from the How-many-TLAs-knew-about-it? dept.
Google admits error over hidden microphone
Google has acknowledged that it made an error in not disclosing that one of its home alarm products contained a microphone.
Product specifications for the Nest Guard, available since 2017, had made no mention of the listening device. But earlier this month, the firm said a software update would make Nest Guard voice-controlled. On Twitter, concerned Nest owners were told the microphone "has not been used up to this point". Business Insider was first to report the development.
The Nest Guard is one component in the Nest Secure range of home security products. The system includes various sensors that can be monitored remotely by the user. Nest Guard is an all-in-one alarm, keypad, and motion sensor but, despite being announced well over a year ago, the word "microphone" was only added to the product's specification this month. The change coincided with the announcement that it was now compatible with Google Assistant.
In response to criticism, Google said on Tuesday: "The on-device microphone was never intended to be a secret and should have been listed in the tech specs. That was an error on our part." It added: "The microphone has never been on and is only activated when users specifically enable the option."
(Score: 2) by CZB on Wednesday February 20 2019, @06:54PM (2 children)
Lets just rush this thing onto the market, we'll work out the features later.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 20 2019, @07:32PM
Dear fools-dumb-enough-to-buy-our-products, we apologize for the oversight of the built-in microphone. At only 2.17c each, Fred S. simply forgot it in the design. Sorry (that we got caught). Up yours and please keep buying our sh!t, Google.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 20 2019, @10:45PM
Having worked for various tech companies before, I can say it's a good bet that's exactly how it happened.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 20 2019, @06:57PM (3 children)
The year Occam's Razor was reversed.
(Score: 5, Informative) by c0lo on Wednesday February 20 2019, @09:30PM (2 children)
Methinks you mean Hanlon's razor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 20 2019, @10:53PM
Or Gillette's!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 21 2019, @12:08AM
No I was going for Occam where the simplest answer (oversight) is not correct, but you're right Hanlon's Razor is more fitting.
(Score: 2) by drussell on Wednesday February 20 2019, @06:58PM (2 children)
So, it has a physical, hardware jumper in it to enable the microphone, then?
Yeah.... Riiiiight...
(Score: 5, Funny) by aristarchus on Wednesday February 20 2019, @07:19PM
(Score: 4, Funny) by DannyB on Wednesday February 20 2019, @07:21PM
Why am I thinking that the only way that users could "enable" (or disable) the microphone is via a non-existent app that runs on Android 0.9, in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard.”
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 20 2019, @07:10PM (6 children)
The shrill Internet mob would have lost their minds over it not doing anything at release.
How likely is it that someone who buys this sort of product does not have a smartphone? That small group of people are the only ones who can rationally object to home devices with microphones in them. The other people whining, just want attention, or have not thought things through.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by urza9814 on Wednesday February 20 2019, @08:06PM (3 children)
So if you own a webcam, that means you can't rationally object to another company secretly installing cameras in your home that watch you in the shower? After all, you clearly have no objection to cameras, right?
The better argument would be that you shouldn't buy a fucking Google product if you don't want to be spied on. But still, most Google products don't do what they do completely in secret. Usually they're pretty up-front about the hardware capabilities at least. And that does make a difference -- it's much harder to proactively protect yourself from threats you don't know about. And software also matters just as much as hardware -- just because you have a smartphone doesn't automatically mean it's spying on you. Most of them are, sure, but there ARE software variants available which don't.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday February 21 2019, @12:02AM (2 children)
I think GP's point was abundantly clear: the vast majority of people who own smartphones run closed-source software on them and can't guarantee how much spying could be happening. The vast majority of people who own smartphones generally take them everywhere without a second thought, taking them to and/or leaving them in private places (bedrooms, bathrooms, etc.) without concern over how their microphone and cameras might be used.
I'm not at all trying to excuse Google's behavior, which is atrocious. But there is a recent pattern where people are suddenly all worried about microphones in various smart speakers and other IoT devices, when most of these same people have been voluntarily carrying phones connected to the internet around with them for many years. And I'm actually glad some of these people are waking up to privacy concerns, but many of them for some reason don't worry about their phones and tablets and even their webcams on their laptops as much as they worry about smart speakers and such... And it's important to point out that inconsistency in logic.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 21 2019, @04:13AM
People are only worrying about things they were told to be worried about. There is no logic in there, nor common sense. Most people don't understand how their tech works, so they believe shamans. And when shaman says that the spirits are unhappy, people starts worrying.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Thursday February 21 2019, @02:18PM
And the vast majority of people who own these devices aren't complaining. It's not like these are totally independent variables -- it would be quite reasonable to expect substantial overlap between people complaining about spying smart devices and people running open source smartphone OSes. I would guess that the vast majority of people buying these smart devices aren't even looking at the tech specs, and couldn't tell you if there's a microphone in there or not.
The way I see it, there's two classes of people who buy these products. On the one hand, you've got people like my parents. They don't even own a traditional PC -- just a couple smartphones and Android/iOS tablets. But they use Siri and Google assistant, and they've got more than one Alexa speaker. They bought and set all of those up themselves -- I certainly wouldn't touch that stuff and I'm the geek of the family. On the other side, you've got the hackers who want to grab the cutting-edge tech and see what they can do with it. Those people are going to care about the spying, and are often going to be running customized software which enhances user control, and will want to know what the hell their devices are doing.
I know a lot of people who are worried about their smartphones. I have friends who unplug their *Playstation* because they're convinced it's spying on them. People *freak the fuck out* when they see some ad on a website trying to sell them something that they've been talking about recently but never actually searched for. I've been hanging out with non-tech-savvy friends living in apartments and out of nowhere they'll just start going "Man, I gotta buy some fertilizer. I really need some fertilizer soon. Fertilizer, fertilizer, fertilizer. Sorry, I'm trying to test if Siri is spying on me by talking about how much I need fertilizer occasionally to see if I start getting ads for it." They generally don't know what to do about it, and the steps they attempt aren't always appropriate, but they *certainly* care. The ones who don't probably aren't complaining about these smart speakers either.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 20 2019, @11:41PM
Found the shill / apologist...
I hope they pay you well bro, they sure can afford it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 21 2019, @04:31PM
If you buy a smartphone, you know it has a microphone built in. And if you want to be sure it doesn't record something you don't want it to, leaving it out of the room is a very simple and effective method.
Comparing this to the situation with Nest Guard is left as exercise for the reader.
(Score: 5, Funny) by bob_super on Wednesday February 20 2019, @07:12PM (3 children)
"We have fired the intern responsible for not disclosing the wide-angle camera on our Smart Shampoo Dispenser. We assure you that the camera was not intended to be uploading to our servers yet, and that we are closely reviewing the situation."
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday February 20 2019, @09:34PM (1 child)
FTFY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Wednesday February 20 2019, @09:49PM
And now you can review it too! [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 20 2019, @11:38PM
Also we failed to notify you of our partnership with Porn hamster and that you agreed to waive all rights related to the videos we captured of your ... activities.
So there, all nice and sound.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday February 20 2019, @07:40PM (2 children)
"The microphone has never been on and is only activated when users specifically enable the option.... as far as we know."
This sig for rent.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by urza9814 on Wednesday February 20 2019, @08:08PM (1 child)
Either it has never been on or it's only on when requested by the user. They can't guarantee both.
...on second though, it's Google, they spy enough that they *could* plausibly say that it's only activated on request and no user has ever requested that yet...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 21 2019, @04:34PM
If Google activates the microphone for their own use, they are obviously themselves the user of the microphone, therefore they can rightfully say that the microphone is activated by the user.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday February 20 2019, @07:52PM
Didn't we just have a story about toilets that automatically collect health data (blood pressure, heart rate) ?
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by zocalo on Wednesday February 20 2019, @08:21PM
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Wednesday February 20 2019, @09:51PM
"Your security and privacy is important to us."
vs.
"The on-device microphone was never intended to be a secret and should have been listed in the tech specs. That was an error on our part." It added: "The microphone has never been on and is only activated when users specifically enable the option."
Good for them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 20 2019, @11:35PM
And you thought that was Failbook lusers only...