine any phone manufacturer putting a physical shutter on the front of their slim and sleek flagship smartphone.
Lastly, there have been many reports of security breaches and social engineering hacks to enable smart home cameras when they aren't supposed to be on and then send that feed to remote servers, all without the knowledge of the homeowner. Modern smartphone operating systems now do a good job of telling you when an app is accessing your camera or microphone while you're using the device, but it's not clear how they'd be able to inform you of a rogue app tapping into the always-on camera. [...] But even if it's not found in every phone next year, the mere presence of the feature means that it will be used by someone at some point. It sets a precedent that is unsettling and uncomfortable; Qualcomm may be the first with this capability, but it won't be long before other companies add it in the race to keep up. Maybe we'll just start having to put tape on our smartphone cameras like we already do with laptop webcams.
Let me be the first to say ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Qualcomm's New Always-On Smartphone Camera
No thank you.
Re: (Score:3)
Given how often it fails to detect my face to unlock, I can't imagine this working well. A mask or sunglasses really throw it off. But even if that worked well, I often leave it sitting on a table while I read something at an odd angle.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My wife stopped using her iPhone for payments because it doesn't work with a mask. Most other manufacturers seem to have realized that face unlock is shit, and offer a fingerprint sensor.
Re: (Score:1)
From TFA summary:
Given how often it fails to detect my face to unlock, I can't imagine this working well. A mask or sunglasses really throw it off. But even if that worked well, I often leave it sitting on a table while I read something at an odd angle.
I'm trying to figure out how it's going to be a Good Thing for the phone to lock as soon as I put it to my ear and my face disappears from the camera's view.
Re: (Score:1)
This is not only no thank you, but fuck no thank you. Who's fucking bright idea thought that this would work as a viable method of human machine interface? This is such a non-starter and makes me think that this is a trial balloon because I can't believe anyone in Qualcomm had a rational discussion without the privacy issue coming up and some higher level manager said, "Fuck it, do it anyway."
At least you can cover a camera and know it's off. (Score:1)
Unless your microphone has a hardware "off" switch you can't know if it's truly "deaf."
Law enforcement will love this ... (Score:5, Insightful)
From TFA:
Qualcomm’s main pitch for this feature is for unlocking your phone any time you glance at it, even if it’s just sitting on a table or propped up on a stand. You don’t need to pick it up or tap the screen or say a voice command — it just unlocks when it sees your face.
Ya, no. I don't / won't use bio-metrics for unlocking any of my devices. While I'm sure iOS and Android will allow this "feature" to be disabled (or ignored), I won't buy any device on which it can't.
Qualcomm is framing the always-on camera as similar to the always-on microphones that have been in our phones for years. Those are used to listen for voice commands like "Hey Siri" or "Hey Google" ...
I have this "feature" disabled on my phone -- as far as I frelling know anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not just that, it's also not actually convenient. I have auto-unlock turned on on my iPhone. I really like FaceID and I enjoy just glancing at my phone when notifications come in so I can see the previews. But I don't want my phone to be unlocked randomly; I want to actively turn my gaze to it in specific circumstances to unlock it.
But then the article also says that it'll lock when it can't see your face anymore, but why would I want THAT? I hand my phone to friends all the time. I don't want it to lo
Re: (Score:2)
But then the article also says that it'll lock when it can't see your face anymore, but why would I want THAT? I hand my phone to friends all the time. I don't want it to lock when I'm trying to share a video or something.
I hadn't thought of that, but you're right that may be worse from a usability standpoint. Don't know if it's Android 12 or just my new Pixel 5a, but one of the "features" is it can use the front-facing camera for enhanced screen auto-rotation. I disabled this because of the potential issue you mentioned and my own cases of looking at the screen from odd angles, but not wanting the screen to rotate.
In general, I'm not in favor of things doing stuff automatically ...
Battery life? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Battery life? (Score:4, Interesting)
My guess would be that they are using a dedicated low resolution, singly channel (monochrome) camera. Can probably see into the infrared. Low frame rate, maybe 1 FPS. Dedicated ASIC to handle face detection.
It probably does have a noticeable effect on the battery, but it might not be too bad. In fact it's probably more about developing a low power camera than anything.
Pictures of your pocket (Score:2)
So 90% of the time it'll be taking pictures of your pocket? Sounds like a security problem for sure.
Law Enforcement (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Law Enforcement (Score:4, Insightful)
Anybody can do it. I can see some "interesting" crime scenarios open up right there.
Re: (Score:1)
Can' they do it already, provided you configured face recognition on your device? To unlock my tablet I just have to hold and look at it straight for a good second. The always-on camera only brings lower latency.
Re: (Score:2)
This looks like a classic example of a feature that no one asked for. Doing something because you can, is not a reason for doing it.
"Doing something because you can", then throwing the shit at the wall to see what sticks, is the story behind a LOT of tech development in the last decade or two. Sadly, a surprisingly large amount of stuff does stick, thanks to fad-primed and easily bored tech-know-nothings who will consume anything that seems novel or cool.
As long as there are so many suckers who buy into these "innovations" without thinking about the implications and downsides, we'll have creeps like Qualcomm playing proctologist and try
Re: (Score:2)
On Android hold down the power button for a moment and a menu will appear with a "lockdown" option. Tapping it disables biometric unlocking.
You can also hold the power button for about 5 seconds to do an emergency shutdown.
Android also has an emergency mode if you tap the power button 5 times. Among other things it can lock the phone into video recording or make automatic emergency calls.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a camera, so likely 2D. A photo would work just as well, no need to have it pointed at your actual visage.
It's why Apple uses a 3D camera - 2D cameras are too easy to fool with an existing photo.
The implications are far greater than law enforcement. Eve
Re: (Score:2)
Users may not care about privacy but their employers most likely will.
What happens when you're at work and your phone picks up everything that's going on around you?
How slippery do we let the slope get? (Score:5, Informative)
Most of the comments on the Verge article feel it's overblown, but I personally agree that we have to draw a line somewhere. Just to anticipate some reactions:
- "It's overblown"
Yes, there are rational arguments that explain that it's only an incremental change, and that there are safeguards. But people aren't rational. I have voice control in my home, and it's 100% cloudless. But even that is creeping out some of my friends.
- "Don't like it? Then don't buy it".
Well, this technology doesn't just impact the owner. If you buy Google Glass or install Alexa in your home, then you are also making a choice for the people around you. Amazon is pushing for Alexa to be always listening, which they call a "conversational interface". No wakework required to start a conversation. Smart glasses are also said to make a comeback. And we're not even having a proper conversation about mass deploying internet connected cars that are laden with cameras.
A (growing) minority of people considers these innovations creepy.. maybe that's something to take seriously before we're knee-deep in "unintended consequences" again.
Re: (Score:2)
A (growing) minority of people considers these innovations creepy.. maybe that's something to take seriously before we're knee-deep in "unintended consequences" again.
But who is going to take them seriously, beyond a minority of people in the tech field? I suppose the EU might ban these monstrosities - they seem serious about letting Big Tech know who's boss - but beyond that, who will really care? Even after several of the totally predictable scandals and disasters occur, most people will continue to take what they're given and proceed as though nothing is wrong with their latest bit of shiny.
Re: (Score:2)
Google is now doing voice recognition on the device, with no cloud needed. That's how it should be.
I'd like to think we could create a world where we can have robots with ears and eyes that don't systematically invade your privacy. The biggest problem I see is that law enforcement always wants the data, but as we have seen with messaging apps we can use technology to overcome that.
Re: (Score:2)
I have voice control in my home, and it's 100% cloudless.
If I may ask, and I'm going to anyway, what are you using for this? Last time I looked, which was not so very long ago, it was still pretty inconvenient.
Re: (Score:2)
Wife, kids, servant, secretary. Take your pick.
Re: (Score:2)
No way (Score:2)
Current smartphones suck (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> With covid, many countries require you to install a phone app with a backdoor to prove you're vaccinated.
And the backdoor is in the basement of a pizza parlor
Re: (Score:2)
This made me wonder why it's not the default to have hardware switches to turn off all these features whenever I want
because most people don't want
What's the big deal? (Score:2)
I don't know of any mainstream phone where you have a way to really turn off the camera.
I don't know if I can write a standard Android app that turn on the camera without you knowing it and upload the data to some server but with root access that should be no problem.
The only thing that tells you that your current phone camera is not always on is because this is what they are telling you, but how can you be sure? Now they tell you that your camera is always on, but the data never leaves your phone and it is
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know of any mainstream phone where you have a way to really turn off the camera.
Well, there are cases with removable covers, works on any and all cameras plus it’s the only way to be sure besides nuking it from orbit.
Re: (Score:2)
You can write an app that does that but it has to be granted camera permission to do its dirty deed. So if it's a camera-related app you can certainly do it without alerting anyone, but if it isn't then an alert user will notice what you're up to. Of course, most users aren't lerts.
Zero privacy concerns compared to now (Score:2)
Unlike laptops which have camera-on indicators (which have shown to be hackable), a smartphone offers you no such benefit. There is literally no way of knowing if your camera is on right now. Qualcomm's new chip doesn't change that. Well it does in that you actually know the answer rather than remain blissfully ignorant.
No different than what we already have (Score:3)
What a very odd thing to say. Why does it feel different? It's exactly the same. The microphone's listening for an activation phrase, and so is the camera. It's just that the "phrase" in this case is your face. If you trust that the audio activation is being done locally and no data is being sent back to the mothership, you should also trust them when they say the visual activation is done the same way.
And vice-versa. If you don't trust them for audio you shouldn't trust them for video either. But neither one is inherently riskier than the other.
Now, putting on my tinfoil hat, you shouldn't worry about an always-on camera or mic. You should worry that there's code in there to turn them on in response to some over-the-air command. Say there's a riot or robbery in progress. Can law enforcement just send a command to all the phones in the area to report back with what they can see and hear? Or if they want to get dirt on someone, can they key up the mic or camera on demand? Can the underpaid flunky at the telco do it for giggles, in hopes of seeing or hearing something pervy? Are you *sure* they can't? That's the kind of thing you need to worry about, not something they're advertising and probably charging a premium for.
Yeah, we're already screwed by these surveillance devices we carry. You either trust the manufacturer or you don't. All your base are belong to them, you can't hide from the OS. If you don't trust the manufacturer you should get rid of your phone pronto.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You could not possibly be more wrong. Try comparing a deaf person to a blind person. A deaf person can see MUCH more about you than a blind person can hear.
Please let me know how many people have been blackmailed with audio files of them walking around naked in their house.
Re: (Score:2)
Wake-words are much more useful. On Android you can have them disabled most of the time, but auto enabled when you have Google Maps (or any app) in navigation mode. Very handy for driving.
Face unlock seems to have few practical uses, especially when people are wearing masks.
Re: (Score:2)
Here is an indicator that this is all done locally: For example in Germany, it is illegal to own a "covert listening device". A phone that records and transfers on its own would qualify. Hence these things must not transfer or record for longer than a short time what they are listening to or things will not only escalate to a prohibition against selling these things, but to a full blown "turn yours in or face criminal proceedings". Yes, it has happened before for some creepy toys that did record and transfe
Stupid Samsung's behind-the-screen camera... (Score:1)
This is one of the reasons I want to facepunch every single idiot who thinks having a camera INSIDE your screen is a good idea. How am I supposed to put tape over the camera if it is BEHIND my screen?
I'm already pissed off enough about the stupid notches and punch-hole cameras. I don't want your damned front-facing camera AT ALL. I long for the days of PHYSICAL switches to MECHANICALLY disconnect the microphone from my laptop. I don't trust anyone to secure my devices except for myself.
Useless (Score:2)
How is face unlock safe via a regular camera? Why develop it further, just abandon the idea, it's stupid.
Possible new privacy feature (Score:4, Insightful)
Imagine if you could program your phone so that if you give it a specific look (wink, show teeth, roll your eyes, stick your tongue out, look stressed, etc) the phone hard locks, then gives you 5 tries at a password unlock or it erases (while showing "unlocking", "updating apps", "please reboot to complete the update", etc). Additionally, you could setup a special password which erases immediately.
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine if you could program your phone so that if you give it a specific look (wink, show teeth, roll your eyes, stick your tongue out, look stressed, etc) the phone hard locks, then gives you 5 tries at a password unlock or it erases (while showing "unlocking", "updating apps", "please reboot to complete the update", etc). Additionally, you could setup a special password which erases immediately.
There's a name for this concept: Duress word. It comes from military and other high-security contexts, where authorized individuals need a covert way to let security guards know when they're being coerced.
It's something that I've brought up many times for Android (I work on the Android security and authentication features), but surveys show that the potential userbase for such features is too small to justify the engineering effort to build, test and maintain them. Also, a "duress expression" seems quite
Easily fixed (Score:1)
Screw the spymasters. Stuff it in an opaque bag. Done.
Immovable Phone Meets Irresistable Hairdresser (Score:2)
Like Apple's Face ID? (Score:2)