Many geeks are the embodiment of the "don't trust the government" / "don't trust corporations" counterculture, but when equity grants entered the equation, we architected much of the modern techno-surveillance state. Flock is an YC company. Probably a quarter of the people who frequent this site work at Meta or Google.
We're always eager to say how much we dislike it, but there's so little self-reflection in our community.
i mean do you want the honest answer? i’m not a white american guy so i can say it.
importing hordes of foreign tech workers or hiring asians broadly whose culture is very much the opposite of “don’t tread on me” led to much of this.
might not be comfortable to say but most of our tech companies are led by people who aren’t “Americana” (cultural)
and broadly speaking, there are very few people like me (i’m asian) that value the American way of independence at all cost and most are just strivers and consumerist
so the goal for most of them is to make 300k base and 300k stock per year. fuck the consequences.
the days of making tech for the love of the game are long gone.
Shame that people are down voting you, there's an uncomfortable truth to it I don't think people want to face.
Culture is defined by people not borders- simply crossing an arbitrary line doesn't change someone's beliefs and values.
The immigration boom especially on the West coast has vastly diluted assimilation into American culture- coming from an immigrant, who married into another family of immigrants- too many people move here and stick to their own cultural enclave, building a version of their home country in miniature instead of trying to integrate.
the problem isn't the workers. plenty of "white american guys" with a "don't tread on me" culture share this goal. scapegoating "hordes of foreign tech workers or hiring asians broadly" ignores that the SV culture rewards this.
> so the goal for most of them is to make 300k base and 300k stock per year. fuck the consequences.
"What could be more American than that?" — Wadsworth, Clue (1985)
The fascinating part is that fuck the consequences was until more recently kinda penalized, but advent of tech overlords changed that calculus ( they even have their own saying to capture that 0.
> I don’t like the idea that anything I say in a public setting or in a conversation with others could end up in a transcript summary on someone’s personal device.
Pretty minor if it's just that individual. But for certain this means there is a transcript on Apple's servers that can be subpoenaed by law enforcement, or sooner or later, searchable without a warrant.
No it’s bad even for an individual why does someone I speak to need to ever have a transcript of our chat? I understand in a professional setting but if we’re just having a drink its weird
One intriguing use I encountered was a doctor who automatically transcribed the conversation during an appointment. This has HIPAA concerns, of course, and I think (hope, at least) that this was in the context of medical software that is designed to be HIPAA compliant. But it was an interesting way for a doctor to try and avoid missing something in conversation.
I agree with you that it's weird outside of professional settings.
Because having a chat with you was special and I want to remember it but my aging fallible human brain is going to forget it, so I'd like to be able to remember it and hold on to and cherish that moment we shared.
"I want to replace the human experience with SQL queries" in a nutshell
if chats are so important to you, write it down, with your hand. journaling is fun and great and there's evidence that it's good for your mental health because it allows you intentional time for introspection and insight-building
Yeah, even with Meta glasses like those things record everything that the user sees, but the flock camera situation is really concerning their cameras are everywhere and I think they can also hear what people are saying
They would have to encrypt it in such a way where even if Law Enforcement went to apple with a subpoena, they would not be able to hand over that data at a technical level.
The better way IMHO is use local models so data never actually leaves the device.
The legal implications of these devices are just baffling. I see Meta glasses being sold where I live. The law states that you cannot photograph of film people without their consent, even in the street where there are other people around ...
Now it will also be voice recording one has to be aware off ?
Likely germany, we have very strict recording laws. It’s actually stricter on audio recording, due to Germany’s history: you’re not allowed to record people without their consent if they could expect privacy, which includes outside when for example 2 persons are talking to each others privately. That makes the meta glasses pretty much illegal to use in most situations, though I don’t believe that specific situation has been tested in court.
Note how it’s about recording, not sharing.
(It’s way more nuanced and complicated in practice of course)
From that same link: "Two-party consent laws apply to private conversations where participants have a reasonable expectation of privacy."
You have no reasonable expectation of privacy when you are in public or can be clearly heard from public. If you are "in the street" no one needs to get your permission to record you or what you say.
We need all of the above, because it's too easy for the political winds to change and modify the laws to enable mass surveillance with a flip of a switch. It needs to be both illegal and technically hard to surveil people without their knowledge.
As a Brit I hope Americans understand just how amazing the first amendment is. Here in the UK (and Europe) surveillance can be used to criminalise us for things we say in private. At least in the US this kind of thing is much harder for the government to do.
Cell phones are so useful that I'm not surprised that people are willing to bug themselves and their homes with them, but wearables offer so much less while being just as invasive. I suspect that people will take the bait anyway. I don't see very many "glassholes" running around though, and there was a lot of pushback against "friend" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friend_(product)
Just like running your own mail server doesn't help when nearly everyone you talk to uses GMail, simply not using these devices yourself is likely not to make much difference.
"Audio Intelligence features are private by design, combining hardware, software, and services to protect user privacy in a way that only Apple can. These features do not create or store audio recordings, and raw audio used for processing is completely inaccessible to the operating systems, apps, the user, or Apple. By design, Audio Intelligence features do not identify and attribute speakers, to protect the privacy of both the user and those around them. Siri Recap produces a brief, high-level summary of conversations — not a transcript — and is designed to exclude sensitive information like financial information or government-assigned identifiers. Live Rewind text snippets and Siri Recap summaries are end-to-end encrypted in the Siri app with iCloud syncing, and are not accessible even by Apple. Read more about how Audio Intelligence protects privacy:" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49632685
Notice how they focus on “audio recordings” specifically, meaning other types of recording (like transcripts used to generate summaries) are fair game.
"We know our product is an unlawful violation of federal wiretap law since it will make zero-party-consent recordings, not that we care about violating the law at Apple because we know we can out spend anyone who would litigate against us, but we like to keep up appearances."
I've experimented with things like this, e.g., the Narrative Clip. I think the concept is quite novel and interesting, but the privacy implications are just far too gross for anything outside of an experiment. Of all companies, I find it appalling that it's Apple implementing this one.
I don't even know how this is supposed to work e.g., in states with call recording legislation, let alone any new legislation. It feels utterly appalling that every Apple watch could theoretically be recording all surroundings now.
"The primary antagonist for freedom of thought in the beginning of our struggle was the Universal Catholic Church, an institution directed at the control of thought in the European world, based around weekly surveillance of the conduct and thoughts of every human being, based around the censorship of all reading material and in the end based upon the ability to predict and to punish unorthodox thought.
The tools available for thought control in early modern Europe were poor even by 20th century standards, but they worked. And for hundreds of years, the struggle primarily centered around that increasingly important first mass manufactured article in Western culture: the book. Whether you could print them, possess them, traffic in them, read them, teach from them without the permission or control of an entity empowered to punish thought.
By the end of the 17th century censorship of written material in Europe had begun to break down first in the Netherlands then in the UK then afterwards in waves throughout the European world and the book became an article of subversive commerce and began eating away at the control of thought.
By the late 18th century that struggle for the freedom of reading had begun to attack the substance of Christianity itself and the European world trembled on the brink of the first great revolution of the mind. It spoke of “liberté, égalité, fraternité”, but actually it meant freedom to think differently." -- https://archive.org/details/EbenMoglenRepublica2012
> I don’t like the idea that anything I say in a public setting...could end up in a transcript summary on someone’s personal device.
My friend, if there's a reporter standing behind you, it could end up on the nightly news. And it's been that way forever. Certainly, a plethora of terrifyingly broad data collection greatly exacerbates the problem, but it's not a new problem.
> bla bla bla...Amazon Echo...listening in on us without our knowledge or consent. I've lost track of how many times I've experienced or heard others...discussing a particular topic...and then as soon as they get on Facebook...they see posts and ads featuring the very topic they were discussing.
There are lots of real problems with surveillance tech, but the stuff about smart speakers specifically is still a dumb conspiracy theory. People are CONSTANTLY testing the hardware in these things and watching network activity. They really are not listening to you, and blindly repeating this claim greatly harms your credibility.
> bla bla bla...George Orwell envisioned in his dystopian novel 1984
Okay, new rule, these articles need to pick at least one other dystopian novel. There are so many. What's wrong with Fahrenheigh 451, where the government had everyone look out their doors in a mass manhunt? That's a good one! Use it to talk about Ring cameras or something.
>My friend, if there's a reporter standing behind you, it could end up on the nightly news. And it's been that way forever.
Can't tell if this is meant to be ironic or not. Are you seriously comparing a future consumer product to be potentially sold in the hundreds of millions with TV news reporters?
That’s simply not possible with the announced Apple products. Afaict, Apple will let people save *transcripts* of last 15s and save *summaries* of transcripts.
Re smart speakers / Google Assistant etc I think there have even been some lawsuits about inadvertent recording. I think they get it right most of the time, so my impression has been the lawsuits are about the mistakes.
That all said, as a technologist in the past I could say "of course they aren't recording you and data mining your conversations" because that's obviously an expensive and complicated proposition when much cheaper forms of data mining exist. But with AI advancements I think that calculus could change - the systems that could do this are already being built for other reasons; the main reason to not do it is cost but that's being eroded.
Performative nitpicking is tiresome, why equivocate? Either you agree with the thrust of the argument and are looking to strengthen it, or you disagree. Which is it?
We also know that there have been multiple instances of employees and low paid contractors listening to people having sex and talking about very personal things.
> Certainly, a plethora of terrifyingly broad data collection greatly exacerbates the problem, but it's not a new problem.
I argue that this is a false equivalence. When the scale of something changes by an order of magnitude (or multiples thereof), it’s no-longer the same problem/circumstance.
Every single time any article about how terrible things are / how its getting worse, someone always pipes in about how "this has always been a problem" - which is a completely useless observation that in practice only has the effect of normalizing the terribleness.
The core issue with mass, high detail survellance is 1) the chilling effect and 2) the construction of guilt effect
When every single thing you do is put under a microscope you will be found guilty of nearly anthing. It will be possible to construct a believable number of crimes that you commited from circumstantial evidence and/or the pile of minor offenses citizens commit every day.
The american system would defacto flip into "you are guilty, we just need to find out of what." and this becomes a way to control and witchhunt a population into silence and complaince.
> Surveillance isnt a problem until people use it for personal gain
It absolutely can be a problem when used for organizational or ideological gain - e.g., when used by state, religion, business, or political group to spread propaganda, suppress opposition, unjustly favor an in-group, etc.
The classic case of using mass surveillance to help a burgeoning theocratic or fascist state is a pretty standard example.
Yes but here is the catch. Surveillance comes with the incentives to us it for the personal gain. Or to phrase this differently: knowledge is power and thus the people who are already in power have good motivation to accumulate as much knowledge as possible in order to stay in power.
It is very easy to take the philosophical stance where every concept can be totally detached from the incentives it creates and the social dynamics it is part of. It is easy to take that stance, but it is very hard to use that stance to explain reality, because reality plays by more complex rules.
Please, always consider the status quo and the incentives involved instead of stating the surveillance equivalent of "weapons don't kill, people do".
We're always eager to say how much we dislike it, but there's so little self-reflection in our community.
No, lol
That would make up between 0.3% and 0.5% of the global tech workforce, if you added all of their employees together.
importing hordes of foreign tech workers or hiring asians broadly whose culture is very much the opposite of “don’t tread on me” led to much of this.
might not be comfortable to say but most of our tech companies are led by people who aren’t “Americana” (cultural)
and broadly speaking, there are very few people like me (i’m asian) that value the American way of independence at all cost and most are just strivers and consumerist
so the goal for most of them is to make 300k base and 300k stock per year. fuck the consequences.
the days of making tech for the love of the game are long gone.
Culture is defined by people not borders- simply crossing an arbitrary line doesn't change someone's beliefs and values.
The immigration boom especially on the West coast has vastly diluted assimilation into American culture- coming from an immigrant, who married into another family of immigrants- too many people move here and stick to their own cultural enclave, building a version of their home country in miniature instead of trying to integrate.
> so the goal for most of them is to make 300k base and 300k stock per year. fuck the consequences.
"What could be more American than that?" — Wadsworth, Clue (1985)
and it reeks of extractive personalities that took over
Pretty minor if it's just that individual. But for certain this means there is a transcript on Apple's servers that can be subpoenaed by law enforcement, or sooner or later, searchable without a warrant.
Believing in that would be like believing web tracking is only ever used to "enhance your browsing experience".
I agree with you that it's weird outside of professional settings.
if chats are so important to you, write it down, with your hand. journaling is fun and great and there's evidence that it's good for your mental health because it allows you intentional time for introspection and insight-building
If you can't be bothered, it wasn't that meaningful or important.
The better way IMHO is use local models so data never actually leaves the device.
..but impossible to have unless you control the operating system that is distributed with phones that normal people will use.
Any recordings should be kept in something akin to password manager.
Heck, all of my data in any app should be kept in something like that.
That being said, I do actually expect that this stuff will (generally*) stay on-device. Apple's oddly good about that.
Now it will also be voice recording one has to be aware off ?
Is that the AI future we want or need?
What country do you live in? This is almost certainty not true in the US
Note how it’s about recording, not sharing.
(It’s way more nuanced and complicated in practice of course)
You have no reasonable expectation of privacy when you are in public or can be clearly heard from public. If you are "in the street" no one needs to get your permission to record you or what you say.
Every big problem needs to be addressed from multiple angles, whatever you can do, you can contribute to the solution.
I don't even know how this is supposed to work e.g., in states with call recording legislation, let alone any new legislation. It feels utterly appalling that every Apple watch could theoretically be recording all surroundings now.
The tools available for thought control in early modern Europe were poor even by 20th century standards, but they worked. And for hundreds of years, the struggle primarily centered around that increasingly important first mass manufactured article in Western culture: the book. Whether you could print them, possess them, traffic in them, read them, teach from them without the permission or control of an entity empowered to punish thought.
By the end of the 17th century censorship of written material in Europe had begun to break down first in the Netherlands then in the UK then afterwards in waves throughout the European world and the book became an article of subversive commerce and began eating away at the control of thought.
By the late 18th century that struggle for the freedom of reading had begun to attack the substance of Christianity itself and the European world trembled on the brink of the first great revolution of the mind. It spoke of “liberté, égalité, fraternité”, but actually it meant freedom to think differently." -- https://archive.org/details/EbenMoglenRepublica2012
My friend, if there's a reporter standing behind you, it could end up on the nightly news. And it's been that way forever. Certainly, a plethora of terrifyingly broad data collection greatly exacerbates the problem, but it's not a new problem.
> bla bla bla...Amazon Echo...listening in on us without our knowledge or consent. I've lost track of how many times I've experienced or heard others...discussing a particular topic...and then as soon as they get on Facebook...they see posts and ads featuring the very topic they were discussing.
There are lots of real problems with surveillance tech, but the stuff about smart speakers specifically is still a dumb conspiracy theory. People are CONSTANTLY testing the hardware in these things and watching network activity. They really are not listening to you, and blindly repeating this claim greatly harms your credibility.
> bla bla bla...George Orwell envisioned in his dystopian novel 1984
Okay, new rule, these articles need to pick at least one other dystopian novel. There are so many. What's wrong with Fahrenheigh 451, where the government had everyone look out their doors in a mass manhunt? That's a good one! Use it to talk about Ring cameras or something.
Can't tell if this is meant to be ironic or not. Are you seriously comparing a future consumer product to be potentially sold in the hundreds of millions with TV news reporters?
That's the most HN spin I've seen this year
It's a matter of scale. Now everybody with a device is a reporter.
That all said, as a technologist in the past I could say "of course they aren't recording you and data mining your conversations" because that's obviously an expensive and complicated proposition when much cheaper forms of data mining exist. But with AI advancements I think that calculus could change - the systems that could do this are already being built for other reasons; the main reason to not do it is cost but that's being eroded.
We know for certain that they do listen to us even when they shouldn't and send that data https://www.techradar.com/news/your-smart-speaker-could-be-a...
We also know that there have been multiple instances of employees and low paid contractors listening to people having sex and talking about very personal things.
I don't think concerns over smart speakers spying on us qualifies as a "conspiracy theory". People looking for a conspiracy theory are better off digging into how this happened https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/amazon-alexa-c...
If our devices were never listening to us in secret things like audio beacons wouldn't have been invented https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/11/beware-of-ads-th...
I argue that this is a false equivalence. When the scale of something changes by an order of magnitude (or multiples thereof), it’s no-longer the same problem/circumstance.
The audio is not recorded.
When every single thing you do is put under a microscope you will be found guilty of nearly anthing. It will be possible to construct a believable number of crimes that you commited from circumstantial evidence and/or the pile of minor offenses citizens commit every day.
The american system would defacto flip into "you are guilty, we just need to find out of what." and this becomes a way to control and witchhunt a population into silence and complaince.
It absolutely can be a problem when used for organizational or ideological gain - e.g., when used by state, religion, business, or political group to spread propaganda, suppress opposition, unjustly favor an in-group, etc.
The classic case of using mass surveillance to help a burgeoning theocratic or fascist state is a pretty standard example.
It is very easy to take the philosophical stance where every concept can be totally detached from the incentives it creates and the social dynamics it is part of. It is easy to take that stance, but it is very hard to use that stance to explain reality, because reality plays by more complex rules.
Please, always consider the status quo and the incentives involved instead of stating the surveillance equivalent of "weapons don't kill, people do".