Google's Hidden Microphone Controversy
The internet regularly makes no sense. The uproar over the microphone in the Nest security product is a major example of this.
What is a microphone? Does it actually need to be functional to be a microphone? I think that the answer is yes.
Here is a quick example; a while back I read an article which stated that with enough computational power and measurements a mesh WiFi network could detect motion. Could locate people and things in time and space. Even very small movements and vibrations.
The implications are staggering. This technically means that every mesh WiFi system COULD be used to detect motion. Do they need to disclose this functionality? The devices aren't actively doing this. But they are capable of it.
Similarly, another article I read indicated PINs on phones can be determined using accelerometer and gyroscope data. Pretty much every modern phone has those components. Do phone makers need to convey that they ship with potential key loggers?
Personally, I think it is incumbent upon Google to prove to some authority that the recording devices were in fact disabled over the period of time that they claimed that they were. If they can prove that the device were either not powered, or not configured/not active... then, in my opinion, the devices did NOT contain microphones. There would have been nothing in the device performing in the capacity of a microphone.
So, I'm not trying to defend Google here. I DO think that they need to provide sufficient evidence. BUT, if they can do that, I see no reason to jump all over them for anything other than their pathetic cover up attempts.
What is a microphone? Does it actually need to be functional to be a microphone? I think that the answer is yes.
Here is a quick example; a while back I read an article which stated that with enough computational power and measurements a mesh WiFi network could detect motion. Could locate people and things in time and space. Even very small movements and vibrations.
The implications are staggering. This technically means that every mesh WiFi system COULD be used to detect motion. Do they need to disclose this functionality? The devices aren't actively doing this. But they are capable of it.
Similarly, another article I read indicated PINs on phones can be determined using accelerometer and gyroscope data. Pretty much every modern phone has those components. Do phone makers need to convey that they ship with potential key loggers?
Personally, I think it is incumbent upon Google to prove to some authority that the recording devices were in fact disabled over the period of time that they claimed that they were. If they can prove that the device were either not powered, or not configured/not active... then, in my opinion, the devices did NOT contain microphones. There would have been nothing in the device performing in the capacity of a microphone.
So, I'm not trying to defend Google here. I DO think that they need to provide sufficient evidence. BUT, if they can do that, I see no reason to jump all over them for anything other than their pathetic cover up attempts.
Comments
Post a Comment