Finding Local Privacy Conscious Friends

A user argues that concerns about smart home devices recording without activation are based on flawed wake word detection, not constant data transmission, and criticizes others for presenting false dichotomies about OS trust.

There’s definitely significant concerns, but all have to do with the trigger words. I couldn’t find anything indicating that they send recordings of your home when not activated. They could definitely activate accidentally as a lot of coverage mentions. You could observe network traffic when the device isn’t activated to see that it’s clearly not sending home data. This controversy is based on flawed wake words, not always listening sending data. If you can find evidence that they do record everything all the time and send it back I’d enjoy reading as well. You shouldn’t believe something based on flawed reasoning. “The earth is flat because I’ve never seen evidence that it’s not.” When presented with evidence that it’s not, “that evidence is fake”. The only way to prove something is true is through rigorous scientific testing. If we could trust that our cameras and microphones were only recording when we asked an app to do so, why would we need camera covers? Why would we need to disable the camera or microphone on our GOS phones? This comment is made of misunderstandings and flawed logic. In the future please don’t come with flawed logic that takes forever to explain why it’s wrong. You should look into defense in depth. You should read the GrapheneOS website because you are misrepresenting their OS and it’s features. You are presenting a false dichotomy. Absolute OS trust, or none at all. There’s a middle ground. Mostly trust the OS, but understand it can fail or be exploited. You are saying that trustworthy software can’t fail. You baked the conclusion into the premise. I’m not going to engage any more.