Does Google listen in on your life?
“Google retains a copy of the recordings to improve its software. The company is trying to be the opposite of sneaky. It provides a detailed history of every recording it has on the user’s “My Activity” web page.
Each recording or set of recordings is presented on its own card.
The recordings are listed by date and service (for example, “Assistant,” “Google App” or “google.com.” On the left you can see the text version of your command, which is a link that, when clicked on, takes you to Google Search results for those words. On the right you’ll find a “play” button, so you can listen to each recording. A “more options” menu on the top right of each card enables you to delete any recording.
It’s unlikely for a recording to happen by accident. From a phone, for example, the phone must be unlocked and the recording begun by specific user action, such as pressing the icon. On a Pixel phone, the user can set up automatic listening mode by changing the default in settings to enable the “Trusted Voice” setting. That makes the phone listen for the “OK Google” command…”
Learn more from Mike Elgan:
https://www.computerworld.com/article/3149085/search/does-google-listen-in-on-your-life.html
#AI #Google #OkGoogle #GoogleHome #Computer #Microphone
https://www.computerworld.com/article/3149085/search/does-google-listen-in-on-your-life.html
You are “trusting” an international corporation who’s primary motivation is, was, and always will be: Profit. Trusting Google is the act of an idiot. They have given you countless reasons not to trust them.
Jake Weisz Name a few.
I don’t need to play the game where I point out several places they acted unethically, immorally, and/or criminally, for you to find reasons to justify or excuse their conduct. They’re closer to a criminal organization than a company, and they’ve moved the goalposts of their ethical standards over, and over, and over again.
All you need to see is this: infolab.stanford.edu – The Anatomy of a Search Engine
“But we believe the issue of advertising causes enough mixed incentives that it is crucial to have a competitive search engine that is transparent and in the academic realm.” – Larry Page and Sergey Brin, back when they were human beings. The Larry Page and Sergey Brin of 1998 would be ashamed of who they are today.
Larry Page and Sergey Brin didn’t believe there was any way to reconcile an ad business with ethical search, and they believed a search engine which was transparent and open in how it found results was required.
Google is neither.
Instead you use unspecific sweeping accusations that cannot be refuted. That’s trolling, and I have had enough of it.
Sure, find some facts you can’t refute, so you accuse the person of trolling. Stick your head in the sand. That is, unfortunately, a very human behavior.
What fact? The fact that Google’s search algorithms today are different from the simplistic ones outlined near 20 years ago? Should that be surprising or a reason for outrage?
How about the fact that there is a continuous battle between the search engine designers and the SEOs that are looking for ways to game every new algorithm change.
Should Bing / Google / operate under the goodness of their hearts on a no-profit basis, and let the SEOs bring their shit to the top of the results?
In what way does Google do search differently from the alternative engines?
Suggesting that corrupting their basic moral principles about ad-based revenue or the fact that they believed in transparency but made their algorithm secret is because they’re less “simplistic” is the sort of disingenuous justification I’m speaking of.
Assuming you could invent the perfect ingamable algorithm, I would support your argument. Reality isn’t quite like that.
That’s not really adequate justification for concealing a system that is responsible for massive influence on worldwide opinion and business interest.
You didn’t answer my question about the difference between Google and the other search engines?
Other search engines aren’t a monopoly.
Speaking of other companies, let me ask you a question. In the history of the planet, have any other giant international corporations ever been “trustworthy”?
What is the realistic likelihood that Google is the first trustworthy corporation in history? Compared to the likelihood that you’re simply wrong to trust them.
I deem them by how they have treated me and my personal info.
Facebook: fail
Yahoo: mostly fail
IBM: mostly pass
Microsoft: mostly pass
Google: pass
“Other search engines are not a monopoly” – You don’t see a logical flaw here?
Lars Fosdal Microsoft’s new introduction of telemetry features don’t bother you at all? But the point is, corporations are not trustworthy as a general sense. There’s two major reasons for this.
1. Corporations are not people, and the people in corporations change. They may do things one way one year, and another way the next. There is no way to ensure a stable level of trustworthiness of a corporate entity.
2. Corporations exists solely for the goal of creating profit. If there is anything you could trust about corporations, that would be it. Therefore, any idea of a company doing right by you as an individual only remains as long as it is the most profitable option to do so. The moment it isn’t, they won’t.
Even if for some reason you believe Google has not sold you out already (they have), there’s no reason to believe they won’t change their policy and sell you out tomorrow, or the next day, or the day after that. Trusting a corporation is, as said above, the act of an idiot.
What’s the logical flaw? There’s little reason to scrutinize irrelevancy.
No, the telemetry does not bother me.
MS’s and Google’s reputation is their value. If their clients lose confidence in their integrity, they will lose their clients. That is bad for business.
Monitoring organizations and evaluating their level of transparency is necessary, but simply distrusting corporations as a rule of fact, is an act of paranoia.
But you fail to recognize how Google maintains their “reputation”. It’s called “public relations”. They tell you one thing, and do another. Do something evil, and spin it as something good.
Jake Weisz Exemplify.
For example, Google is adding an ad blocker to Chrome. Their PR people convince you it’s to make your Internet browsing experience better, but in reality, it is a way for them to block their competitors in the ad space, where they’re already a monopoly, using their other monopoly, their browser.
They commit a completely illegal antitrust behavior, while convincing their deluded fans it’s for their best interest.
To be honest, I already use an adblocker to try to do what they say their new blocker will do. Get rid of the worst of the click bait crap, and links that lead to sites spreading malicious software.
That’s a red herring from the conversation. Your use of an ad blocker has no bearing on Google’s illegal conduct.
sigh – We are done here.