Slashdot Mirror
Google to Use PC Microphones to Listen In?
seriv writes "The Register reports that Google plans to use PC microphones to collect statistics on a user's environment. Peter Norvig, who directs research at Google, told Technology Review that this software would start to show up in Google software 'sooner rather than later'. The software collects short sound clips and removes background noise. Google then targets its ads based on the statistics collected. With the current level of online privacy, this new level of invasion would seem to have frightening possibilities."
this sounds like bullshit to me.
This article has recently been linked from Slashdot. Please keep an eye on the page history for errors or vandalism.
NOBODY is stupid enough to propose such a thing. I think it’s a better guess that the tech in question is to be used to run ad-supported VOIP or similar.
I don’t know who those Faultline people are, but either they or El Reg (and now Slashdot) have been trolled. HAND
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
If anybody believes this story I've got some oceanside property in Nevada I'd like to sell them.
Seconded.
While I don't think there is "evil" in the intentions of the engineer who thought this "clever" thing up, or the marketing guy who figured the data would be useful, or the corporates who realised it could boost the shareholder value, lets not forget that the government can obtain the data if they so desire as well.
As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
First off, this is the Register.. take it with a grain of salt.
Second, does anyone actually believe that - if this was true - you'd be forced to use it to use Google software? Google might track every statistic imaginable, but no one is forced to use anything they provide.
Something tells me that you'll need to install software (willingly, meaning probably NOT the google toolbar that comes preinstalled on half the computers out there now) for it to function. Not to mention actually have a mic attached, which I'd wager many systems don't (one of my laptops has one integrated, that's it out of quite a few systems). Don't get me wrong - I think it's a very scary prospect and very much against "don't be evil" (by the way, where the FUCK on any of Google's pages does it actually say that? I've looked fairly hard and not found it, nor 'do no evil'), but I think they've got all the best intentions. That, plus the FUD slashdot summary managed to leave out the part where the PC encodes all the data in some sort of one-way crypto string before sending it off, meaning that they only thing they'd get is that it sounds like you're watching Big Brother in the other room, not actually sending off any conversations that are happening.
Having said that, they'll need to really bend over incredibly far backwards to get me to even consider installing such a thing. Like, they pay all of my online shopping bills, no exceptions. Even with all the best security and intentions, the fact is that if they start getting subpoenaed for data, and don't fight it to the very end, someone has information on me who I don't want to have it. And if that makes me a terrorist, so be it.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
Certainly, most users are quite happy to use Google. Google offers a bunch of free but useful stuff: programs, tools, image databases, etc.
The users are happy.
The users depend on Google and are happy.
The users install the microphone link to Google.
The users are happy.
And Google controls.
Second, does anyone actually believe that - if this was true - you'd be forced to use it to use Google software? Google might track every statistic imaginable, but no one is forced to use anything they provide. ...yet.
Who doesn't use Google?
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
Permission? As in "clicking yes to a thousand page EULA nobody reads without losing the rest of his sanity"?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
>lets not forget that the government can obtain the data
What data?
Each 5-second chunk is represented by a 4-byte number. Google says the transformation is irreversible. If it were reversible, Google would have found a way to encode audio at 4*8/5==6.4 bits per second.
This is for detecting whether you've got a particular broadcast going. The privacy implications are that maybe you don't want this government knowing that you listen to NPR, and that there might be a stealth "upgrade" later from Google or from somebody malicious that would improve the resolution.
Better than The Register, here's a Technology Review article about Google's microphone sampling.
Given that it's Clippy, wouldn't it be more like:
I see you're having some sort of seizure. Would you like me to call 911?
After all, the stupid little bugger could never figure out what the hell the user was trying to do. How's he gonna tell one spasm from another?
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
What data? Each 5-second chunk is represented by a 4-byte number. Google says the transformation is irreversible.
If it's not free software, you have no way of knowing. This is true of all non free software you put on your computer.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I take issue with a few of the things you've said. Let me start at the beginning.
Actually, this is one of the only real ways to do serious amounts of survelliance. In Orwell's day, a 1984 dystopia would've been impossible; the technological resources required to watch everyone at the same time would've been impossible.
Having recently (3 days ago) read 1984, the details are still fresh on my mind. Orwell's "Telescreens" are, indeed, always-on surveilance devices, but were not constantly monitored. He makes mention early in the book that you never know when the ministry spies were "plugged in" to your telescreen, but you always had to act like you were being watched, just in case. That makes it less like data mining (which is notoriously easy to circumvent) and more like a panopticon instead, which is useful more for its control value than for finding deviants.
As for surveilance via computer, bear in mind that it's exceedingly easier to monitor someone's activity by watching, not a webcam, but rather their keystrokes, screenshots, and network traffic. Google's new development is not a step toward anything in particular. In fact, knowing Google's track record, the whole project will be a non-trivial-to-activate, opt-in, experimental, Google Labs component with a very explicit and unambiguous warning about the potential privacy implications. It will be lapped up by hundreds of thousands of early adopters excited to see the future of targetted ads, upon which some Symantec-like company will denounce the whole mess as spyware, and claim that only We can protect you.
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea...."
RFC 1925