Worried About Information Leaks, IBM Bans Siri

Not CEO by bws111 · 2012-05-23 03:00 · Score: 4, Informative

Jeanette Horan is the CIO, not the CEO.

Re:Not CEO by jdgeorge · 2012-05-23 03:31 · Score: 2

Right. And here's a Related article about Jeanette Horan's mobile strategy from earlier this year.
For reference, this is IBM's CEO
Re:Not CEO by Theophany · 2012-05-23 03:35 · Score: 1

BYOD, but we dictate a usage policy as if it were a company-issue device?

Seems legit...
Re:Not CEO by bws111 · 2012-05-23 03:43 · Score: 1

What is wrong with that? People want to use their own devices, IBM wants to protect its information. IBM also has other rules like 'you can have lunch with colleagues in a restaurant, but don't discuss IBM confidential stuff while you're there.' What exactly is the problem?
Re:Not CEO by jdgeorge · 2012-05-23 03:48 · Score: 1

This seems very similar to rules about not taking pictures of company stuff, not copying vast amounts of source code, designs, or other confidential stuff, etc.
They can't practically prevent people from bringing their own devices, so they are making sure everyone understands the rules (so that if you do something bad by violating the rules, everyone understands why you deserved to be fired / prosecuted.)
Re:Not CEO by Theophany · 2012-05-23 03:54 · Score: 1

If you are a corporate entity that is very careful and protective of sensitive information, a BYOD policy is nothing short of idiotic. Either they really are as cautious as their CIO claims, or they're not and they're just being cheap.

There's no way we'd have a BYOD policy and essentially open the door to people making potentially ruinous mistakes because their devices weren't company-issue locked down devices.
Re:Not CEO by Theophany · 2012-05-23 04:59 · Score: 1

There's a difference between an employee bringing their own device to work which is unable to access the company's systems and enforcing a policy which gives employees access to all the company's systems on a device they personally own and can do anything they like with.
Re:Not CEO by bws111 · 2012-05-23 05:37 · Score: 1

It is just a different attitude. IBM's attitude is 'you are a trusted professional, you are responsible for protecting information you have, and we have policies to help you with that'. Your attitude is 'you are not trusted, only the IT department can be trusted with protecting our assets.'
Re:Not CEO by sh00z · 2012-05-23 05:45 · Score: 1

The problem is that the responses aren't equivalent. Using your example, the IBM policy should be 'you can own an iPhone 4S, but don't ask it how to do your job.'
Re:Not CEO by bws111 · 2012-05-23 06:13 · Score: 1

No, the responses are the same. Both cases are about preventing unintended leakage of information, while not being so heavy-handed as to ban a useful tool (business lunches and smart phones). They are much more concerned with the leakage of information from something as seemingly innocuous as 'siri, make a note' than they are with asking Siri how to do your job.
Re:Not CEO by bws111 · 2012-05-23 06:33 · Score: 1

Not really. The problem with a camera is not that it is a camera, it is that it can leak information. So you could take the approach 'no cameras allowed on property', but that would mean nobody could have a cell phone - not very popular. So instead you take the approach 'you can have a camera, but don't take pictures'. Same thing with other devices - the problem is not that they exist, it is that they can leak information. So you develop policies that allow the devices and all the benefits they provide, while at the same time preventing the leakage of information. This is especially important in a company that prides itself on innovation - the last thing you want to do is seem like a stodgy old company that is afraid to do anything different.
Re:Not CEO by Theophany · 2012-05-23 08:22 · Score: 1

I see your point and I know that it is valid - if you want somebody to do something in particular, you give them the illusion of choice rather than let them feel constricted, it is one of the oldest sales tricks in the book. But such freedom has unintended consequences, I am just of the opinion that if you can make a person feel like they're winning from your draconian policies then they're more likely to forget about that draconian bit.

For example, instead of a BYOD policy, I think that giving each employee their own smartphone (see: Blackberry) with a plan that the company pays for, no questions asked, has two benefits. One; the employee feels like they're getting a sweet deal - "hey, my company is paying me and they're paying my phone bill too!" and two; they're never able to escape work because their corporate email is always with them. This translates to laptops too - "hey, my company pays me and they gave me a pretty sweet computer too!" - which carries the same benefits.

But then, I'm of the belief that a company is a corporate entity with the express goal of turning a profit and minimising losses. All this touchy-feely shit you hear from the likes of Google like hackysack on a Friday afternoon and having really off-the-wall brainstorming sessions are a waste of company time. Yes. I am a massive square.
Re:Not CEO by bws111 · 2012-05-23 08:46 · Score: 1

If you read the interview, IBM is already giving 40000 employees Blackberrys. But there are 80000 other people who want to use their own devices. Being able to use your own device has advantages for both the employee and the company. The most obvious benefit to the employee is that they only have to carry one device. Sure, some people may be satisfied with a Blackberry, but many others will want something else, and if Blackberry is the only choice then they must carry two devices. If you have two devices, the one that will be always carried will probably not be the corporate one, so the company loses the 'always connected' benefit. And for the company, they get that 'never away from your corporate email' benefit without having to pay for another device.

The Cloud is a security hole. by couchslug · 2012-05-23 03:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

Water is also wet. Must be a slow news day.

--
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."

Re:The Cloud is a security hole. by Sarten-X · 2012-05-23 03:15 · Score: 1

The locks on your door are also a security hole. Did your company change the locks when they moved in? Maybe that locksmith who did the work made a spare "just in case you ever lock yourself out".
Any time you outsource any work to anybody, it's a security hole. A smart company would negotiate a contract mandating particular security procedures, and recourse if the requirements aren't met. If a contract can't be worked out, the outsourcing doesn't happen, period. Now, in many cases, the security procedures are "whatever" and the recourse is "I don't care", because there's really little concern if your family vacation pictures are leaked online, or if the world finds out you haven't called your mother in a year.
Disclaimer: I worked at a secure cloud provider doing data analysis. When asked, we could isolate each customer's data on a separate system, with its own set of employees who had access.

--
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Re:The Cloud is a security hole. by AdrianKemp · 2012-05-23 03:36 · Score: 1

Do people actually have locksmiths change the door locks on their houses? I mean if you've locked yourself out yeah, call one in... but to actually install a lock?
Re:The Cloud is a security hole. by brainstem · 2012-05-23 04:03 · Score: 1

Do people actually have locksmiths change the door locks on their houses? I mean if you've locked yourself out yeah, call one in... but to actually install a lock?
happens all the time at businesses. When was the last time you saw the head of accounting re-keying the front door of the office building at which you work?
Re:The Cloud is a security hole. by Sarten-X · 2012-05-23 04:31 · Score: 1

For a home, it depends on the lock and needs (Another disclaimer: I have a relative who installs and rekeys locks). If someone just wants a lock and a key, they can easily do it themselves. If they want one key to open several doors, some of which can be opened by another key that is the only one to open still other doors, that's probably going to need custom work.

--
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Re:The Cloud is a security hole. by Sarten-X · 2012-05-23 04:35 · Score: 1

The choices are to use a key (easy), pick the lock (time-consuming, requires skill, and may be embarrassing to the client), or drill out the plug (time-consuming and destructive).

--
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Re:The Cloud is a security hole. by phorm · 2012-05-23 04:47 · Score: 1

The cloud is a security hole. Some people get it. Some (likely most) people don't.
It's nice to see those that *do* get it. It shows an outbreak of common sense, critical thinking, and also gives me examples to provide to other people who are too trusting of today's technology...
Re:The Cloud is a security hole. by tlhIngan · 2012-05-23 04:52 · Score: 1

For a home, it depends on the lock and needs (Another disclaimer: I have a relative who installs and rekeys locks). If someone just wants a lock and a key, they can easily do it themselves. If they want one key to open several doors, some of which can be opened by another key that is the only one to open still other doors, that's probably going to need custom work.
Depends how you do it. If you want to physically change all the locks and don't care for the old, you can actually buy at Home Depot locks that use the same keycode and get a bunch of locks with the same keying. If you want to reuse the lock, then yes, you'd have to call in a locksmith to rekey your lock. Or if you have an odd door that uses a different key for whatever reason and want to make them all use the same key.
For new construction or replacing whole sets of locks they make locks with the same keying. Locksmith is only required if you don't want a new locks or just want to rekey a lock.
Multi-key locks will always require a locksmith, though. Especially if you want complex locking (one key can open doors A, B, C, and D, while another key can only do B, C and E). Though that's one reason everyone moved to electronic locks.
Re:The Cloud is a security hole. by X0563511 · 2012-05-23 05:49 · Score: 1

pick the lock (time-consuming, requires skill, and may be embarrassing to the client)
Only if they don't have the equivalent of a lock bump. Take bit drill thing, put in lock, pull trigger, open door.

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Re:The Cloud is a security hole. by Mister+Transistor · 2012-05-23 06:12 · Score: 2

Not all locks can be bumped. Particularly, Medeco (would have to bump 3 axes at once) and ACE (cylindrical tumbler type) types won't work with a standard bump gun. ACE can be picked with a different type of pick, Medeco are purportedly pick-proof (I'm not entirely convinced of that, though).

--
-- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
Re:The Cloud is a security hole. by Sarten-X · 2012-05-23 06:57 · Score: 1

Hence embarrassment... consider the client's surprise if anybody with an easily-purchased tool could just walk up, pull a trigger, and open the door.
Then consider the client's fury when they realize they've paid for a lock that doesn't actually secure anything...

--
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Re:The Cloud is a security hole. by mcgrew · 2012-05-23 07:42 · Score: 1

When I rekeyed the locks at my last house, I just took them to the locksmith while a friend watched my house for me. Took him five minutes and only cost about five bucks each (maybe less, it was a few years ago and my memory is fuzzy).
It would have been more expensive to buy new locks at Home Depot. The locksmith was worth the money!

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:The Cloud is a security hole. by couchslug · 2012-05-23 08:11 · Score: 1

"The locks on your door are also a security hole."
They are indeed. Most locks are vulnerable to simple exploits.
The best locks are often inconvenient to use, and integrated with special enclosures and doors.

--
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Re:The Cloud is a security hole. by AdrianKemp · 2012-05-23 11:17 · Score: 1

You need to learn to read.
Re:The Cloud is a security hole. by AdrianKemp · 2012-05-23 11:25 · Score: 1

Fair enough, I suppose it never really occurred to me to take them to anyone. I just buy the sets of tumblers/pins that let you rekey X locks the same (usually 5 or 10) yourself.
All the same, I do enjoy such things, and I'm sure many/most don't.

Sooo... by StefanWiesendanger · 2012-05-23 03:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

I guess they're about to ban Google and Bing too?

Re:Sooo... by MarkGriz · 2012-05-23 03:44 · Score: 1

Hope they shut down Watson too, before he becomes self-aware

--
Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
Re:Sooo... by mcgrew · 2012-05-23 07:32 · Score: 1

I know you're joking (at least I hope you are), but there are actually people who believe that a sentient electronic computer could become sentient. Really dumb IMO, sentience is a product of chemistry, not electricity, and we don't have a fucking clue what it is, what causes it, or how it works.
Asking anyone from the forseeable future to design a sentient computer is like asking a cro-magnon to design a cell phone. You have to know what a thing is and what it does and how it works to duplicate it.
The troubling (to me) thing is you can use trickery, especially with a computer that powerful, to create the illusion of sentience where none exists.
Anyone who takes you serious should read this.

--
Free Martian Whores!

How is that different from any search engine? by Karmashock · 2012-05-23 03:06 · Score: 2, Interesting

By this logic google, bing, etc would be security holes.

And given that IBM is marketing Watson which is basically a super computer version of Siri... how does any of this make any sense?

I honestly don't understand the worry here.

When I looked at this, I thought the initial worry might be that the phone was listening all the time and could be parsing real time conversations through the apple servers all the time. That is TECHNICALLY possible. My understanding of siri is that it only listens when you cue it.

I'm just tying to piece together what situation or insight lead IBM to have this worry? Possibly someone pocket dialed Siri, a sensitive conversation fed into siri, and siri responded to the conversation in context from someone's pocket? That would be spooky. But I don't really see it as a security hole especially since it's hard to pocket dial iphones. The slider tends to make that rare.

--
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.

Re:How is that different from any search engine? by Compaqt · 2012-05-23 03:11 · Score: 1

Took the words out of my mouth (hey, wait, are you Siri?!)

--
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
Re:How is that different from any search engine? by gweilo8888 · 2012-05-23 03:13 · Score: 3, Interesting

When you type a query into a search engine, it's fairly unlikely that somebody else's unrelated typed conversation will also be recorded and transmitted along with it. That's quite possible when using an audio-based search on a device with a sensitive microphone. Likewise as you note, it's unlikely that you'll accidentally type a conversation with your phone in your pocket, but pretty feasible that you'll accidentally record your own conversation.
Re:How is that different from any search engine? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-05-23 03:20 · Score: 1

My impression is that IBM is marketing Watson as 'basically a super computer version of Siri that the customer pays IBM old-school-mainframe money for the privilege of keeping on-site'...

Whether the sort of banal shit that Siri gets asked to handle most of the time is actually a risk or not, it does seem fairly likely that some level of mining and 'monetization' is being done, same as other search mechanisms(and even if it isn't now, disk is cheap and EULAs are flexible, so that could change retroactively).

Realistically(especially once you tie the user to a more-or-less not-spoofed-in-practice phone UUID, as Siri does), any of the contemporary search mechanisms do constitute a pretty significant 'side channel' into the user's activities, interests, and so forth. Their popularity suggests that most people don't know or don't care, and(so far, to the extent publicly known) their operators have confined themselves to generic advertising and rounding up the occasional dissident(rather than, say, attempting algorithmic insider trading based on analysis of search queries coming from different companies IP blocks....); but the theoretical capability can't be dismissed.

So, broadly, IBM's position is not false, even if it isn't clear whether it is operationally true anywhere. More narrowly, in terms of IBM's interests, a bunch of operators providing natural-language expert systems on cheap commodity gear paid for by advertising isn't clearly helpful to IBM's business model. A bunch of paranoid C-levels buying in-house IBM solutions, securely humming away on IBM iron behind locked doors and a legion of IBM integration consultants, on the other hand...
Re:How is that different from any search engine? by oldredlion · 2012-05-23 03:22 · Score: 1

so the idea is that competitors are using the information? That could explain something...
Scene: interior Siri Department
Apple Employee1: Hey! I've got a live one here.
Apple Employee2: Who is he and what's he asking?
Apple Employee1: It's someone from Microsoft, asking for ideas for creating their new desktop OS
Apple Employee2: . Alright, here's what we tell him to do...
Apple Employee1: Reckon he'll catch on?
Apple Employee2: Nah. At least, not before it's too late.
Re:How is that different from any search engine? by bws111 · 2012-05-23 03:22 · Score: 1

Siri can be used for stuff other than search. If you dictate an email using Siri, Apple now has your email, and not in a secure email system, but somewhere they can access it for their own purposes (like maybe providing answers to someone else's queries).
Re:How is that different from any search engine? by squiggleslash · 2012-05-23 03:23 · Score: 3, Informative

They probably are, but not to the same extent.
Siri differs in two crucial respects:
1. Bing and Google don't, by default, tie searches to an individual. (Yes, I know, they can, you can log in, and sometimes are already, but you can use both services with cookies turned off without problems.)
2. Siri searches your personal information. At least, that's what I figure from the ads. If Samuel L. Motherfucking Jackson can cancel his golf game by telling Siri to cancel it, then clearly Siri knows SLMFJ's schedule, amongst other things. Google and Bing, unless your business uses Office 365 or Google Apps (in which case...), only has limited personal information on you.
I'm not arguing they're not potential security holes, but they're not in the same ballpark as Siri. If you're talking to Siri all the time, in order to modify your work schedules, send emails, etc, then, well, you are passing much, much, more information to Apple.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:How is that different from any search engine? by nitehawk214 · 2012-05-23 03:30 · Score: 1

Except text messages don't require an immediate reply and leave a log of the conversation so it is easier to follow.
Wait, phones make a log of the conversation!? Ban those too!

--
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Re:How is that different from any search engine? by Baloroth · 2012-05-23 03:30 · Score: 1

Except that Google and Bing don't also have access to your address book (well, unless you use an Android and wear a tinfoil hat), and aren't generally used to write mails (well, unless you use Gmail/Hotmail, but I'm assuming IBM doesn't). Siri basically has access to everything on your phone, at least in theory. The exact data it collects is unknown, and probably perfectly innocent, but if you don't actually know, and cannot verify it, it is better to assume it is everything.
Even if Apple doesn't do anything with the data, their is very much a risk that data could be hacked, which could give the hackers access to every email, search, and potentially personal detail on your iPhone. That is a massive security hole.

--
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Re:How is that different from any search engine? by Baloroth · 2012-05-23 03:33 · Score: 1

Gah, I mean "...and aren't generally used to write emails" and "there is very much a risk..." I need more coffee.

--
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Re:How is that different from any search engine? by jdgeorge · 2012-05-23 03:39 · Score: 1

Well, not really. Siri isn't a player in the market for people who would want something like Watson any more than Google is.
Re:How is that different from any search engine? by Karmashock · 2012-05-23 03:51 · Score: 2

I think I can input a voice search into google if I want. Isn't there a little microphone next to the text box? Lets say I press that... then say something... what I said should roughly wind up in that search field. So... this is a larger problem assuming it's a problem at all which seems unlikely.

--
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Re:How is that different from any search engine? by bws111 · 2012-05-23 03:56 · Score: 4, Informative

Watson did NOT have speech recognition for the Jeopardy game (although it gave it's answers as speech). Watson has nothing to do with speech recognition at all.
Re:How is that different from any search engine? by Karmashock · 2012-05-23 03:58 · Score: 1

Ah, I agree with that problem.
Never mind then, that makes perfect sense.
Sounds like there needs to be an enterprise version of siri. Same basic thing just a segregated appliance somewhere that the company can nuke from orbit as required.
It's the only way to be sure.

--
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Re:How is that different from any search engine? by doston · 2012-05-23 04:10 · Score: 1

It's only hard to "pocket dial" if your phone is locked. But if you are texting someone back and forth, you're not going to lock your phone between every text.
Just to be clear, you do know that your phone is already capable of real time two way voice communication right?
This entire use case would not be a problem if it weren't for you idiots who'd rather send 20 text messages than make one call.
Yeah, the "one call" always turns into a 30 minute "how's things" session about *nothing* because of "idiots" who like to blather on the phone forever. That's why some people prefer text.
Re:How is that different from any search engine? by zlives · 2012-05-23 04:29 · Score: 1

new SiriBerry server?
Re:How is that different from any search engine? by Mister+Transistor · 2012-05-23 06:25 · Score: 1

I does in a kind of weird sense. It "recognizes" complex speech patterns (natural language) to analyze and produce an answer. It doesn't "recognize" sounds of speech (phonemes) and turn them into text to then analyze. I remember them saying it had some problems with puns and humor, they seemed to be the hardest language patterns for Watson to understand their underlying meanings.

--
-- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
Re:How is that different from any search engine? by Tarsir · 2012-05-23 09:30 · Score: 1

[It] does in a kind of weird sense.
No it doesn't.

It "recognizes" complex speech patterns (natural language) to analyze and produce an answer. It doesn't "recognize" sounds of speech (phonemes) and turn them into text to then analyze.
In Computer Science, speech recognition refers specifically to translating spoken words and sentences into text, so you have entirely contradicted yourself. Watson does parse the text of the clues; but that is sentence parsing, and has nothing to do with speech.
Re:How is that different from any search engine? by Mister+Transistor · 2012-05-23 11:31 · Score: 1

I haven't "contradicted" myself at all. You in fact support and echo my argument.
I just didn't use the proper term "parse" vs. "recognize", I now realize they are SO different, I should have known better!
Thanks for the pedantic correction, and for missing my point entirely. Well done, sir!

--
-- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
Re:How is that different from any search engine? by Tarsir · 2012-05-24 00:45 · Score: 1

Your error was not "parse" vs "recognize"; it was "speech" vs "text". Watson deals with text, not with speech. Parsing speech is quite difficult--it would require entirely different algorithms from what Watson already uses, introducing additional computation time and additional errors. The difference is not at all trivial.
Re:How is that different from any search engine? by Tarsir · 2012-05-24 01:07 · Score: 1

Here is a search of the ACL Anthology for Speech recognition. As you can see, the term is widely used by actual computer scientists. Linguistic Audio Parsing, by contrast, is a term you coined just now.
Converting speech to text does have some drawbacks, but it has many advantages as well. First among these is the ability to apply the vast amount of work which has been put into parsing and understanding text. Furthermore, there's no need to lose the additional information carried by tone and other speech patterns, you can simply annotate the text you produce with tags denoting, for example, sarcasm. The actual problem with translating speech to text then applying the usual sentence parsing algorithms is that spoken text and written text actually have distinct grammars. They are like different dialects of the same language.
Re:How is that different from any search engine? by Mister+Transistor · 2012-05-24 03:54 · Score: 1

Thank you!
That's what I said originally. Sheesh.

--
-- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --

Flaw with the "cloud" by cpu6502 · 2012-05-23 03:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

Finally someone recognizes that the "cloud" is a danger to security. It's understandable that IBM would not want Apple being aware of what their employees are working on.

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"

Re:Flaw with the "cloud" by ARTIKMONKEY11 · 2012-05-23 03:11 · Score: 1

Could not agree more. A shift in data sharing that large in that short of a time still has me much too wary to shift to the "cloud." Hoping for more developments! But as stated earlier by other comments, though it is storing data; it is no worse than almost every single search engine.

--
If the Doors of Perception were cleansed, everything would appear as it is. Infinite. -Aldous Huxley
Re:Flaw with the "cloud" by bws111 · 2012-05-23 03:31 · Score: 1

Siri can be used for more than search. You can use it just to dictate a little note to yourself. So a little note like 'remember to bring docs on project x to meeting with customer y' is now in the hands of Apple, who is free to use that data however they want.

Re:But make sure to buy our cloud offering! by binarylarry · 2012-05-23 03:06 · Score: 5, Funny

I hope she doesn't find out what her employees use Google for!

--
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!

Did they ban all search engines, too? by lstroud · 2012-05-23 03:07 · Score: 1

Hmmm, guess their iPhone users can't browse the internet since the only browser integrates google (and google stores every search). Wonder if they alo vet every app, block dns requests, and encrypt all phone traffic. :)

Sometimes well meaning corporate policies do really dumb things.

The tables will have turned. by FreedomOfThought · 2012-05-23 03:08 · Score: 4, Funny

Post-Ban of Siri

IBM Employee: "Siri?"
Siri:"Yes?"
IBM Employee: "Remind me to file for the patent on the [insert technology here], tomorrow."
Siri: "I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that."

Serious use for Siri? by acidradio · 2012-05-23 03:09 · Score: 1

Wait, there are people who actually use Siri for a serious business-related use? They don't just ask it dumb questions in attempt to get silly answers?

"Siri, will you marry me?"
"Siri, where can I hide a dead body?"
"Siri, ***k you!"
"Siri, what is your favorite color?"

That's the only use for Siri that I've been able to (and many of my friends for that matter) find.

Re:Serious use for Siri? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-05-23 03:26 · Score: 1

Siri, Siri, give me your answer do...
Re:Serious use for Siri? by R3d+M3rcury · 2012-05-23 07:52 · Score: 1

Siri and I have different opinions over what constitutes "Next Tuesday," so I don't use it that much, either.
That said, I did find a use for it: When I go biking, I like to know when the sun will set so I have an idea of when I have to be home. So if I ask Siri, "What time is sunset?" Siri will respond with "Sunset is at 7:17PM" or whenever sunset time is. Very handy.
That said, Siri is getting this information from the weather report. So you cannot ask, "What time was sunrise?" or "When will the sun set in Seattle next Thursday?" You'll get some response about the weather. Which is silly because (a) sunrise and sunset are not meteorological, they're astronomical and (b) sunrise and sunset can be calculated by knowing the date and the latitude and longitude, information which Siri has.
Re:Serious use for Siri? by LMacG · 2012-05-23 09:00 · Score: 1

Yes, but Siri exists in the cloud, and everybody knows that when it's cloudy, you can't see the sun.
This also explains why she is so sure it's raining when Zooey "I'm so Quirky" asks about it.

--
Slightly disreputable, albeit gregarious

Re:But make sure to buy our cloud offering! by cygnwolf · 2012-05-23 03:10 · Score: 2

Because, somehow, the fact that it was spoken and not typed makes it less secure...

--
Free Pie! The Pie is Also Evil!

iPhone Voice Recognition also uses cloud by Tangential · 2012-05-23 03:12 · Score: 2

The iPhone/iPad's regular voice recognition for diction (the mic on the virtual keyboard) isn't Siri but it also uses the cloud. On top of that, many apps and browsers store data in the cloud and not just iOS phones; Android, RIM and others store data on servers in the cloud. Seems like a pointless ban to me.

--
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain

Re:But make sure to buy our cloud offering! by cygnwolf · 2012-05-23 03:14 · Score: 5, Informative

Ok, replying to myself because I shot my mouth off without reading TFA....

For one, Siri can be used to write e-mails or text messages. So, in theory, Apple could be storing confidential IBM messages.

So it's stuff like this, that wouldn't be sent through Google or Bing, that she is concerned about. That actually makes a teensy, tiny grain of sense for a change...

--
Free Pie! The Pie is Also Evil!

Re:But make sure to buy our cloud offering! by bws111 · 2012-05-23 03:14 · Score: 4, Informative

Or maybe the fact that Apple knows WHO is doing the queries, and also that Siri collects a bunch of other stuff like names from your address book and 'other unspecified user data' makes it MUCH less secure.

why is network need for speech to text? by contrapunctus · 2012-05-23 03:16 · Score: 2

I don't understand why Siri has to use the cloud for speech to text. I had a samsung phone 6 years ago that could do this on the device itself with. I understand if the text part (after it's been converted) needs to be sent for analysis but the device certainly has enough processing speed to understand speech without a network...
I'm sure I'm missing something.

When I'm driving is when I really want to use Siri so I don't have to look at my phone and that it when it fails most (I'm not always on 3G areas).

Re:why is network need for speech to text? by ColdWetDog · 2012-05-23 03:26 · Score: 2

Because of the semantic processing. Takes quite a bit more horsepower.
It's the cool part of Siri. Mostly useless, but cool.
I'd tag the story 'Andnothingofvaluewaslost'

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!

Scheduling meetings by chenjeru · 2012-05-23 03:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

Before everyone chimes in about how you might as well ban Google and Bing too, I think that there is a valid security concern for using Siri when you consider that many people use it for making appointments. Search history is much easier to obfuscate. I can understand if IBM doesn't want Apple to know who it is having "top secret" meetings with.

--
Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there. - Will Rogers

Re:Scheduling meetings by 0100010001010011 · 2012-05-23 04:25 · Score: 1

If you want to see what Apple is parsing out and if the Government has a hand in it just start scheduling fun stuff.
'Siri, Skype call with Al Qaeda. 5 PM Afghanistan time'
'Siri, Reminder to purchase 1 ton of fertilizer.'
'Siri, Schedule President Obama's assassination for election day this year'
Or if you would prefer a different organization than the DHS.
'Siri, track package 0004202392389 5 lbs of Marijuana.'
* This may get you on a few lists. Try at your own digression.

Re:But make sure to buy our cloud offering! by aristotle-dude · 2012-05-23 03:19 · Score: 1

Or maybe the fact that Apple knows WHO is doing the queries, and also that Siri collects a bunch of other stuff like names from your address book and 'other unspecified user data' makes it MUCH less secure.

Uh, same with Android. Google knows everything you do.

--
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.

Do the "editors" even TRY? by sirwired · 2012-05-23 03:26 · Score: 1

Do the "editors" actually read the submissions before posting, or are they just slashcode administrators that happen to be in charge of the original website running the code?

Re:Do the "editors" even TRY? by b4dc0d3r · 2012-05-23 06:25 · Score: 1

No. There is a direct quote, and it is prefaced by "squiggleslash writes". There is no editing being done. Lower your expectations, and ask for editors, not copy and paste monkeys.
It makes no sense to complain about something that doesn't exist. Editors not doing their job is one thing, non-editors not editing is exactly correct.
Re:Do the "editors" even TRY? by squiggleslash · 2012-05-23 07:30 · Score: 1

Considering the subject line I submitted for this story was way more hysterical, I guess yes. I can't defend, as the submitter, the CEO/CIO thing, I screwed up there, and I'm not quire sure why because I still have the tab up and it clearly says "CIO".

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.

Domain knowledge by AliasMarlowe · 2012-05-23 03:28 · Score: 2

I asked Siri if she was spying on me for Apple. She said that she's not good with food.

It seems the domain knowledge in Siri is somewhat uneven. According to reports, if you ask Siri for a blow job, it will recommend escorts close to you. However, if you ask Siri to eat your pussy, it will recommend some nearby pet stores...

--
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire

Re:Domain knowledge by SGDarkKnight · 2012-05-23 06:09 · Score: 1

I once asked Siri where the closest tittybar was, it directed me to the nearest high school. I'm still not sure if that was a mistake or not....

--

...A no smoking section in a restaurant is like having a no peeing section in a swimming pool...

Re:But make sure to buy our cloud offering! by EvilBudMan · 2012-05-23 03:30 · Score: 1

Google in fact seems to have pretty good voice recognition. I have heard that Siri needs potty training where as Google's dog is trained for what I mostly use it for which is to do a search. Who knows about the security of that either?

Re:Clueless CEO trying to get media attention. by bws111 · 2012-05-23 03:53 · Score: 1

Let me guess, you didn't read TFA, and you sure as hell didn't read the interview referred to in TFA. The interview was about the challenges of allowing people to use their own devices for business use. The 'clueless' CIO (not CEO) was talking about ALL of the security challenges that causes, and one of the EXAMPLES she gave was Siri.

Re:IBM UBM WE ALL BM FOR IBM by Charliemopps · 2012-05-23 03:56 · Score: 4, Funny

IBM invents new things, clearly something Apples never been interested in. Good call.

Re:But make sure to buy our cloud offering! by DangerFace · 2012-05-23 04:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

Sorry, what? When I write an email or text on my Android the entire text gets sent to Google? Even if I decide not to send it? The issue is that, when using Siri, the full recording is sent back to Apple's servers where they perform processing. This could allow them to do spy stuff with what people falsely assumed was privat einformation, since a lot of people don't realise that anything you tell Siri you also tell Apple HQ.

Now, are Apple doing evil with what Siri sends them? Probably not. but when you're the CIO of a billion dollar tech company you probably don't want to base your company's technological future on "it's probably fine".

--
Be smart, help people!

That's the fun part by RobinH · 2012-05-23 04:12 · Score: 1

Whenever someone tries to show me how cool their Siri (or other similar Android app) voice recognition search is, I grab the phone and say, "Siri, how do you build a dirty bomb?" Then I explain that not only are all your Google searches logged, but so are your Siri queries because they have to go to the "cloud" to be processed. :)

--
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain

Re:But make sure to buy our cloud offering! by the_povinator · 2012-05-23 04:13 · Score: 2

I used to work for IBM and I recall that they used to disallow Skype. They had the particularly lame reason that "because Skype is not open-source, it is against our business strategy" or some such nonsense. [Yet they had no problem with Windows!].

--
The .sig is dead, and I believe I had a hand in killing it.

Apple should have named Siri .... by PPH · 2012-05-23 04:17 · Score: 1

... Christine.

--
Have gnu, will travel.

Re:Apple should have named Siri .... by cellocgw · 2012-05-23 04:49 · Score: 1

... Christine.

Darn. Until I checked your link, I thought you were going for a much more interesting http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085333/ girl.

--
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw

Re:But make sure to buy our cloud offering! by wile_e_wonka · 2012-05-23 04:19 · Score: 1

Do they also ban use of Gmail, etc., then?

When is Apple listening? by Animats · 2012-05-23 04:24 · Score: 1

Until this, few phones sent your audio to a third party. The telco had to have the audio stream, but they don't store it. Telcos are regulated in this area. Even for wiretaps, US telcos don't store audio; they forward it in real time to law enforcement or security agencies.

Then Apple comes along. It starts storing all your audio and recognizing as much of it as possible, escaping liability through a vague EULA. That has to be a concern. How do you know when it's listening? And will you know when Apple changes the rules to something like "we collect all your voice input to improve the quality of voice recognition"?

Re:When is Apple listening? by rsborg · 2012-05-23 10:23 · Score: 1

Until this, few phones sent your audio to a third party. The telco had to have the audio stream, but they don't store it. Telcos are regulated in this area. Even for wiretaps, US telcos don't store audio; they forward it in real time to law enforcement or security agencies.
Then Apple comes along. It starts storing all your audio and recognizing as much of it as possible, escaping liability through a vague EULA. That has to be a concern. How do you know when it's listening? And will you know when Apple changes the rules to something like "we collect all your voice input to improve the quality of voice recognition"?
So you're saying that Google Voice doesn't process the audio running over it's service? How would you know? It's been out for years.
What about Android voice input? Hell, even on the iPhone you had Dragon apps by Nuance to do search processing - both of these have been around for years and send voice data (over your data connection) to a remote server - they even send contact details to refine the analysis.
Your Apple-rant is unwarranted here.

--
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting

Re:But make sure to buy our cloud offering! by RoboRay · 2012-05-23 04:25 · Score: 3, Funny

But... Google's not evil. They said so!

Idiotic Bumbling Morons by Gordonjcp · 2012-05-23 04:27 · Score: 1

This would be the same IBM that banned *all* cameras from its Greenock site - not even allowed to be left in your car while you're at work. The ban also included forward-looking CCTV and reversing cameras in lorries, like the dozens of lorries that came to site every day.

Then they bought all the managers smartphones, with cameras.

Siri is NOT banned by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 04:33 · Score: 3, Interesting

This is factually incorrect.

IBM enforces a profile on iOS devices that requires an 8-character password with a 15 minute lock timeout, along with the Lotus Traveller package for push email, calendar and contacts.

Siri is not permitted unless the phone is unlocked, and is therefore unavailable from the lock screen.

It's THAT simple. Really.

It's Furby All Over Again! by ilikenwf · 2012-05-23 04:39 · Score: 2

Remember back in the 90's when Furby first came out, the Federal Government banned Furbies from entering the building to protect state secrets?

Via Wiki: "There was a common misconception that they repeated words that were said around them. This belief most likely stemmed from the fact that it is possible to have the Furby say certain pre-programmed words or phrases more often by petting it whenever it said these words. As a result of this myth, several intelligence agencies banned them from their offices."

Re:But make sure to buy our cloud offering! by adonoman · 2012-05-23 04:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

For sending internal messages? I would hope so! If my company has it's own internal, monitored, secured, approved, etc.. email set up, and I go and start doing all my work correspondance from a gmail account, I would assume that they would take issue with that. Likewise, if I started using Siri to dictate emails which were then sent over that corporate network.

just had a thought!! by zlives · 2012-05-23 04:40 · Score: 1

not gmail based account but
if I have a corporate email (active sync) on my droid or iPhone do either vendor scan that information? anyone know if the vendor policy specifically states that they do/do not. Not that they can't, of course they can.
almost missing my BB...

Siri by andy1307 · 2012-05-23 04:54 · Score: 1

Who's the CEO of IBM?

Siri: Virginia Tometty

then who the fuck is Jeanette Horan?

Siri: Ask the OP.

Is IBM Sirious? by yoctology · 2012-05-23 05:06 · Score: 1

Aren't all text queries to, for example, Google, stored for all time on Google servers? Further to the point, isn't all "private" Gmail stored for all time on Google servers, just waiting for a casual switch to shunt them to FBI analysis rooms for a quick laugh? In fact, who is to say that all traffic over the net isn't at least abstracted and kept for all time? Maybe this is why NSA requires a declassification of any machine "touching" the Internet in any matter?

Re:Is IBM Sirious? by psydeshow · 2012-05-23 05:58 · Score: 1

As pointed out elsewhere, Siri is used for much more than search queries.
A few things that Apple's Siri servers know about you, besides search:
- Email or text messages composed using speech to text
- Calendar appointments made or changed via Siri
- Call records when the call was initiated via Siri
The trove of data they are collecting (or, let's hope, ignoring) is not trivial, and companies that don't outsource to the cloud for security/privacy reasons are correct to be very concerned about how their employees are using their iPhones.

Re:IBM UBM WE ALL BM FOR IBM by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2012-05-23 05:24 · Score: 1

Mostly, they invent ways to stay embedded on a customer site.

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."

Ban all computers and all laptops by rullywowr · 2012-05-23 05:44 · Score: 1

While you are at it, you will want to go ahead and ban all computers and laptops that have a webcam and or sound card. Those evil webcams and sound cards "may" be used to record confidential company information.

Re:But make sure to buy our cloud offering! by Mc+Fly · 2012-05-23 06:50 · Score: 2

I really hope you are trolling, I also used to work there. They have a very legitimate reason to disallow Skype... it is a P2P application with supernodes, and it has already been shown that if you have a supernode, you could sniff some information about the calls. Therefore, your competitors could be running supernodes and sniffing information. Now that Skype is owned by Microsoft, their concerns are really valid..

--
He is the Path, the Truth and the Life

Re:But make sure to buy our cloud offering! by R3d+M3rcury · 2012-05-23 07:15 · Score: 1

Now, are Apple doing evil with what Siri sends them? Probably not.

Especially when you're dealing with human beings.

Suppose there's some hiccup in Siri's speech analysis. As a developer, I will probably try to reproduce the problem. So if I get the audio from the customer that causes the problem and the audio happens to be, "IBM Announces Breakthrough in Quantum Computing" or something like that. Presto! There's the leak right there! Even if the information is "anonymized," such that you can't tell who it came from, the content makes it very clear.

Also, consider this bit of the EULA:

By using Siri, you agree and consent to Apple’s and its subsidiaries’ and agents’ transmission, collection, maintenance, processing, and use of this information, including your voice input [...]

Imagine what happens when, someday, Apple creates APIs so that third-party developers can get this information?

Re:But make sure to buy our cloud offering! by Tharsman · 2012-05-23 08:36 · Score: 1

This is just a stunt. This is the second article from IBM CIO I read today with him trying to scare people of allowing Apple devices in the workplace. Fear mongering, that's all it is.

Re:But make sure to buy our cloud offering! by Tharsman · 2012-05-23 08:38 · Score: 1

Sorry, what? When I write an email or text on my Android the entire text gets sent to Google? Even if I decide not to send it?

Unless you disabled automated draft saving... yea.

Re:But make sure to buy our cloud offering! by lachlan76 · 2012-05-23 09:39 · Score: 2

The real reason is probably that in the past, if it realised that you were on a fast connection, it would turn into a supernode and use gigantic quantities of bandwidth.

Re:But make sure to buy our cloud offering! by aristotle-dude · 2012-05-23 10:08 · Score: 1

Sorry, what? When I write an email or text on my Android the entire text gets sent to Google? Even if I decide not to send it?

That would depend on what your settings were for your gmail account. By default, iCloud email settings have drafts stored on the IMAP server but you can set the drafts folder to reside on your iPhone but then you defeat the purpose of IMAP which is to use your client as a cache for what is on the server. If you use the Google voice recognition features to dictate an email or text on your Android device then, yes, the entire text will be stored on Google servers regardless of whether you decide to send it.

The issue is that, when using Siri, the full recording is sent back to Apple's servers where they perform processing. This could allow them to do spy stuff with what people falsely assumed was privat einformation, since a lot of people don't realise that anything you tell Siri you also tell Apple HQ.

Now, are Apple doing evil with what Siri sends them? Probably not. but when you're the CIO of a billion dollar tech company you probably don't want to base your company's technological future on "it's probably fine".

Voice dictation software on Android does the same thing. It will have to store that text on their servers for a period of time regardless of whether you send the message or whether or not you have configured your IMAP or exchange account to store drafts on the server.

Don't forget that Google is an advertising company and they have openly admitted to scanning gmail for keywords for targeted ads.

--
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.

Re:But make sure to buy our cloud offering! by rsborg · 2012-05-23 10:25 · Score: 1

Ok, replying to myself because I shot my mouth off without reading TFA....

For one, Siri can be used to write e-mails or text messages. So, in theory, Apple could be storing confidential IBM messages.

So it's stuff like this, that wouldn't be sent through Google or Bing, that she is concerned about. That actually makes a teensy, tiny grain of sense for a change...

But you could have done the same with Android speech input or the Nuance Dragon iPhone app.

--
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting

Re:But make sure to buy our cloud offering! by St.Creed · 2012-05-23 10:28 · Score: 1

For clients demanding confidentiality, I have a public key on my website that I tell them to install and we exchange encrypted messages. I'm pretty sure GMail can't do much with those messages. But IBM uses Lotus Domino and they frown (big time) upon the use of unauthorized software. I would not want to be caught using Gmail by my boss if I were still working for IBM.

--
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)

Re:But make sure to buy our cloud offering! by St.Creed · 2012-05-23 10:30 · Score: 1

Actually, it's probably because IBM may be doing stuff like this themselves and so are aware of this happening, that they have this warning out. Philips sesearch employees are banned from using IBM's patent search applications for a good reason...

--
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)

Re:But make sure to buy our cloud offering! by cammoblammo · 2012-05-23 11:40 · Score: 1

But IBM uses Lotus Domino and they frown (big time) upon the use of unauthorized software. I would not want to be caught using Gmail by my boss if I were still working for IBM.

Heh. My workplace uses Lotus Domino, and it's the main reason I use gmail at work.

--

Cogito, ergo sig.

Re:Certainly makes sense to ban Google and Bing by jc42 · 2012-05-23 12:48 · Score: 1

The fact that 99% of the world thinks that the cloud is safe doesn't make it so.

So do you have a few good references for this claim? Most of the people I know seem to think that "the Cloud" means giving over all your personal data to a faceless, distant corporation. Of course, I don't know anywhere near 99% of the world, or even 1%, and I wouldn't claim that my small population of acquaintances is anywhere near a random sample.

Still, I've occasionally asked friends and strangers something like "Would you copy all your personal data, account numbers, passwords, etc., to a Cloud server?", and the general response can be summarized as "How stupid do you think I am?" ;-)

--
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.

Re:Siri is always listening! by jc42 · 2012-05-23 13:49 · Score: 1

Heh. I've had fun with a few friends who showed off their Siri's behavior. I'd ask them if they can turn it off. They'd do so, and I'd ask "How do you know that it's actually turned off?" Typically, they'd turn off the phone, and I'd ask "How do you know that it's actually off, and not listening right now? But by then, they'll typically get really mad at me. ;-)

Actually, I have a Android phone in my pocket, and I don't know if I could actually verify that it's not listening and sending sound from my environment (or my location) to some remote database. Yes, I have a terminal emulator installed, and I can run a ps command. But I know that ps typically has options to show or not show various subsets of the running processes. I don't have the source for my phone company's version of ps, so while I can show that certain programs are running, I can't actually prove that any particular program isn't running.

Of course, the phone companies are all open and honest about such things, right? They wouldn't monitor us without telling us, would they? ;-)

--
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.

Re:But make sure to buy our cloud offering! by dudpixel · 2012-05-23 16:41 · Score: 1

I dont think the GP was thinking of Gmail.

If you're using a non-gmail email client on your phone then no, Google wont receive any part of the message, even if you send it.

unless i'm mistaken...anyone know what gets backed up to Google if you enable automatic remote backup?

--
This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.

Re:But make sure to buy our cloud offering! by Audguy · 2012-05-23 18:04 · Score: 1

I have heard that Siri needs potty training

then you heard wrong, works right out of the box. You may want to give it some information, like who your husband or wife is though.

Re:But make sure to buy our cloud offering! by EvilBudMan · 2012-05-24 04:41 · Score: 1

Really, it must be my southern accent then. I've just hear so much of a big deal about this when Google has has voice recon for a long time and before that Motorola.

Slashdot Mirror

Worried About Information Leaks, IBM Bans Siri

114 of 168 comments (clear)