0 Boosts
0 Likes
@lauren I think I found an answer--looks like the new models, not the older ones. At least in what I am reading....
@LeslieBurns @lauren
seems to be a new software feature on watch 12 / ultra 4, call "audio Intelligence
seems to be off by default (opt in) "using ambient listening to power AI features like conversation recaps and "Live Rewind" transcriptions"
No Saved Files: The watch temporary holds audio in a secure, isolated hardware buffer called the "Secure Exclave" to transcribe it, then immediately deletes the raw audio
Not in the least better for privacy to process audio into text and delete the audio. It just reduces the bandwidth required to exfil.
Just learned that Smart TVs also process audio to test within 70 feet radius and send text to Corporate for analysis
@black @M0PWX @LeslieBurns Not really seeing anything particularly unusual in this case. As long as standard wake word and/or remote activation is used for voice activation, with local processing prior to that, it's in the standard model for voice devices (e.g. Google Home, Alexa, etc.) Network scanning is also completely typical for IoT devices. Of course dedicated hacking can often disrupt things, especially by local attackers on the same network, but remote hacks of smart TVs are indeed much rarer. Overall, from what I've seen, this is pretty much a typical "smart TV" with the usual pluses and minuses.
@lauren @black @M0PWX @LeslieBurns I'm not sure that many people realise quite how bad a "typical smart TV" really is in terms of the information it gathers, retains and forwards from what most would regard as a private space.
@rvkennedy @black @M0PWX @LeslieBurns It's usually not awful as long as ACR is turned off. Even if you use a dumb TV (or just don't hook a smart TV up to the Net and only use HDMI inputs) the streaming services, etc. are going to know what you're watching on them, by definition.
@lauren
Streaming services don't see my OTA or my local media player (kodi) usage.
But my Roku is very invasive on too many levels.
@raft2551 @rvkennedy @black @M0PWX @LeslieBurns Streaming services see your usage of each respective streaming service. Naturally, otherwise they couldn't stream to you.
@lauren @raft2551 @black @M0PWX @LeslieBurns I think any typical user would expect that. What they would not expect, even if we discount GN's allegations, is the documented behaviour of ACR. That the maker of your TV is scanning whatever you watch from any source to build a profile of you and augment their database for advertising and other purposes. With ACR if you're aware that it exists you can disable it. Would any reasonable person choose not to? They rely on you not knowing.
@rvkennedy @raft2551 @black @M0PWX @LeslieBurns In the U.S. at least, last time I checked the first-time use flows on these TVs are required (by law) to explicitly ask for a choice on ACR after a reasonable explanation. The ones I've seen are pretty well worded.
@rvkennedy @lauren @raft2551 @M0PWX @LeslieBurns
"Knowing what we watch" is a red herring. Providers will always know. It's about wifi scanning for nearby devices, audio eavesdropping, and general shitty shadiness.
@black @rvkennedy @raft2551 @M0PWX @LeslieBurns You're going to get a Wi-Fi scan when you set these up in the first place to get on the Network, unless you're using Ethernet, which most people don't. And these days to access Wi-Fi you need to enable Bluetooth, at least for Android-based devices.
@black @rvkennedy @raft2551 @M0PWX @LeslieBurns It's impossible to provide voice control on any device from ambient sound (Google Home, Alexa, all the others) without processing the audio data continuously looking for the wake word. I don't care what's held locally in the box, I care about what's ACTUALLY sent to their servers, and all the systems I know of do that processing on the local device and only start sending data out after the wake word is detected.
@lauren @rvkennedy @raft2551 @M0PWX @LeslieBurns These devices were doing far more than what you are reducing it to, but you'd need to actually watch that video to be able to discuss this.
@black @rvkennedy @raft2551 @M0PWX @LeslieBurns Yes, I've been through it now, and stand by my analysis. There isn't anything particularly special going on there. But it's great for clicks.
@black @rvkennedy @raft2551 @M0PWX @LeslieBurns Understand that I've been dealing with privacy issues publicly for a very, very long time (since the 70s). So I've seen a lot and have a lot to compare with. One thing I learned along the way is to keep your eye on the ball. There are so many egregious privacy violations out there that spending time on the lower tier stuff is actually moving the ball in the wrong direction. That's one of the reasons I've never been able to get worked up much about targeted advertising, so long as it's in the disassociated model such as Google has always used. There are hundreds of similar examples that get a lot of publicity but actually divert attention from the really serious stuff. These days, concentrating on (most, there are exceptions) commercial abuses in general is a bad use of time -- it's the government, especially now, that is the real problem in this vein (though obviously, they are linked to the commercial space more and more so there is a partnership effect, especially with Big Tech under Trump eroding trust in Big Tech generally). All that said, despite the waves of privacy issues related to smart TVs over the years, I know of not a single serious case and the concerns have virtually always been speculative "what they could do" in nature. This is the same kind of reasoning the government is using to ban important and hard to replace Chinese-made products in the U.S. (drones, routers, etc.) and I consider it to be nonoptimal reasoning and bad policy.
@lauren @black @rvkennedy @raft2551 @M0PWX @LeslieBurns
> especially with Big Tech under Trump eroding trust in Big Tech generally
Surely you don't suggest that people losing a false sense of security is a bad thing
@orloff @black @rvkennedy @raft2551 @M0PWX @LeslieBurns What matters is the actual level of reasonable trust. Actions by Big Tech under Trump have eroded this, even for firms that had reasonably high trust levels in the first place. For example, I've worked inside Google in the past, and I've long considered their privacy and T&S teams to be top notch. I do not have that confidence with Trump and Sundar being so cozy.
@black @rvkennedy @raft2551 @M0PWX @LeslieBurns And I'll add, with smart TVs, there is of course (unlike in most privacy issues) a very simple solution for anyone concerned. Don't connect it to the network, and do everything via the HDMI ports. You get a damned cheap TV anyway.
@lauren @black @raft2551 @M0PWX @LeslieBurns two points on this. First, it's unreasonable to put the onus on the users. As ACR offers no benefit to the user, but costs them in bandwidth, power consumption and privacy, how many truly informed users would choose to enable it? None. So why invest in the tech? Because you can trick enough people into clicking through. Second, smart TVs aren't cheap, LG's least of all. They're not subsidising your experience, just double-dipping in your pocket.
@rvkennedy @black @raft2551 @M0PWX @LeslieBurns I don't know what brand you're seeing, but not very long ago I saw a very nice 75" set for a couple of hundred bucks. That's totally because the manufacturers are leveraging that data, that can be disabled. But again, in the scheme of things, does it REALLY matter that much compared with the president of the U.S. trying to steal an election? Is this REALLY where time should be spent these days given the incredibly major privacy abuses out there? REALLY??????? Don't be distracted by low level "garbage" issues. Don't drink the Kool-Aid.
@lauren @black @rvkennedy @raft2551 @M0PWX @LeslieBurns The uproar over Flock cameras is another example of focusing on the wrong thing. People want the Flock cameras removed so the police departments just quietly switch to another provider and the controversy goes away. It's like the game where you guess which cup has the ball under it.
@black @jmorris @rvkennedy @raft2551 @M0PWX @LeslieBurns Yes, I discussed Flock on my weekly national radio segment last Monday.
@jmorris @black @rvkennedy @raft2551 @M0PWX @LeslieBurns That's probably not a great analogy. There have been extremely serious consequences from those cameras. Innocent people held at gunpoint by cops, innocent people jailed for months based on errors in the system -- in one case I know of I think six months because of issues related to those cameras. And the many nightmarish stalking cases enabled by them. I don't see much evidence that people are differentiating based on brand. Police departments may be trying to switch from one to another, but bipartisan blowback from people has been so intense I don't see much political will to simply switch to another manufacturer and try carry on.
@lauren @black @rvkennedy @raft2551 @M0PWX @LeslieBurns In the few stories I've seen, people were so hyper-fixated on the Flock brand name that they either didn't notice or weren't as upset when the cameras were swapped to a different ALPR company. I only bring it up to highlight the focus issue. PDs canceling Flock contracts, waiting for things to cool down then hiring a different company works in some cases. I'm glad what you are seeing shows people are lumping all these companies together.
@jmorris @black @rvkennedy @raft2551 @M0PWX @LeslieBurns Most of the bans are not brand specific.
@lauren @black @M0PWX @LeslieBurns the gist of the GN report on LG though was that the TV never stops listening, even on standby. It scans your local network to identify what devices you might own. And it uses not only what it knows you're watching (and ACR is itself a horrifying abuse of the users own resources for something that benefits them not at all) but also what it hears you saying. At least that's my understanding of the documentary, it's pretty long and I zoned out after 1/2 hour or so
@rvkennedy @black @M0PWX @LeslieBurns Voice devices are typically always listening because they're waiting for the wake word. So long as the processing for that is on device, and data doesn't get sent out until AFTER the wake word is detected, it's S.O.P.
@lauren @black @M0PWX @LeslieBurns that's not the behaviour GN describes in their show...
@rvkennedy @black @M0PWX @LeslieBurns The only aspect that really matters is out of scope data (ACR info if ACR is disabled, ambient voice data, etc.) actually being SENT from the device to an external server. Local capture capabilities are really not an issue. Saying that the device COULD do this or COULD do that is not the issue. It's what it's actually doing that matters. This applies to every connected computing device essentially everywhere.
@rvkennedy @black @M0PWX @LeslieBurns So for example the new Apple watch is a privacy problem (in 2-party consent states, EU, etc.) -- I'll be talking about this on my regular national radio segment Monday --- because it actually IS sending data related to an eavesdropped conversation to Apple servers, without permission or notification to all parties.
@rvkennedy @black @M0PWX @LeslieBurns That presentation is so long that it's impenetrable. However, LG is formally denying their assertions, and it would be nuts for them to lie.
i disable all AI and Siri on my phone, the point they remove that option i am out of it, and it will be bye bye apple
then go in search for a brick / dumb phone
The key problem not addressed by reverting to a dumb phone is that smartphones have so far already silently (and without public debate) become 99% required for daily life: work (orders, workflow, hours, boss' micromanagement), banking, travel, accessing government buildings and services, eating out, getting coffee, public transit, school, crossing borders, etc., etc. etc.
@black @M0PWX @LeslieBurns I have a decent smartphone -- I keep it turned off 99% of the time. I do almost everything via web interfaces on my desktop, and mostly landlines. Big Tech wants you using the apps because they are so much more privacy invasive. Just say no.
@black @M0PWX @LeslieBurns Lots of people don't have them. They are NOT required.
@M0PWX @black @LeslieBurns Apparently they're really burning in the AI on the next macOS version, reportedly with no global turn off switch.
@M0PWX @LeslieBurns @lauren Looks like they also posted a document regarding how the audio is processed:
https://www.apple.com/privacy/docs/Audio_Intelligence_Privacy_Overview_Sep_2026.pdf
@lawrencerillera @M0PWX @LeslieBurns It's not clear that their processing, etc. changes the legal issue -- especially with California likely to pass legislation specifically addressing recordings by wearables. Point is, the watch has to be recording in the first place to gather the raw audio for processing, even if it deletes the raw audio later.
@lauren One could hope those states, such as mine, ban their sale.
@lauren Is this only the new models or is this a software change that will make older watches also listen in?