Burger King Runs Ad Triggering Google Home Devices; Google Shuts It Down (theverge.com)

Burger King unveiled a new advertisement earlier today designed to trigger users' Google Home devices. The ad specifically used the Google Home trigger phrase "Okay, Google" to ask "What is the Whopper burger?," thus triggering the Google Assistant to read off the top result from Wikipedia. But less than three hours after Burger King launched the ad, Google disabled the functionality. The Verge reports: As of 2:45PM ET, Google Home will no longer respond when prompted by the specific Burger King commercial that asks "What is the Whopper burger?" It does, however, still respond with the top result from Wikipedia when someone else (i.e., a real user) other than the advertisement asks the same question. Google has likely registered the sound clip from the ad to disable unwanted Home triggers, as it does with its own Google Home commercials.

Comments

Fuck you Google!

[Anonymous Coward]

I wanted to hear more about this "Whopper" burger! What are you trying to hide Google???

1984 CFAA violation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't this basically a blatant violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse act? What if a small timer had done this and not a mega corporation?

Re:1984 CFAA violation?

[LesFerg]

Isn't this basically a blatant violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse act? What if a small timer had done this and not a mega corporation?

Essentially it is an act of accessing a computer system belonging to somebody else, without their permission. I imagine the legal description of hacking could be stretched around this well enough to take it to court in a country like the US where litigation rules.

Re:1984 CFAA violation?

[phantomfive]

You're probably right, but I would have responded by linking it to a Big Mac

Re: 1984 CFAA violation?

[DamonHD]

Oblig: https://xkcd.com/1807/

Nice Play

[jwhyche]

I'm glad google shut this down, but I have to admit I'm rather impressed with Burger King on this one. Nicely played.

Re:Nice Play

[Anonymous Coward]

Google should have played back by pushing something like this to the top of the result list, and having Assistant read out the first paragraph from there.

Re:Nice Play

[msauve]

Rather than shut it down, Google should have simply changed the response to something on the order of "The Whopper is a big bunch of tasty calories, but doesn't provide good nutrition. If that's what you want, you should consider a burger from McDonald's, Wendy's, Sonic, or some other brand, which although no better nutritionally, isn't trying to play weird games with its advertising."

Re:Nice Play

[Anonymous Coward]

...although leaving it as Wikipedia would probably have been more effective at warning advertisers off this tactic.

However, prior to the ad's premiere, the article had been modified by a user allegedly tied to the company, so that Google's automatically-generated response to the query would be a detailed description of the Whopper burger that utilized promotional language. The edits were reverted for violating Wikipedia's policies discouraging "shameless self-promotion". Furthermore, the snippet became the target of vandalism, which caused Google Home to read off statements suggesting that the sandwich's ingredients included "rat meat", "toenail clippings", and a "medium-sized child".

Re:Nice Play

[darthsilun]

from the article: ... its high amount of fat, cholesterol and sodium makes it an unhealthy food...

Well, not to defend Burger King (and a bit off topic), but if you're getting the appropriate amount of exercise your body won't metabolize the fat and cholesterol, and the original research that claimed salt is bad for you was flawed (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/its-time-to-end-the-war-on-salt/); posting this kind of counter attack could be considered – by some – as misguided. Then again, most people don't get sufficient exercise and the fat and cholesterol is bad for them.

It wasn't uncommon in the early days of the web for people to shift the bandwidth load of their websites by linking to content on other people's web servers. When those other people figured out this was happening to them, they would replace the content with something else that the bandwidth "thief" didn't intend, e.g. smut, much to the bandwidth thief's embarrassment.

A better counter attack, IMO, would have been to replace the content Burger King was expecting with something else, e.g. an audio clip of Meg Ryan's faux orgasm from "When Harry Met Sally" or a clip of HAL saying "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that."

Re:Nice Play

[msauve]

A better reply would be "I'm sorry , I don't understand the question."

Why would Google beg to get sued by Apple for copying Siri?

Re:Nice Play

[meglon]

See, now if it was Wendy's that came up with the add, the better response would have been "I'm sorry Dave, i can't do that."

CueCat all over again

[Red_Chaos1]

The company that made the CueCat wanted to be able to do just this eventually. When I worked at Radio Shack in the early 00's we gave these stupid things away. Information coming down the pipeline said they eventually intended to make a device that connected to the PC and would respond to audio cues in advertisement on TV and open a browser to the product page. At the time it sounded retarded, like, "who the fuck would want such a thing?" Laugh's on me I guess, everyone wants an Echo or Home now.

Re:CueCat all over again

[93 Escort Wagon]

Laugh's on me I guess, everyone wants an Echo or Home now.

"Everyone wants an Echo" isn't the same thing as "Everyone wants a device that can be manipulated by an advertisement in a movie, TV show, or web video".

Disclaimer: I have no desire to purchase either an Echo or a Home - I just don't see any significant advantage to owning them, while I do see a lot of potential disadvantages.

Re:CueCat all over again

[rtb61]

You kind of should belittle people who want that shit it it's current state, in opposition to the marketing that tells them they are special if they buy that shit. Counter marketing is fair and reasonable in today's market place. Purposeful hacking by Burger King, well, technically it is a computer crime, although the bar for security is exceedingly low, they still did intentionally hack and abuse a computer network, that network being between the consumer and Google, this done in order to steal advertisement time worth millions of dollars. So really quite naughty and a criminal offence, technically.

Re: CueCat all over again

[vux984]

You can say, "Alexa, goodnight," and all the lights turn off, the tv turns off, any electronics turn off, the AC adjusts, and Alexa makes sure the doors are locked and reports their state.

And then you change your wifi password and spend 3 days chasing down random things you forgot about.

Then the over priced door lock breaks, and you don't even notice for 3 months. It mean... it says it was locking and unlockng but the bolt wasn't moving.

Then some sensor flakes out and turns your heat off. And worse, you turn it on manually... and then it promptly gets signaled to turn off a few seconds later. And your not home... and your wife has to unplug the nest to stop it from shutting the heat off until you can get home to figure out what is wrong.

Meanwhile the asshole kids next door figured out how to take remote control of your smart TV...

While watching tv, you can use Alexa to pause, play, skip forward/backward, and change the volume, etc.

Unless you turn it up to high by accident and Alexa can't hear you telling it to turn it back down.

You can have home presets, where you can say, "Alexa, it's party time," and all the Hue lights set their colors and brightness, the AC turns adjusts, party music fills the house, and all the TV's in the house turn on and tune in various sports channels.

And then your son storms upstairs pissed that you screwed up his guild raid with your bullshit ... again.

With Alexa, you can control anything the Logitech Harmony Elite can control. So, anything with IR and many WIFI controlled devices.

Yeah, I have one of those. I love it. But its also pretty fallible. It'll end up on the wrong TV input, it'll get its states mixed up 'toggle power' on the wrong thing or put the HTPC which was awake to sleep when i select it. No big deal, tap tap tap... problem fixed. I really don't want to talk to it... or have 3 people in the room all trying to fix it by issuing voice commands.

Once you can trigger events across your home with your voice and not just turn on a light, you just can't go back.

Yeah, lets come back to this one.

You can have home presets, where you can say, "Alexa, it's party time," and all the Hue lights set their colors and brightness, the AC turns adjusts, party music fills the house, and all the TV's in the house turn on and tune in various sports channels.

I pretty much guarantee you that you spent more time setting that mode up, then I'd ever get back using it.

And THAT is where home automation is at. Its a great toy for the person who WANTS to play with it; who enjoys spending hours setting up programs they'll only use twice. Who enjoys debugging all the glitches. Who's ok when a power surge blows $500 worth of smart light bulbs. Who doesn't mind doing a firmware upgrade on his front door lock.

But for the average person, no, its not like caller id. Caller id is simple and just works. And when it fails, it just says unknown number and you have to pick up the call to find out who it is or let it go to voice mail. Home automation is a rube-goldberg machine that is a lot of fun if you like building and maintaining rube goldberg machines -- but its not practical and it frequently fails in pretty spectacular ways.

Shouldn't the title read....

[thegrassyknowl]

... "Malicious attackers in Burger King's advertising department use vulnerability in Google home to make it do stuff its owner didn't request".

It's a bit rich to call it an ad and chuckle about.

It's a lot scary that it's possible for a remote attacker to ask these devices en masse to do something with nothing more than a broadcast ad. For now it was reading a wikipedia page. What happens when scumvertisers and other malicious adversaries figure out a way to make it spend money without your consent? Or to report to them that you have heard the ad, or worse.

Re:Shouldn't the title read....

[The MAZZTer]

Google can already do strict voice recognition, so I expect in the near future newer devices will have this enabled all the time by default to prevent things like this... also, so they can tie queries to specific people for data mining purposes, of course.