
Silicon Valley Is Listening to Your Most Intimate Moments - elsewhen
https://www.bloombergquint.com/bq-blue-exclusive/silicon-valley-got-millions-to-let-siri-and-alexa-listen-in
======
3xblah

       curl https://www.bloombergquint.com/amp/bq-blue-exclusive/silicon-valley-got-millions-to-let-siri-and-alexa-listen-in |sed -n 'N;/story-element-text">/p' > a.htm
    
       firefox a.htm
    

Replace "firefox" with any browser that can process basic HTML. No Javascript
or CSS needed.

~~~
markwakeford
You can also just disable javascript for the website.

~~~
3xblah
Unfortunately, the popular graphical browsers AFAIK do not allow the user to
disable CSS. Other news sites that use AMP, such as WSJ, use CSS as well as
Javascript to annoy the user. Disabling Javascript is not enough. It is
possible to remove the offensive CSS from a page through the browser's
developer console, developer tools, etc. but at that point we may as well use
a browser extension.

Here is a filter for WSJ.

    
    
       sed -n '/<article/,/<\/article/{/./{/<h1/,/<\/h1>/p;};/<title>/,/<\/title>/p;/./{/<p>[^<]*/,/<\/p>/p;};}' a.htm

------
jedberg
I guess having done AI and security for 20 years means none of this fazes me.

Of course they record what you say, and of course a human is listening to it.
How else would they train their models?

I also believe Amazon when they say that it isn't recording unless the blue
light is on, and that only comes on when it thinks you said "Alexa".

I mute the device when I'm having a private conversation. If it activates
otherwise, I'm pretty aware of that.

I guess it just doesn't really bother me. I have a pretty good idea of what
it's recording.

~~~
fabrice_d
Do you also have a good idea of what is recorded when you're at someone else
place? Do you ask them to mute their devices?

~~~
utopian3
Do you ask people to turn off their smartphones when you’re at their house? Or
at dinner? Or in public?

~~~
dredmorbius
That is a practice adopted by some, yes.

~~~
utopian3
Are you speculating here, or is this something you’ve observed?

------
manishsharan
Remember when you could buy bluetooth speakers that you could listen to
without the speaker listening to you ?

Nowadays everyone of my friends has a alexa or google speakers which sound
shitty compared to real speakers and they spy on our conversations. For what ?
to turn the fucking lights on or play a tune on demand? those lazy dumbasses
cant be bothered to get off their butt to turn the lights on ? If only I had
privacy conscious friends.

~~~
BLKNSLVR
So much of the current "home automation" products appear to me to be more
parlour tricks than actual automation. Having to ask for something to happen
is such a high technological cost for such a tiny change in convenience in the
age of already being able to remote control a bunch of stuff with your phone.

There are actual proper home automation products out there, and some of them
can interface via these privacy invading microphones masquerading as speakers,
but the microphones themselves aren't "home automation" by any useful
definition, they're just another alternative remote control.

I wonder if they use the term "smart speaker" because "microphone" just brings
up thoughts of Banksy artwork?

~~~
asdff
The real rub is there's hardly any incentive to make things play nice with
eachother for a while. You buy a garage door opener, it works for 30 years.
You get one that can interface with your smart speaker, and both are
unsupported in a few years.

You end up paying far more, way more often, for something vaguely more
convenient than the old method. A clap light.

On the flip side, with the expansion of IoT comes creativity for people
willing to tinker. We are pretty lucky to have resources like github,
raspberry pi, self hosted services, just options from the mainstream consumer
ad spam crap if you are willing to stick your head under the hood.

------
drewcon
Serious question. Why is Alexa on an Echo different than Siri on a phone?
Seems like there is clear outrage about “surveillance economy listening
devices” (from some members of this community) when they’re in your kitchen
but not your pocket? Why is that different?

~~~
mirimir
It's not that different. Especially for third parties, who don't control the
device.

When in others' homes, I typically ask whether there are listening devices.
And if so, I request that they be disconnected. And if the host declines, I
may leave -- or at least say nothing consequential.

My wife's phone is on 24/7 and almost always within easy reach. So I never say
anything consequential, unless it's been moved to the utility closet. Lots of
fan noise there.

Edit: From [https://blog.cyberwar.nl/2016/02/some-elements-of-
intelligen...](https://blog.cyberwar.nl/2016/02/some-elements-of-intelligence-
work-73-rules-of-spycraft-allen-dulles-1960s/)

> 17\. The greatest material curse to the profession, despite all its
> advantages, is undoubtedly the telephone. It is a constant source of
> temptation to slackness. And even if you do not use it carelessly yourself,
> the other fellow, very often will, so in any case, warn him. Always act on
> the principle that every conversation is listened to, that a call may always
> give the enemy a line. Naturally, always unplug during confidential
> conversations. Even better is it to have no phone in your room, or else have
> it in a box or cupboard.

~~~
tommit
See, although I can't really identify with your attitude, I can respect it
because you seems to _really_ care about it and are thorough about it.

What I really cannot stand are the people that will complain about an Alexa
being in the room, while at the same time posting three Instagram stories a
day, having their phone assistant listening constantly, maybe played around
with tik tok ... at that point, you really don't care about privacy, you're
just cherry picking. I think a large part of it stems from the fact that a
"always listening smart speaker" is something where even the most
technologically inept can add two and two together and figure out how it could
be "used against you" so to speak. That their phone could technically be doing
the same thing, and that throwing massive amounts of personal data at Facebook
willingly could lead to similar privacy concerns, doesn't even cross their
minds.

~~~
mirimir
Hey :)

Many experiences drive my attitude.

Back in the 60s-70s, I was a casual LSD dealer. So I learned the importance of
discretion.

And in my last career, I analyzed various sorts of data discovery for
plaintiffs' firms and attorneys general. Everything from email and
spreadsheets to enterprise "mainframe" datasets. So I learned the methodology
of discovery. Piecing together bits of evidence, following leads, identifying
people to depose, and so on.

But yeah, I'm thorough about it.

It's also a hobby. And something of a demonstration, and the occasional
consulting gig.

------
louis_pasteur
"I have nothing to hide wizo geeko, here take this middle finger" is the
answer we get when we try to inform people about privacy. Even large scale
privacy breaches of sensitive information have had no impact on people's
privacy awareness.

~~~
steveeq1
Whenever they say that, ask them how much money they made last year. When they
say "no" ask, "why, do you have anything to hide?".

------
aSplash0fDerp
For those old enough to have heard stories about party line telephone usage,
this appears to be the modern version.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_line_(telephony)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_line_\(telephony\))

As someone mentioned, the money is in localizing many of the cloud services..
Or the modern version of shrink-wrap software, which removes the whole "you're
the product" profit motive.

For the casual observer, the ongoing drama of merging your wallet, personal
diary, communications, plus other activities and oozing metadata 24/7 is just
too tempting for strangers. All of that money for nothing is high stakes
nowadays. Caveat emptor...

------
squidgy
Interesting that in a marketplace where seemingly all home speakers on offer
have voice assist, Sonos' newest small speaker, the Sonos One SL, is described
as "Microphone-free".

~~~
sfRattan
I chuckle at a 'reassurance' like that one. Mechanically, a speaker is a
poorly optimized microphone and a microphone is a poorly optimized speaker.[1]

I don't doubt there are people working for most major governments'
intelligence departments who can use malicious software to facilitate
listening through a computer connected speaker when surveilling a target (even
if that speaker doesn't have an integrated microphone, in a very literal sense
_it is a microphone_ ).

[1] [https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/154343/can-a-
sp...](https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/154343/can-a-speaker-be-
used-as-a-microphone)

 _Edit: precision of language_

~~~
IshKebab
This is paranoid nonsense. Sure a speaker can be used as a _very bad_
microphone. But only if you plug it into a microphone input! Are government
agents going to break into your house and rewire your smart speaker? Of course
not.

~~~
sfRattan
The words I wrote were _computer connected speaker._ So, yes, plugged-into-a-
computer is what I was talking about. Thanks for the further reassurance that
government agents won't break into my home, but that wasn't what I was
suggesting. It's a non sequitur and a straw man.

Government agenties are more likely to, for example, expand on publicly
available research that uses malicious software and audio I/O built into (or
connected to) computers to remotely access air gapped computers.[1] And, if
it's possible to write a network protocol that runs over low quality mics and
speakers up to 65ft apart, it doesn't sound unreasonable to similarly hack up
audio drivers such that a speaker can function as a microphone for the
purposes of espionage, _without anyone breaking down your door or rewiring
anything_. Spies don't have to convince a jury with the intelligence/evidence
they gather, so low quality can often be good enough.

Of course, an attempt to aggregate the compromising of countless bespoke
proprietary audio drivers and operating system versions doesn't scale at
all... Which is why I used the wording _when surveilling a target_ and not
_when surveilling speakers everywhere_. That latter claim would indeed be
paranoid nonsense. Which is why I didn't make it.

As in, a government is surveilling a particular person or building, has
compromised this a nearby computer remotely, but the computer has no
microphone. If there's a connected speaker (or even an integrated speaker on
the motherboard), deliver a payload that messes with the audio drivers to see
what you can hear using the speaker.

[1]
[http://www.jocm.us/uploadfile/2013/1125/20131125103803901.pd...](http://www.jocm.us/uploadfile/2013/1125/20131125103803901.pdf)

------
shadowprofile77
Not mine. For those stupid or simply indifferent enough to have one of these
spying, revolting, idiotically vapid machines in their home and always on,
possibly. Better to not even keep a cell phone nearby for really private
moments and conversations.

------
willis936
Can I get a pastebin link?

~~~
krackers
I believe this is the same article, non-paywalled:
[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-12-11/silicon-v...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-12-11/silicon-
valley-got-millions-to-let-siri-and-alexa-listen-in)

------
cryptozeus
I just sold my google home mini for $10...never trusting these devices inside
my home anymore

~~~
tekstar
What changed? As in, what made you think they were okay and then realize they
were not?

~~~
blaser-waffle
Like, did parent think "well, google has a great reputation at avoiding data
mining, so let's go with them!"

------
kirillzubovsky
If we are to get technical, Silicon Valley is not listening to your secret,
workers in the rest of the country are.

~~~
jonny_eh
And those workers don't know you.

------
rickncliff
It's unfortunate that this almarmist technophobic slant is considered worthy
journalism.

~~~
mirimir
If they did the voice recognition locally, there wouldn't be a privacy issue.
And that would arguably be far cooler technology.

~~~
tomc1985
Exactly. Cloud-powered voice assistants are thoroughly uninteresting and a
huge privacy concern. Local, 100% in-device processing should be the future
and if that were the case this link would indeed be "alarmist"

------
blackflame
HA! Jokes on them! I don’t have any! Wait...

