Having worked at large companies before, I'm almost certain that more than one person working on the product raised the point "this has a microphone, why isn't it documented?" or "this has privacy implications", but was silenced.<p>(Or it could be that everyone working at Google has been carefully chosen to not have such concerns; I do get that feeling sometimes too.)
Oh wow, this is amazing. There's been a lawsuit in court about someone in Germany who sued their landlord because the landlord has put a Google Nest fire alarm into their flat against their will, ignoring offers by the renter to put in a non-google-non-iot fire alarm at the renter's expense. The landlord won because apparently the court was not convinced that the fire alarm could spy on conversations [1]... What would have happened if Google had secretly put a microphone into their fire alarms as well, not just their home security system?<p>[1]: <a href="https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2015/12/rk20151208_1bvr292115.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheid...</a>
Infosec dramas are getting more and more tiresome. Between this and the Singapore Airlines story, it just seems like people need to ratchet everything up to 11.<p>You have two options, choose one:<p>- 1. Google wants to spy on you with a hidden mic<p>- 2. They had future plans for the mic, but it was disabled, so it wasn't mentioned by the marketing department<p>For the Singapore Airlines story, you have two options, choose one:<p>- 1. Singapore Airlines wants to record you<p>- 2. The infotainment devices in the seats are just off the shelf Android devices<p>One option gets you lots of clicks and let's the infosec drama crowd tweet obnoxious things and sound insightful. The other is the pretty obvious explanation.
One would have thought that in post-Snowden world, such reassurances would be completely unacceptable. Yet many people even here are dismissing the case with the "conspiracy" catch-all label.
> It also said the microphone was originally included in the Nest Guard for the possibility of adding new security features down the line, like the ability to detect broken glass.<p>Detecting broken glass with a microphone? Does the device even have enough CPU power (and RAM) to add advanced advanced audio processing features? Or was this going to upload the audio to Google's servers to do the work? If it's the latter, that would necessarily[1] require uploading audio <i>without</i> a wake-word trigger.<p>Either they just admitted to wanting always on microphones in the home, or they are blatantly ling about why the microphone hardware was included. Designing hardware for a large market usually involves a <i>lot</i> of value engineering to reduce the number of parts or replace a feature that requires expensive parts with a functionally similar design that is cheaper. Saving $0.01 (or less) by removing an optional resistor doesn't sound like a lot, but it adds up if you're selling >100k units. A microphone is <i>much</i> more expensive[2]. A part that costs $0.366 (or more[3]?) needs a good reason to be included, and "for the possibility of new features" isn't good enough. So what was the <i>real</i> intended use that justified including a moderatly expensive part?<p>[1] The robber about to break your window isn't going to call out "Ok, Google" first so the Nest Guard knows it can upload an audio clip.<p>[2] <a href="https://www.mouser.com/Electromechanical/Audio-Devices/Microphones/_/N-awp4b/?Ns=Pricing|0" rel="nofollow">https://www.mouser.com/Electromechanical/Audio-Devices/Micro...</a><p>[3] $0.366 when buying >10,000. Up to $0.75 in lower quantities. (prices from a random example: <a href="https://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/DB-Unlimited/MO064402-4?qs=sGAEpiMZZMtcsMZaWNSquyIpiU55CdOlgUxGjuk%2fltGvCULOk0lGsA%3d%3d" rel="nofollow">https://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/DB-Unlimited/MO064402-4...</a> )
What never ceases to amaze me, is the absolute inability of companies like google to understand what their actions look like for somebody who is concerned about privacy.<p>Maybe they understand and do not care, because there are many vocal critics. But having a microphone in a product and not disclosing it? If not even google can keep track of what they <i>should</i> tell us, how on earth do they think they deserve trust?
It’s really sad to see companies like google buy companies like nest, or more recently amazon and eero. These little companies build fantastic devices, then the companies get acquired and the elegant products get mutated to serve their new owners. Finally a new player enters the market and the cycle continues.
It wasn't listed in tech specs, but it was never hidden or kept secret. It probably could have been more explicitly detailed, but in the FAQs for the Nest Secure it even tells the user:<p>> Can Nest Secure detect breaking glass? No. We’re working on bringing glass break detection to Nest Guard, the main hub of Nest Secure. Nest Detect, the open/close motion sensor, doesn’t have a microphone, so it can’t detect breaking glass. But its motion sensors can detect movement by intruders as well as when a door or window opens and closes depending on how it's installed.<p><a href="https://nest.com/support/article/Frequently-asked-questions-about-Nest-Secure#secure-glass" rel="nofollow">https://nest.com/support/article/Frequently-asked-questions-...</a><p>This was listed before this big announcement.
Fun fact: any device with a speaker can be turned into a microphone because a speaker is fundamentally the same thing as a microphone (a membrane connected to a coil/magnet).
I wonder if Singapore Airlines has something new to say about the cameras in their IFE system?<p><a href="https://twitter.com/vkamluk/status/1097008518685573120" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/vkamluk/status/1097008518685573120</a>
I love Google for the service values they provide, but if this were to come from another company then I might have believed it was in fact an error.<p>Privacy has always been an important factor when people consider any Google products, and they are fully aware of that so this topic must have always been on their list of priorities. For a company like Google with rigorous testing/approving processes in place before a product is even launched, to come back and say that it was an accident is pretty hilarious, though realistically what else could they have said?<p>I still like them. It's a love-hate relationship, we have passed the denial phase and entered the acceptance stage long time ago.
Mods,<p>Can you change the title to say "Nest Gaurd's", because this has nothing to do with the Nest Thermostat, which is called, "Nest".
Will they recall the product or offer a replacement without the mic? If not, they are not sorry, the breaking glass claim is false and this invasion of privacy was always the intent.
This thread has been comprehensively derailed and is an embarrassment to informed discussion. Imagine if a major Chinese firm had 'forgot' to document a microphone, how many people here would be making excuses? This is an astonishing reflection of the quality of technical discussion.<p>Anyone who is even remotely familiar with hardware design will know this cannot be an accident in any way and form. It's there because its designed to be there. The fact that its not documented takes it firmly in the territory of extreme malice and dystopic surveillance unconstrained by any ethical concerns.<p>The only folks for whom this is not a concern are those unburdened by any sense of societal or ethical concern. They represent those sections of the tech community who have zero compass or qualms and do not see any problem building a toxic dystopic society.
Literally, "Oh, we're sorry. We thought it was obvious we were spying on you by now". Guess their conditioning program isn't yet complete...
And most of the rich people in my neighborhood have complete voice devices in their homes, Amazon’s device and Google’s I refuse to have these devices in my home regardless of how cool they seem.
At the bare minimum Google should offer a full refund for those who bought a Nest Guard. This could be covered under the breach of implied warranty of "fitness for particular purpose", where the purpose is "to purchase a device and having a reasonable expectation of being free from surveillance".
Placing an inactive mic does raise questions naturally but shipping updates to hardware is not easy/possible. So you'd want to future proof your hardware throughout its lifetime. Had Google announced in their marketing that there's an inactive mic there, it would've become the only focus by the louder segments of the media. Whether or not it would ever be activated.<p>Perhaps had Google assistant been more useful, fewer people would've felt so upset. The mic can also be used to detect broken glass, etc.
> “the revelation is especially problematic for the company that blah blah blah”<p>How is it problematic? What exactly will change? Customer’s will abandon Google’s products? Google will stop this practice?<p>There will be exactly zero repercussions, and more “ooops it’s an error we never meant it to he a secret” down the line.
We need an IOT protection bill that starts with labeling.<p><pre><code> * sensors
* endpoints it talks to
* update timeline
* security protocols and device specific passwords</code></pre>