Google Fesses Up To Hidden Microphone In Nest Home Security Platform
from the oh-and-by-the-way dept
Google this week found itself in luke warm water after Nest Secure users discovered that their home security system contained a "hidden" microphone the company had never publicly disclosed. The reveal came via a Google announcement sent to Nest customers earlier this month, informing them that their Nest Secure base stations (the motion detector and keypad at the heart of the system) would soon be updated to include Google Assistant functionality, essentially converting the hardware into another way to issue voice commands around the home:
"Starting today, we’re adding a feature to Nest Secure to do just that: the Google Assistant will be available on your Nest Guard, so you can ask it questions like, “Hey Google, do I need an umbrella today?” before you set your alarm and leave the house. Nest Guard is the brains of your Nest Secure; it contains a keypad and all the smarts that power the system. It’s usually placed in a spot with lots of traffic (like the front doorway) making it useful as you come and go."
On its face, this is certainly a welcome upgrade. Especially given the fact that we live in an era where the opposite often occurs, and companies have a habit of removing basic product functionality post sale, leaving you with less of a product, or in a few select instances no product at all. As such, that the Nest keypad for a home alarm system actually was upgraded to do more than users original thought is a good thing, at least superficially.
The problem: more privacy-conscious Nest owners weren't aware that the Nest home security base stations had a microphone in the first place, raising questions about whether Google was using the microphone for data collection and monetization in some capacity. Given the fact that we can't go more than twenty minutes before another major privacy scandal breaks, and the general regulatory and government response to most of these scandals has been a collective ¯\_(ツ)_/¯, the concerns are understandable.
If @Google's @Nest Secure devices really had secret microphones that they hid from consumers, those consumers should probably be forgiven if they don't trust the company's after-the-fact promises that it never spied on them. #DontBeEvil https://t.co/sZsFC31zdV via @csoonline
— Tom Zeller Jr. (@tomzellerjr) February 20, 2019
Unlike some of its modern contemporaries, Google at least acknowledged that the company should have done a better job disclosing the microphone's existence simply by including it in the product hardware specs:
"On Tuesday, a Google representative told Business Insider the company had made an "error." "The on-device microphone was never intended to be a secret and should have been listed in the tech specs," the person said. "That was an error on our part."
And it does look like the company was also quick to update its product specs to make it clear the microphone exists moving forward. Still, Google should have been clearer from the start, and many went so far as to insist Google was lying to its customers:
This is not “messing up.” This is deliberately misleading and lying to your customers about your product. https://t.co/FZcf55L1bU
— Eva (@evacide) February 21, 2019
I would probably note that if privacy is your top concern, a company like Google with a long history of hoovering up personal information probably shouldn't be your top home security choice in the first place. And there's a litany of other products in the home that deserve the same level of scrutiny. Americans are connecting poorly secured crap to their home networks at an alarming rate, from televisions (with microphones) that have paper mache grade security, to Barbie dolls that can be easily hacked and converted into covert listening devices.
While Google did the right thing here by coming clear, this episode also does a nice job illustrating the fact that whether we're talking about products getting better or worse, you don't really own the products you buy, and your agreement with the manufacturer in the firmware-update era can pivot on a dime, often with far less disclosure than we saw here, or none whatsoever.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: google assistant, microphone, nest, privacy, specs, transparency
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Isn't it spelled Papier Mache?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
é
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Full Disclosure is the issue
Isn't the real question whether those that bought the Nest Home Security Platform would have done so if they knew it would be voice activated in the future?
I wouldn't. I would view having that capability as being less secure, let alone thinking about how it might be used for surveillance. That it is potentially a part of Google Assistant would make my thoughts even more negative about the product.
Given the warrants for other voice activated systems with connections to outside databases for criminal acts, one could conclude that in the future those warrants/subpoenas could be for civil acts, whether any other evidence exists or not.
Privacy is a real thing, despite the direction big tech and the governments reluctance to protect privacy have gone recently. One can only hope that both of those groups have some consideration for us, rather than themselves, in the future. More than hope would mean that the electorate wakes up and does something about it. Then again, shiny seems to have more impact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Full Disclosure is the issue
Many of these products will be purchased, installed and forgotten for years. If there end up being vulnerabilities that others can exploit, knowing that there is a microphone would change this from being a potential purchase to one I would never get.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Full Disclosure is the issue
You're no fun!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Full Disclosure is the issue
You wouldn't buy this setup for your secretary knowing you could possibly exploit this feature?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Full Disclosure is the issue
Google's generally pretty good about automatic security updates -- for the lifetime of the product.
That last part is where the problem lies. Support periods aren't long enough to cover real-life use cases; in real life, people continue to use products well past the time their support expires. (I'm still using a Nexus 5 -- and that's a phone, a thing you expect to replace a lot more frequently than a home security system.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Full Disclosure is the issue
One can only hope.. and more than hope..
Man, you really are a dreamer!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Full Disclosure is the issue
One would expect.. google to show up at Techdirt all over these pages.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Full Disclosure is the issue
"Another interesting question" is a much better opening than "Isn't the real question"
On that subject, I guess a good measure would be to see who would return it for a full refund.
Not an option
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
American Airlines
Also in the news today, American Airlines planes have cameras aimed at the passengers... but don't worry, they promise the cameras are turned off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: American Airlines
Doesn't China own American Airlines? Er, I thought.. but, maybe google does, is that right?Actually, it sounds more like a social experiment that fb would pull.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fine google $1.00 and let's move on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The usual downplaying.
Wasn't an oversight. Like the binary blob in 2015 activating microphone in Android, it's just another way for GOOGLE to SPY on you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Everyone--EVERYONE!--knew Google Assistant was coming to Nest. Did people think that it was going to be some psychic connection? Hmmm, is there some way to use voice commands with Google Assistant on Nest as with other Google devices... I know! a microphone! (Well, duh.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Thank-you google spokesperson. I didn't know about more google microphones that allow google to spy.. duh yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google
Why the news is causing a stir – besides the obviously misleading nature of failing to disclose a microphone in a security device – is that it raises questions about how Google is handling all of the voice data it’s collecting through its devices
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OK Google, open the door click
Anyone feeling safer yet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
yay
Do you remember when Goggle's motto was "Do no evil"? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Priorities?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am shocked, SHOCKED I say, that Google has done yet another incredibly bogus thing. Simply shocked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Destroying freedom should be something that no respectable government would allow another corporation to do to its citizens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google Nest
How can anyone argue the microphone was "secret" when Google announced a new use for it? Isn't that an obvious oversight? If it were an intentional act, why would they then tell us it is there?
I think some people need to put their brains in gear before they engage their mouths.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]