Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Google’s argument is that the audio they store is non-private and non-personally identifiable. So this statement doesn’t make sense:

> We just learned that one of these language reviewers has violated our data security policies by leaking confidential Dutch audio data.

Isn’t the whole point that the audio is supposed to be innocuous? “Hey google, play Coldplay” or “Hey google, play Taylor Swift.” If that’s the only audio that Google stores, then there should be no problem with leaking it to the press.

But it isn’t, which is what the translator was trying to show in the first place!

I believe this is the article that they're referring to: https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/en/2019/07/10/google-employees-are... Basically after listening to a bunch of audio, the reporters found some where the device had turned on but recorded identifiable information. Also Google would consider any audio to be confidential even is the material in it is innocuous.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact