Google jumps the shark from search results to your camera: Nest Hub, Pixels, and more from ad giant's coder confab Google on Tuesday gathered developers to the open air Shoreline Amphitheater beside its Mountain View, California, headquarters to witness and applaud its latest technological marvels amid natural splendor. As a prelude to the Google I/O 2019 main event, the Chocolate Factory treated the capacity crowd of code cobblers and …
Apple harvest just as much of course. The only difference you pay for the luxury of a more expensive type of harvesting, one that's not optional. (You accept apple terms and conditions, otherwise the drive is useless, android you at least have the option of declining and installing f-droid as an app store)
Your device can still slurp even without a Google account. The answer's in the article and buried in your settings menu, bit I'll let you work for your money to find out where.
Your data is anonamized first, then merged into your unique Google ID. That ID is then made available to partners, for a cost - exactly the same as Microsoft and a mulititude of other vendors do. Apple don't do this - at the moment - but as they move more into services, that may change. You pay your Apple tax when you buy into their ecosystem, and altough Apple tout 'user privacy' at every opportunity, nobody *really* knows what they do with the data they collect, and I can tell you, it's just as much as the others!
Unless you have some specialist information I don't believe the 'ID' is made available to any partner directly. Advertisers can target groups of consumers based upon a filtering system and web/app developers can create events and analytics based upon their own identifier.
Anonymization is pointless without a rigorous, enforced differential privacy scheme with a reasonable threshold. Multiple experiments in de-anonymization have shown that it's very successful using far less data than most users imagine.
Given the wealth of information available on most people who participate in modern industrialized societies, from both authorized sources (government records, public sharing, etc) and the many, many, many data breaches and accidental publications (unsecured databases, etc), anonymization by the likes of Google is pretty much worthless.
Disabling as much as you can helps a bit. Avoiding smartphones (or, if you're really ambitious, using a de-Googled Android or some more exotic OS) helps more. For most people, the costs - whether it's effort and opportunity cost, incompatibility with communications channels used by family and friends, or whatever - apparently aren't worth it.
I myself went through the trouble of de-Googling a phone a couple of years ago. Then the damn thing died a few months later. The replacement died before I even got around to rooting it (about 10 months after purchase). With my latest one, I haven't even bothered. I just set the settings as restrictively as I can, disable any apps I don't need, and live with it.
Indeed, I have for eg denied the Google App accesst to the microphone on my Android phone. Thus spouting 'ok, google' does nothing. The idea of carrying around a listening device with me, especially with the spooks slurpiing everyone's data.
But then I'm a card carrying 'enemy of the people' seeing as I'm a paid up member of Scottish CND and a left wing Yes activist to the extent that I'm on nodding acquaintance with the local SWP guys (both of them). Who it must be said behaved impeccably during our IndyRef.
That little lot is more than enough from what we now know to have the spooks keep a small, occasional eye on me and why make it easy for them?
So... in this example, the trqnslation may come too late.
http://www.covertconcepts.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/gl_road_11.jpg
Luckily, Alphabet isn't making smartguns yet.. Or are they?
What they are still seemingly excellent at is lying with a straight face. In one example, the super-AI means processing can be done locally and doesn't need to be sent to the cloud. And in another, Nest (not to be confused with NEST) is so super sensitive to your privacy that you can put a camera equipped gizmo in your bedroom*! But doesn't explain why that might need to do mysterious cloudy bollocks for motion detection, or even map a few faces.
*Unless you also have a small thermonuclear device in your bedroom, in which case Nest calls NEST? Fear not, you'll be shielded by Alphabet's 'committments'. Like they've proved trustworthy in the past..
"but it seems their main purpose is to keep ppl from "learning to read" or "knowing where they are"."
Alphabet wants to know where everyone is and what they are doing 24 by 7. AI Stasi. No need to enlist your neighbors.
"Alphabet agencies" refers to proliferating government agencies during FDR's New Deal.
Alphabet is located near Moffat Federal Airfield located conveniently between Mountain View and Sunnyvale.
"Intel Inside" is an in your face spook joke.
Yep, you can thank the idiot press for that. They bullied Nest into this, by spewing clickbait scare stories about nest security and cameras being hacked. The reality was nothing more than idiot users with already compromised passwords from other internet sites that couldn't be bothered to turn on 2FA.
If you want to blame anyone, blame sites that ran that story. They are ultimately responsible for Nests actions.
Personally, I welcome it. Google have a spotless track record when it comes to security, so it makes sense for nest to leverage that
Google have a spotless track record when it comes to security
Except Chrome malware, Play Store malware, Android security holes, Android security problems being used to install malware which takes over Google Accounts, G+ being taken down due to design problems, and that's before we get onto the privacy stuff.
Seems you don't really understand the difference between security and privacy, or what malware actually is..
You know the weirdest thing. 2.5bn active android devices in daily use, and I have never ever met anyone that has ever had any problems whatsoever. Given I rarely see a window device that isn't chock full of malware (not adware, I understand the difference), it really seems like some people are being easily fooled. No surprise, given how easily Facebook/CA brainwashed a nation.
I think security, privacy, and malware would be very important considerations where purchasing an IoT device. Shame people who bought Nest before those happened and who are aware of these things are probably praying Google doesn't alter the deal any further.
Google criticises Amazon yet brings Nest data collection under the Google Account umbrella with the same opportunities for Google staff to access that data and the same chances for that account data to be compromised. If they were listening they've would have kept it apart.
"Seems you don't really understand the difference between security and privacy"
One thing I'd want security for is to protect privacy. If a vendor (any of them) goes straight for taking away privacy any security they may put in place against third party threats is somewhat devalued.
One thing I'd want security for is to protect privacy. If a vendor (any of them) goes straight for taking away privacy any security they may put in place against third party threats is somewhat devalued.
I think there's also a necessity. So Nest started out as a (very) expensive thermostat. Basic part of any closed-loop feedback system. Heaters, pumps, fans all being told what to do by a few cheap components in a thermostat. Then for some reason, the humble thermostat suddenly needed cloudy bollocks, exposing data that only really needs to be local to the masses.
I wonder at what point during the product development cycle, features necessary to function morphed into remote surveillance devices. Because they're now higher risk, security becomes more important, or just additional development cost.. But a lot of IoT gizmos don't need the kinds of remote access functionality being sold to the gullible.
I have used windows devices for years and never had malware on them. Because I installed a very small subset of applications and I trusted them all. I have the same track record with android, Mac OS, IOS, and Linux. That doesn't make all of these the same level of security. The question is not "Have I had malware that I know of?" but "Is it easy for malware to get onto the devices, whether owned by me or someone else?". On that, Windows and Android have a worse track record. Maybe because of market share. Maybe because of bad design choices. Maybe because of specific malware authors. But the data is there.
Slurping or not, it sounds impressive:
"next generation of Google Assistant, one that operates with local AI models rather than datasets in the cloud. This is the result of a technical breakthrough, he explained, that allows 100GB hosted data models to be replaced with 0.5GB ones that reside on devices and deliver 10x faster performance."
Now connect it with: "Wear OS integrates Google Assistant technology and mobile notifications into a smartwatch form factor." (from Wear OS Wiki)
At least part of that GA beast is open source (SDK for apps) so it could be interesting.
https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/the-open-source-google-assistant-joins-the-raspberry-pi-ai-movement/
Oh? You asked for the Fiat Panda? So I've reserved this Porsche 4*4 at ten times the price.
Or: Find me a thoughtful, reflective, art film to relax to... Ah, Avengers sequels are very popular, so I've booked all of those.
No, no, and thrice no. Is it really so difficult to pick the phone up and talk to a human?
Agree entirely
My wifes flight from La Rochelle to UK was cancelled yesterday so late she could only interact with a chatbot because evryone had fucked off or refused to pick the phone up. So typed in NANTES caps to be sure as an alternative departure airport.
The ticket duly arrived: Naples to London - couldn't even get the right feckking country.
sadly increasingly difficult to get a human on the phone as they're all dealing with exceptionally high call volumes. if you do get through they're probably clueless and located in India.
[old gimmer wanders off mumbling to himself]
Is it really so difficult to pick the phone up and talk to a human?
If you assume the goal is to provide a means by which a machine can make a booking on your behalf, it would in principle make more sense to provide the business with a reservation system, or link to an existing reservation system, eliminating the need for speech recognition and the waste of a person's time.
However, that isn't the actual goal: this is just a publicity-friendly demonstration of Google's AI capability that doesn't involve it creepily listening to what you say and then surreptitiously booking a restaurant/cinema/car-hire based on how much the firm have bid for your business. Not that Google would ever do such a thing.
"So I've reserved this Porsche 4*4 at ten times the price."
You still confirm each stage of the action it just fills out relevant boxes for you. Seems like it could be useful if it is reliable and you can trust it (on a mobile at least, using a PC to open a few windows to see you r flight details, travel time etc to fill out the relevant boxes is easier).
why would I want to know that? Oh, I get it, so that I let Google assistant "optimize" the best route and approach to her mansion (and your fridge is out of milk, John, would you like some help with that?). Constant data feed sent to google masked as "help" and "useful". But hey, suckers will suck, nothing new here.
Absolute B*LL*CKS - the "respect" part at least.
They "appreciate" the invitation because presumably that'll stop us complaining when they do their next accidental data slurp: "but you agreed to it .. in the T & Cs".
I'm not forward to Google getting their slimey mitts on my NestCam feed!
I take it as they're trying to get ahead of the curve on this before the inevitable court cases over the invasion of privacy start.
I personally limit my use of Google services as much as possible. Sure, they love to collect data, but they also seem to understand the potential legal risks as well as the value of carefully anonymised aggregate data: whether I go to the hairdresser's every third Wednesday of the month is perhaps of less interest than knowing that next Wednesday there will be a lot of people looking for pizza. At least that's my take on it.
Ticketmaster have possibly the worst buying experience in the world because they are trying to stop touts buying tickets with bots, now Google have created a bot for buying tickets? What a wonderful idea. Ticketmaster already thinks I'm not human. Now their site will become even worse for those of us who don't use Google's spyware and only touts will be able to buy tickets because they'll be using an improved bot that Google wrote for them!
Bloody silicon valley hipster douchebags.
There is a very simple solution for Ticketmaster: put the name of the person (maybe age and sex too) who attending the concert on the ticket. Only the person who owns the credit card can change the name on a ticket and 3 changes allowed per year.
Of course, if Ticketmaster is already a part of the touting problem (SiteWave, I'm looking at you), then this won't make too much sense for them, which is probably why they haven't implemented it yet.
"We recognize that we’re a guest in your home, and we respect and appreciate that invitation" some google buffy.
"Some traditions hold that a vampire cannot enter a house unless he or she is invited in. This concept has been referenced throughout the history of vampire fiction (from Samuel Taylor Coleridge 's poem Christabel , through Bram Stoker 's novel Dracula to Stephen King 's novel Salem's Lot , and even Buffy the Vampire Slayer ). Generally, however, a vampire can come and go at will after being invited once." http://dracula.cc/vampires_traits/
Expect to be drained of your blood any time soon!
.... and have a good laugh. A weasel in his best weasel mode.
"To make privacy real, we give you clear, meaningful choices around your data. All while staying true to two unequivocal policies: that Google will never sell any personal information to third parties; and that you get to decide how your information is used."
Sure, you don't sell the personal information, you will lose control over it. You just sell the use of it, and make a lot of money. Sure, you will give "products" some fake control over how the information is used - but privacy means YOU CAN'T COLLECT, STORE AND PROCESS THOSE VERY INFORMATION WITHOUT PRIOR CONSENT. And again, to have control I should register with you first, so giving you a unique ID to track me.
And then all the blah-blah about how slurping people's data makes the world better is just pure crap, sorry.
Anyway, PIchai, Zuckerberg & C. start to be really worried that real regulations will kill their business model to make easy money. It's really time to avoid to listen to their mermaids songs, and ensure real privacy is protected by real rules.
there's nothing better than free advertising. Pretty deplorable for the NYT to publish this self-serving pile of endless shite. Not that he crafted it himself, it would have been sculptured by their bestest PR minds. Unfortunately for them, nobody reads past a headline these days, so all this was in vain :)
The bit that everyone seems to have missed out here is the end of Works with Nest.
IFTTT have already clarified that they won't be able to connect once a user migrates to a google account or beyond end of August 2019.
It also means, at the moment, the only voice control you'll be able to use with Nest devices is Google Home - Alexa won't work and you can't bridge it using IFTTT which is a real pain.
See here - https://nest.com/whats-happening/#whats-happening-to-the-works-with-nest-program
Google knows where your mom lives.
You can follow the crowd even when dining alone, and eat what the herd eats.
Next up election ballots, you will be able to see in real time who the leader is, then you can vote for the winner. Win-win.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
