• noodlejetski@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    if you actually read the article, you’ll find out that the company admitted that they actually don’t do that and they’ve exaggerated their claims.

    • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s what you call Damage Control. They are backpedaling after saying the quiet part out loud.

      • shastaxc@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, they were lying because it would increase their value as a marketer for their clients. It was really stupid to lie about something so easily disproven. Anyone with a packet sniffer can tell there’s not a bunch of random audio being transmitted from their device for no reason. I’m more inclined to believe some idiot in their PR team just doesn’t know wtf they’re talking about and made up something on the spot.

        • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Actually it would be very possible to do if you transcribe the eavesdropped audio into text, as the built-in voice assistants already do on the fly. Small packets containing text could be indistinguishable from a variety of other excessive telemetry that the various apps and system services send out to their motherships in the name of providing a better user experience.

          I can’t help but wonder why you people are always so quick to dismiss the reality of audio data collection when there are so many ways it could be done and so much evidence that it is happening. Are you stuck in a mode of cognitive dissonance that won’t let you distrust your devices, because you WANT to trust them with your privacy?