It’s really surprising that people are shocked by this. People who are involved in the design and development of the product need to know it’s working and also need to find ways to improve it. If companies only relied on customer feedback on how to improve it then improvements wouldn’t be as quick. They need to be proactive so by listening to recordings enables them to do this.
To an extent, I agree with you. But the general public are often surprised when they discover more details about how something works - a lot of the time, when something provides a feature, I don't care much how it works under the hood because I assume that the process follows the dictates of my personal morality. Should I discover that a different moral standard is being applied, I worry about it and seek alternatives.
One of the concerns I have about Google is that it appears to be decidedly amoral - it treats data as data and seeks understanding without applying judgement. In a lot of situations, this is fine. But as this article and the source show, the real world contains a lot of ambiguity and judgement needs to be applied so that our society continues to function. The most disturbing line to me was:
"One worker screening audio said he encountered a recording in which it sounded like a woman was being physically attacked, but that Google didn't have clear guidelines on what to do in such cases."
This is a sign of dysfunction. Firstly, there's a conflict experienced by the worker: he knows that sharing this personal information is contrary to the contractual obligation with Google, but also knows that there is a moral obligation to help someone in serious trouble. It's tempting to place blame on the worker, but we don't know how certain he was about what had occurred, how afraid he was of affecting his employment, and a host of other factors. He made the judgement call that it was somebody else's decision but he didn't know how to escalate it.
So, why does Google not have a procedure for dealing with situations like this? Every adult on the planet knows that this sort of thing occurs (as much as we wish it wouldn't), how does the management at Google treat this as a low priority issue or refuse to acknowledge that it is relevant?
On the one hand, we see Google argue that their mission is merely to organise the world's information: OK, fine, if that's the activity being undertaken then that clearly means there is no obligation to act, regardless of the information being managed. But on the other hand, Google is using the analysis of the data to provide services - that too is fine, taken in separation, but it clearly negates the neutrality implied by the stated mission. If you want to collect and analyse ever more intrusive amounts of information and then act on it, you need to act in a manner that benefits society as a whole - do that and you've earned the right to make a profit. If not, then you're a surveillance mechanism that will be resisted to the best of our ability.
<end rant>
You're basing your "rant" on a journalists second hand report of what a single former contract worker had to say , that Google didn't have any policies in place on how certain things were to be dealt with. Was he/she even in a position to know? FWIW the contractors weren't listening to live streams anyway. Whatever was heard in those short snippets they were tasked with transcribing was almost certainly old stuff and not actionable for preventing or interfering with whatever was heard.
This would have to be your worst defence of google ever.
Google doesn't need defending in this case from what I can tell. Human input is a vital piece of improving the service and I'd be shocked if even the privacy-minded Apple isn't using real humans to listen to and transcribe Siri recordings to determine the speakers actual intent and identify cases where Siri thought it "heard" a wake phrase but did not. A machine would certainly not be dependable for discovering another machine heard wrong and why. Apple is almost assuredly doing the same thing whether with their own employees or with contracted companies.
...the issues around if Google has a responsibility to act on what the contractor believes they heard are very complex and we really don't have enough information to know for sure what the right/moral thing would be in this case or if Google already has appropriate policies in place or not. I'm not arguing that.
I'm just saying your weak excuse that if there was a crime being overheard it was in the past and therefore didn't matter anymore is deplorable. If the woman was being attacked as the contractor suspected then how do we know it wasn't an ongoing situation? Even if it wasn't an ongoing situation we don't give up on prosecting crimes because "that was in the past". All crimes were committed in the past. Are you suggesting that unless Google has some sort of Minority Report level of technology then it's irrelevant because the crime has already occurred? That is just ridiculous. There are many factors as to why it may not be possible/appropriate for Google to act on what is overheard by these contractors but you really missed the mark on this one...
Apple has acknowledged using human curators to determine the intent of certain Siri recordings and whether a person's voice was accurately heard and appropriately handled. Do you believe based on Apple's vaunted protection of user's privacy at (nearly) all cost that they would voluntarily pivot to sending private voice recordings to authorities for investigation into possible crimes? Would that be deplorable of Apple as well if they do not? I think that's speaking directly to the crux of the matter as you requested.
No it's not speaking to the crux of the matter. You keep trying to bring it back to if Google (or Apple as you later brought into the discussion) should or shouldn't be required to disclose this information. As I stated right from the beginning that is a complex question and not one I was attempting to answer based on the limited information provided in the original story. I simply stated that saying the recorded call would only contain "old stuff" implied that it didn't matter what may or may not have happened to the woman as it was in the past. This is what I took issue with.
You continue to ignore/detract from what you are being called out for which unfortunately is your usually approach. I never said it was deplorable for Google not to send the information to the police as you are now trying to imply I did. In fact I said we don't know what policies Google already have in place around this. I acknowledged right from the start that it's a complex issue and yet you continue to try and argue with me about points I never made while ignoring the comment I did make. Or even worse trying to twist it into something I never said.
I'm not trying to attack Google or compare them to Apple, although you seem to be very pre-occupied with the whole Apple vs Google battle. I'm simply saying that the fact the recorded call occurred in the past and only contained "old stuff" is not a reason for it to be dismissed. You have come up with a lot more intelligent talking points after your initial quick jerk reaction but still will not address what you initially said.
It speaks volumes that you still continue to ignore the one critique I raised at the very beginning.
@lolliver ; My apologies if I misunderstood the point you were attempting to make when you wrote: "One worker screening audio said he encountered a recording in which it sounded like a woman was being physically attacked, but that Google didn't have clear guidelines on what to do in such cases."
This is a sign of dysfunction. Firstly, there's a conflict experienced by the worker: he knows that sharing this personal information is contrary to the contractual obligation with Google, but (he) also knows that there is a moral obligation to help someone in serious trouble."
I read that as a concern on your part that an active crime might be underway and no one was helping. My response to you was that it was not a current conversation being transcribed but one from the past, saying and I quote: "Whatever was heard in those short snippets they were tasked with transcribing was almost certainly old stuff and not actionable for preventing or interfering with whatever was heard."
What wasn't accurate based on what I understood you to be saying? There was nothing that could be done at that time to prevent or interfere with the possible crime taking place. Now if you want to question whether Google (or Apple or Amazon) should report the old snippet to the police for investigation that's an entirely separate conversation.
Really??? I never wrote that. There was an original commenter that wrote that but it wasn't me. So your comment about it being "old stuff" was in response to the original commenter. I then responded to your comment about it being "old stuff" because I have a few very serious concerns with that point of view:
1. Dealing with crime isn't just about preventing something from occurring at the time. Perpetrators need to be held accountable for their actions. There needs to be punishment for crime. You don't just let it go because it occurred in the past. 2. Crimes like violence against women are not usually a one of occurrence. Just because this was an incident that occurred in the past doesn't mean it won't occur again. So your comment that it's "not actionable for prevention" is complete nonsense.
After re-reading your comment now and in light of the way you continue to respond, the even greater concern I have is around the type of language you use when referring to the incident. Your choice of the words "preventing or interfering" is incredibly troubling. If someone was to interfere in the case of a woman being physically assaulted that implies that you would be getting involved in someone else's business. Your use of those terms conveys the message that you don't believe it would be appropriate to assist the woman as it's not anyone else's business.
If violence towards woman is something that you struggle with (or anyone else reading this struggles with) then in most cases there is support services available: USA: 1-800-799-SAFE (7233) www.TheHotline.org UK: 0808 2000 247 http://www.nationaldomesticviolencehelpline.org.uk/ Australia:
1800 737 732https://www.1800respect.org.au/ There are support lines available in many other countries also. Violence against women is never acceptable.
And then lastly. I have said several times I was speaking directly to your attitude towards the potential crime and not the "question whether Google (or Apple or Amazon) should report" the evidence they have of the potential crime. I have already stated several times these are separate issues so saying the same thing I have said several times before you as if it's a new point being made in the conversation isn't really helping. But I'm glad you are finally at least starting to understand that part of the discussion.
It’s really surprising that people are shocked by this. People who are involved in the design and development of the product need to know it’s working and also need to find ways to improve it. If companies only relied on customer feedback on how to improve it then improvements wouldn’t be as quick. They need to be proactive so by listening to recordings enables them to do this.
To an extent, I agree with you. But the general public are often surprised when they discover more details about how something works - a lot of the time, when something provides a feature, I don't care much how it works under the hood because I assume that the process follows the dictates of my personal morality. Should I discover that a different moral standard is being applied, I worry about it and seek alternatives.
One of the concerns I have about Google is that it appears to be decidedly amoral - it treats data as data and seeks understanding without applying judgement. In a lot of situations, this is fine. But as this article and the source show, the real world contains a lot of ambiguity and judgement needs to be applied so that our society continues to function. The most disturbing line to me was:
"One worker screening audio said he encountered a recording in which it sounded like a woman was being physically attacked, but that Google didn't have clear guidelines on what to do in such cases."
This is a sign of dysfunction. Firstly, there's a conflict experienced by the worker: he knows that sharing this personal information is contrary to the contractual obligation with Google, but also knows that there is a moral obligation to help someone in serious trouble. It's tempting to place blame on the worker, but we don't know how certain he was about what had occurred, how afraid he was of affecting his employment, and a host of other factors. He made the judgement call that it was somebody else's decision but he didn't know how to escalate it.
So, why does Google not have a procedure for dealing with situations like this? Every adult on the planet knows that this sort of thing occurs (as much as we wish it wouldn't), how does the management at Google treat this as a low priority issue or refuse to acknowledge that it is relevant?
On the one hand, we see Google argue that their mission is merely to organise the world's information: OK, fine, if that's the activity being undertaken then that clearly means there is no obligation to act, regardless of the information being managed. But on the other hand, Google is using the analysis of the data to provide services - that too is fine, taken in separation, but it clearly negates the neutrality implied by the stated mission. If you want to collect and analyse ever more intrusive amounts of information and then act on it, you need to act in a manner that benefits society as a whole - do that and you've earned the right to make a profit. If not, then you're a surveillance mechanism that will be resisted to the best of our ability.
<end rant>
You're basing your "rant" on a journalists second hand report of what a single former contract worker had to say , that Google didn't have any policies in place on how certain things were to be dealt with. Was he/she even in a position to know? FWIW the contractors weren't listening to live streams anyway. Whatever was heard in those short snippets they were tasked with transcribing was almost certainly old stuff and not actionable for preventing or interfering with whatever was heard.
This would have to be your worst defence of google ever.
Google doesn't need defending in this case from what I can tell. Human input is a vital piece of improving the service and I'd be shocked if even the privacy-minded Apple isn't using real humans to listen to and transcribe Siri recordings to determine the speakers actual intent and identify cases where Siri thought it "heard" a wake phrase but did not. A machine would certainly not be dependable for discovering another machine heard wrong and why. Apple is almost assuredly doing the same thing whether with their own employees or with contracted companies.
...the issues around if Google has a responsibility to act on what the contractor believes they heard are very complex and we really don't have enough information to know for sure what the right/moral thing would be in this case or if Google already has appropriate policies in place or not. I'm not arguing that.
I'm just saying your weak excuse that if there was a crime being overheard it was in the past and therefore didn't matter anymore is deplorable. If the woman was being attacked as the contractor suspected then how do we know it wasn't an ongoing situation? Even if it wasn't an ongoing situation we don't give up on prosecting crimes because "that was in the past". All crimes were committed in the past. Are you suggesting that unless Google has some sort of Minority Report level of technology then it's irrelevant because the crime has already occurred? That is just ridiculous. There are many factors as to why it may not be possible/appropriate for Google to act on what is overheard by these contractors but you really missed the mark on this one...
Apple has acknowledged using human curators to determine the intent of certain Siri recordings and whether a person's voice was accurately heard and appropriately handled. Do you believe based on Apple's vaunted protection of user's privacy at (nearly) all cost that they would voluntarily pivot to sending private voice recordings to authorities for investigation into possible crimes? Would that be deplorable of Apple as well if they do not? I think that's speaking directly to the crux of the matter as you requested.
No it's not speaking to the crux of the matter. You keep trying to bring it back to if Google (or Apple as you later brought into the discussion) should or shouldn't be required to disclose this information. As I stated right from the beginning that is a complex question and not one I was attempting to answer based on the limited information provided in the original story. I simply stated that saying the recorded call would only contain "old stuff" implied that it didn't matter what may or may not have happened to the woman as it was in the past. This is what I took issue with.
You continue to ignore/detract from what you are being called out for which unfortunately is your usually approach. I never said it was deplorable for Google not to send the information to the police as you are now trying to imply I did. In fact I said we don't know what policies Google already have in place around this. I acknowledged right from the start that it's a complex issue and yet you continue to try and argue with me about points I never made while ignoring the comment I did make. Or even worse trying to twist it into something I never said.
I'm not trying to attack Google or compare them to Apple, although you seem to be very pre-occupied with the whole Apple vs Google battle. I'm simply saying that the fact the recorded call occurred in the past and only contained "old stuff" is not a reason for it to be dismissed. You have come up with a lot more intelligent talking points after your initial quick jerk reaction but still will not address what you initially said.
It speaks volumes that you still continue to ignore the one critique I raised at the very beginning.
@lolliver ; My apologies if I misunderstood the point you were attempting to make when you wrote: "One worker screening audio said he encountered a recording in which it sounded like a woman was being physically attacked, but that Google didn't have clear guidelines on what to do in such cases."
This is a sign of dysfunction. Firstly, there's a conflict experienced by the worker: he knows that sharing this personal information is contrary to the contractual obligation with Google, but (he) also knows that there is a moral obligation to help someone in serious trouble."
I read that as a concern on your part that an active crime might be underway and no one was helping. My response to you was that it was not a current conversation being transcribed but one from the past, saying and I quote: "Whatever was heard in those short snippets they were tasked with transcribing was almost certainly old stuff and not actionable for preventing or interfering with whatever was heard."
What wasn't accurate based on what I understood you to be saying? There was nothing that could be done at that time to prevent or interfere with the possible crime taking place. Now if you want to question whether Google (or Apple or Amazon) should report the old snippet to the police for investigation that's an entirely separate conversation.
Really??? I never wrote that. There was an original commenter that wrote that but it wasn't me. So your comment about it being "old stuff" was in response to the original commenter. I then responded to your comment about it being "old stuff" because I have a few very serious concerns with that point of view:
1. Dealing with crime isn't just about preventing something from occurring at the time. Perpetrators need to be held accountable for their actions. There needs to be punishment for crime. You don't just let it go because it occurred in the past. 2. Crimes like violence against women are not usually a one of occurrence. Just because this was an incident that occurred in the past doesn't mean it won't occur again. So your comment that it's "not actionable for prevention" is complete nonsense.
After re-reading your comment now and in light of the way you continue to respond, the even greater concern I have is around the type of language you use when referring to the incident. Your choice of the words "preventing or interfering" is incredibly troubling. If someone was to interfere in the case of a woman being physically assaulted that implies that you would be getting involved in someone else's business. Your use of those terms conveys the message that you don't believe it would be appropriate to assist the woman as it's not anyone else's business.
If violence towards woman is something that you struggle with (or anyone else reading this struggles with) then in most cases there is support services available: USA: 1-800-799-SAFE (7233) www.TheHotline.org UK: 0808 2000 247 http://www.nationaldomesticviolencehelpline.org.uk/ Australia:
1800 737 732https://www.1800respect.org.au/ There are support lines available in many other countries also. Violence against women is never acceptable.
And then lastly. I have said several times I was speaking directly to your attitude towards the potential crime and not the "question whether Google (or Apple or Amazon) should report" the evidence they have of the potential crime. I have already stated several times these are separate issues so saying the same thing I have said several times before you as if it's a new point being made in the conversation isn't really helping. But I'm glad you are finally at least starting to understand that part of the discussion.
Having a discussion with you if very difficult when you make assumptions about what my attitude is for reasons known only to you. I doubt I'm any less careful than you when it comes to treating anyone unfairly.
So such silliness coming from you, claiming I condone violence of any type no matter the gender. Read my comments for exactly what they say. If the concern was that a crime was underway and the transcriber might be distressed at not being able to stop it the event had already occurred and that was no longer possible.
If it's not that and instead its all about someone at the tech should be doing something then that would speak to a discussion about how Apple or Google should now respond, correct? They would be the only parties who could potentially investigate to find where those recordings originated. Nothing at all that the transcriber can do.other than turn it over to the company who collected the speech snippet. Do they report it to the police since "perpetrators need to be held accountable for their actions, you don't just let it go because it happened in the past"? I think that's what you're saying.
You tell me if Google (and Apple and Amazon) is being deplorable" (I think that was they word you used) if not doing so as you said a few posts back.
It’s really surprising that people are shocked by this. People who are involved in the design and development of the product need to know it’s working and also need to find ways to improve it. If companies only relied on customer feedback on how to improve it then improvements wouldn’t be as quick. They need to be proactive so by listening to recordings enables them to do this.
To an extent, I agree with you. But the general public are often surprised when they discover more details about how something works - a lot of the time, when something provides a feature, I don't care much how it works under the hood because I assume that the process follows the dictates of my personal morality. Should I discover that a different moral standard is being applied, I worry about it and seek alternatives.
One of the concerns I have about Google is that it appears to be decidedly amoral - it treats data as data and seeks understanding without applying judgement. In a lot of situations, this is fine. But as this article and the source show, the real world contains a lot of ambiguity and judgement needs to be applied so that our society continues to function. The most disturbing line to me was:
"One worker screening audio said he encountered a recording in which it sounded like a woman was being physically attacked, but that Google didn't have clear guidelines on what to do in such cases."
This is a sign of dysfunction. Firstly, there's a conflict experienced by the worker: he knows that sharing this personal information is contrary to the contractual obligation with Google, but also knows that there is a moral obligation to help someone in serious trouble. It's tempting to place blame on the worker, but we don't know how certain he was about what had occurred, how afraid he was of affecting his employment, and a host of other factors. He made the judgement call that it was somebody else's decision but he didn't know how to escalate it.
So, why does Google not have a procedure for dealing with situations like this? Every adult on the planet knows that this sort of thing occurs (as much as we wish it wouldn't), how does the management at Google treat this as a low priority issue or refuse to acknowledge that it is relevant?
On the one hand, we see Google argue that their mission is merely to organise the world's information: OK, fine, if that's the activity being undertaken then that clearly means there is no obligation to act, regardless of the information being managed. But on the other hand, Google is using the analysis of the data to provide services - that too is fine, taken in separation, but it clearly negates the neutrality implied by the stated mission. If you want to collect and analyse ever more intrusive amounts of information and then act on it, you need to act in a manner that benefits society as a whole - do that and you've earned the right to make a profit. If not, then you're a surveillance mechanism that will be resisted to the best of our ability.
<end rant>
You're basing your "rant" on a journalists second hand report of what a single former contract worker had to say , that Google didn't have any policies in place on how certain things were to be dealt with. Was he/she even in a position to know? FWIW the contractors weren't listening to live streams anyway. Whatever was heard in those short snippets they were tasked with transcribing was almost certainly old stuff and not actionable for preventing or interfering with whatever was heard.
This would have to be your worst defence of google ever.
Google doesn't need defending in this case from what I can tell. Human input is a vital piece of improving the service and I'd be shocked if even the privacy-minded Apple isn't using real humans to listen to and transcribe Siri recordings to determine the speakers actual intent and identify cases where Siri thought it "heard" a wake phrase but did not. A machine would certainly not be dependable for discovering another machine heard wrong and why. Apple is almost assuredly doing the same thing whether with their own employees or with contracted companies.
...the issues around if Google has a responsibility to act on what the contractor believes they heard are very complex and we really don't have enough information to know for sure what the right/moral thing would be in this case or if Google already has appropriate policies in place or not. I'm not arguing that.
I'm just saying your weak excuse that if there was a crime being overheard it was in the past and therefore didn't matter anymore is deplorable. If the woman was being attacked as the contractor suspected then how do we know it wasn't an ongoing situation? Even if it wasn't an ongoing situation we don't give up on prosecting crimes because "that was in the past". All crimes were committed in the past. Are you suggesting that unless Google has some sort of Minority Report level of technology then it's irrelevant because the crime has already occurred? That is just ridiculous. There are many factors as to why it may not be possible/appropriate for Google to act on what is overheard by these contractors but you really missed the mark on this one...
Apple has acknowledged using human curators to determine the intent of certain Siri recordings and whether a person's voice was accurately heard and appropriately handled. Do you believe based on Apple's vaunted protection of user's privacy at (nearly) all cost that they would voluntarily pivot to sending private voice recordings to authorities for investigation into possible crimes? Would that be deplorable of Apple as well if they do not? I think that's speaking directly to the crux of the matter as you requested.
No it's not speaking to the crux of the matter. You keep trying to bring it back to if Google (or Apple as you later brought into the discussion) should or shouldn't be required to disclose this information. As I stated right from the beginning that is a complex question and not one I was attempting to answer based on the limited information provided in the original story. I simply stated that saying the recorded call would only contain "old stuff" implied that it didn't matter what may or may not have happened to the woman as it was in the past. This is what I took issue with.
You continue to ignore/detract from what you are being called out for which unfortunately is your usually approach. I never said it was deplorable for Google not to send the information to the police as you are now trying to imply I did. In fact I said we don't know what policies Google already have in place around this. I acknowledged right from the start that it's a complex issue and yet you continue to try and argue with me about points I never made while ignoring the comment I did make. Or even worse trying to twist it into something I never said.
I'm not trying to attack Google or compare them to Apple, although you seem to be very pre-occupied with the whole Apple vs Google battle. I'm simply saying that the fact the recorded call occurred in the past and only contained "old stuff" is not a reason for it to be dismissed. You have come up with a lot more intelligent talking points after your initial quick jerk reaction but still will not address what you initially said.
It speaks volumes that you still continue to ignore the one critique I raised at the very beginning.
@lolliver ; My apologies if I misunderstood the point you were attempting to make when you wrote: "One worker screening audio said he encountered a recording in which it sounded like a woman was being physically attacked, but that Google didn't have clear guidelines on what to do in such cases."
This is a sign of dysfunction. Firstly, there's a conflict experienced by the worker: he knows that sharing this personal information is contrary to the contractual obligation with Google, but (he) also knows that there is a moral obligation to help someone in serious trouble."
I read that as a concern on your part that an active crime might be underway and no one was helping. My response to you was that it was not a current conversation being transcribed but one from the past, saying and I quote: "Whatever was heard in those short snippets they were tasked with transcribing was almost certainly old stuff and not actionable for preventing or interfering with whatever was heard."
What wasn't accurate based on what I understood you to be saying? There was nothing that could be done at that time to prevent or interfere with the possible crime taking place. Now if you want to question whether Google (or Apple or Amazon) should report the old snippet to the police for investigation that's an entirely separate conversation.
Really??? I never wrote that. There was an original commenter that wrote that but it wasn't me. So your comment about it being "old stuff" was in response to the original commenter. I then responded to your comment about it being "old stuff" because I have a few very serious concerns with that point of view:
1. Dealing with crime isn't just about preventing something from occurring at the time. Perpetrators need to be held accountable for their actions. There needs to be punishment for crime. You don't just let it go because it occurred in the past. 2. Crimes like violence against women are not usually a one of occurrence. Just because this was an incident that occurred in the past doesn't mean it won't occur again. So your comment that it's "not actionable for prevention" is complete nonsense.
After re-reading your comment now and in light of the way you continue to respond, the even greater concern I have is around the type of language you use when referring to the incident. Your choice of the words "preventing or interfering" is incredibly troubling. If someone was to interfere in the case of a woman being physically assaulted that implies that you would be getting involved in someone else's business. Your use of those terms conveys the message that you don't believe it would be appropriate to assist the woman as it's not anyone else's business.
If violence towards woman is something that you struggle with (or anyone else reading this struggles with) then in most cases there is support services available: USA: 1-800-799-SAFE (7233) www.TheHotline.org UK: 0808 2000 247 http://www.nationaldomesticviolencehelpline.org.uk/ Australia:
1800 737 732https://www.1800respect.org.au/ There are support lines available in many other countries also. Violence against women is never acceptable.
And then lastly. I have said several times I was speaking directly to your attitude towards the potential crime and not the "question whether Google (or Apple or Amazon) should report" the evidence they have of the potential crime. I have already stated several times these are separate issues so saying the same thing I have said several times before you as if it's a new point being made in the conversation isn't really helping. But I'm glad you are finally at least starting to understand that part of the discussion.
Having a discussion with you if very difficult when you make assumptions about what my attitude is for reasons known only to you.
Such silliness to assume I condone violence of any type, no matter the gender. Read my comments for exactly what they say. If the concern was that a crime was underway and the transcriber might be distressed at not being able to stop it the event had already occurred and that was no longer possible. If you think that someone should be doing something that would speak to a discussion about how Apple or Google should now respond. Do they report it to the police since "perpetrators need to be held accountable for their actions, you don't just let it go because it happened in the past"?
You tell me if Google (and Apple and Amazon) is being deplorable" (I think that was they word you used) if not doing so as you said a few posts back.
I wasn't assuming what your attitude was. I was reading the comments for exactly what they were and raising a concern because of what you said and the message that it conveys. I wasn't assuming you did condone violence. I simply stated that your choice of language left that open to interpretation and that is what I was concerned by. I was not trying to offend you in any way. I was simply concerned by the way you were communicating the message. If this is not something you struggle with then I am glad to hear it. However, based on your choice of terminology and the way you were approaching the discussion this isn't something I could just ignore.
In relation to this: "You tell me if Google (and Apple and Amazon) is being deplorable" (I think that was they word you used)" You have tried to twist my words on this once before and I have already corrected you on it. I said YOUR comment was deplorable. I have never made any statement on my views about how Google, Apple or Amazon should be dealing with this other than to say that is a complex issue. I told you this the last time you tried to twist my words and accuse me of something I never said.
You say it's difficult to have a conversation with me but I'm not the one trying to twist and change what the other has said. My issue was around you implying that "old stuff" doesn't matter and your choice of the word "interfering" instead of thinking about the opportunity to assist or help someone who may have been (and may continue to be) in danger.
All it would take to resolve this debate is for you to admit that just because a potential crime has occurred in the past does not mean the authorities would be unable to assist the victim.
I'm not saying that Google should be required to provide the evidence (and I'm not saying that they shouldn't). But I am saying that your comment that because it's "old stuff" nothing can be done is ridiculous.
It’s really surprising that people are shocked by this. People who are involved in the design and development of the product need to know it’s working and also need to find ways to improve it. If companies only relied on customer feedback on how to improve it then improvements wouldn’t be as quick. They need to be proactive so by listening to recordings enables them to do this.
To an extent, I agree with you. But the general public are often surprised when they discover more details about how something works - a lot of the time, when something provides a feature, I don't care much how it works under the hood because I assume that the process follows the dictates of my personal morality. Should I discover that a different moral standard is being applied, I worry about it and seek alternatives.
One of the concerns I have about Google is that it appears to be decidedly amoral - it treats data as data and seeks understanding without applying judgement. In a lot of situations, this is fine. But as this article and the source show, the real world contains a lot of ambiguity and judgement needs to be applied so that our society continues to function. The most disturbing line to me was:
"One worker screening audio said he encountered a recording in which it sounded like a woman was being physically attacked, but that Google didn't have clear guidelines on what to do in such cases."
This is a sign of dysfunction. Firstly, there's a conflict experienced by the worker: he knows that sharing this personal information is contrary to the contractual obligation with Google, but also knows that there is a moral obligation to help someone in serious trouble. It's tempting to place blame on the worker, but we don't know how certain he was about what had occurred, how afraid he was of affecting his employment, and a host of other factors. He made the judgement call that it was somebody else's decision but he didn't know how to escalate it.
So, why does Google not have a procedure for dealing with situations like this? Every adult on the planet knows that this sort of thing occurs (as much as we wish it wouldn't), how does the management at Google treat this as a low priority issue or refuse to acknowledge that it is relevant?
On the one hand, we see Google argue that their mission is merely to organise the world's information: OK, fine, if that's the activity being undertaken then that clearly means there is no obligation to act, regardless of the information being managed. But on the other hand, Google is using the analysis of the data to provide services - that too is fine, taken in separation, but it clearly negates the neutrality implied by the stated mission. If you want to collect and analyse ever more intrusive amounts of information and then act on it, you need to act in a manner that benefits society as a whole - do that and you've earned the right to make a profit. If not, then you're a surveillance mechanism that will be resisted to the best of our ability.
<end rant>
You're basing your "rant" on a journalists second hand report of what a single former contract worker had to say , that Google didn't have any policies in place on how certain things were to be dealt with. Was he/she even in a position to know? FWIW the contractors weren't listening to live streams anyway. Whatever was heard in those short snippets they were tasked with transcribing was almost certainly old stuff and not actionable for preventing or interfering with whatever was heard.
This would have to be your worst defence of google ever.
Google doesn't need defending in this case from what I can tell. Human input is a vital piece of improving the service and I'd be shocked if even the privacy-minded Apple isn't using real humans to listen to and transcribe Siri recordings to determine the speakers actual intent and identify cases where Siri thought it "heard" a wake phrase but did not. A machine would certainly not be dependable for discovering another machine heard wrong and why. Apple is almost assuredly doing the same thing whether with their own employees or with contracted companies.
...the issues around if Google has a responsibility to act on what the contractor believes they heard are very complex and we really don't have enough information to know for sure what the right/moral thing would be in this case or if Google already has appropriate policies in place or not. I'm not arguing that.
I'm just saying your weak excuse that if there was a crime being overheard it was in the past and therefore didn't matter anymore is deplorable. If the woman was being attacked as the contractor suspected then how do we know it wasn't an ongoing situation? Even if it wasn't an ongoing situation we don't give up on prosecting crimes because "that was in the past". All crimes were committed in the past. Are you suggesting that unless Google has some sort of Minority Report level of technology then it's irrelevant because the crime has already occurred? That is just ridiculous. There are many factors as to why it may not be possible/appropriate for Google to act on what is overheard by these contractors but you really missed the mark on this one...
Apple has acknowledged using human curators to determine the intent of certain Siri recordings and whether a person's voice was accurately heard and appropriately handled. Do you believe based on Apple's vaunted protection of user's privacy at (nearly) all cost that they would voluntarily pivot to sending private voice recordings to authorities for investigation into possible crimes? Would that be deplorable of Apple as well if they do not? I think that's speaking directly to the crux of the matter as you requested.
No it's not speaking to the crux of the matter. You keep trying to bring it back to if Google (or Apple as you later brought into the discussion) should or shouldn't be required to disclose this information. As I stated right from the beginning that is a complex question and not one I was attempting to answer based on the limited information provided in the original story. I simply stated that saying the recorded call would only contain "old stuff" implied that it didn't matter what may or may not have happened to the woman as it was in the past. This is what I took issue with.
You continue to ignore/detract from what you are being called out for which unfortunately is your usually approach. I never said it was deplorable for Google not to send the information to the police as you are now trying to imply I did. In fact I said we don't know what policies Google already have in place around this. I acknowledged right from the start that it's a complex issue and yet you continue to try and argue with me about points I never made while ignoring the comment I did make. Or even worse trying to twist it into something I never said.
I'm not trying to attack Google or compare them to Apple, although you seem to be very pre-occupied with the whole Apple vs Google battle. I'm simply saying that the fact the recorded call occurred in the past and only contained "old stuff" is not a reason for it to be dismissed. You have come up with a lot more intelligent talking points after your initial quick jerk reaction but still will not address what you initially said.
It speaks volumes that you still continue to ignore the one critique I raised at the very beginning.
@lolliver ; My apologies if I misunderstood the point you were attempting to make when you wrote: "One worker screening audio said he encountered a recording in which it sounded like a woman was being physically attacked, but that Google didn't have clear guidelines on what to do in such cases."
This is a sign of dysfunction. Firstly, there's a conflict experienced by the worker: he knows that sharing this personal information is contrary to the contractual obligation with Google, but (he) also knows that there is a moral obligation to help someone in serious trouble."
I read that as a concern on your part that an active crime might be underway and no one was helping. My response to you was that it was not a current conversation being transcribed but one from the past, saying and I quote: "Whatever was heard in those short snippets they were tasked with transcribing was almost certainly old stuff and not actionable for preventing or interfering with whatever was heard."
What wasn't accurate based on what I understood you to be saying? There was nothing that could be done at that time to prevent or interfere with the possible crime taking place. Now if you want to question whether Google (or Apple or Amazon) should report the old snippet to the police for investigation that's an entirely separate conversation.
Really??? I never wrote that. There was an original commenter that wrote that but it wasn't me. So your comment about it being "old stuff" was in response to the original commenter. I then responded to your comment about it being "old stuff" because I have a few very serious concerns with that point of view:
1. Dealing with crime isn't just about preventing something from occurring at the time. Perpetrators need to be held accountable for their actions. There needs to be punishment for crime. You don't just let it go because it occurred in the past. 2. Crimes like violence against women are not usually a one of occurrence. Just because this was an incident that occurred in the past doesn't mean it won't occur again. So your comment that it's "not actionable for prevention" is complete nonsense.
After re-reading your comment now and in light of the way you continue to respond, the even greater concern I have is around the type of language you use when referring to the incident. Your choice of the words "preventing or interfering" is incredibly troubling. If someone was to interfere in the case of a woman being physically assaulted that implies that you would be getting involved in someone else's business. Your use of those terms conveys the message that you don't believe it would be appropriate to assist the woman as it's not anyone else's business.
If violence towards woman is something that you struggle with (or anyone else reading this struggles with) then in most cases there is support services available: USA: 1-800-799-SAFE (7233) www.TheHotline.org UK: 0808 2000 247 http://www.nationaldomesticviolencehelpline.org.uk/ Australia:
1800 737 732https://www.1800respect.org.au/ There are support lines available in many other countries also. Violence against women is never acceptable.
And then lastly. I have said several times I was speaking directly to your attitude towards the potential crime and not the "question whether Google (or Apple or Amazon) should report" the evidence they have of the potential crime. I have already stated several times these are separate issues so saying the same thing I have said several times before you as if it's a new point being made in the conversation isn't really helping. But I'm glad you are finally at least starting to understand that part of the discussion.
Having a discussion with you if very difficult when you make assumptions about what my attitude is for reasons known only to you.
Such silliness to assume I condone violence of any type, no matter the gender. Read my comments for exactly what they say. If the concern was that a crime was underway and the transcriber might be distressed at not being able to stop it the event had already occurred and that was no longer possible. If you think that someone should be doing something that would speak to a discussion about how Apple or Google should now respond. Do they report it to the police since "perpetrators need to be held accountable for their actions, you don't just let it go because it happened in the past"?
You tell me if Google (and Apple and Amazon) is being deplorable" (I think that was they word you used) if not doing so as you said a few posts back.
I wasn't assuming what your attitude was. I was reading the comments for exactly what they were and raising a concern because of what you said and the message that it conveys. I wasn't assuming you did condone violence. I simply stated that your choice of language left that open to interpretation and that is what I was concerned by. I was not trying to offend you in any way. I was simply concerned by the way you were communicating the message. If this is not something you struggle with then I am glad to hear it. However, based on your choice of terminology and the way you were approaching the discussion this isn't something I could just ignore.
All it would take to resolve this debate is for you to admit that just because a potential crime has occurred in the past does not mean the authorities would be unable to assist the victim.
I'm not saying that Google should be required to provide the evidence (and I'm not saying that they shouldn't). But I am saying that your comment that because it's "old stuff" nothing can be done is ridiculous.
At no time did I ever say "it didn't matter" as you wrote. That was your preferred interpretation of my statement that whatever happened was in the past and whatever happened could not prevented from having occurred. As for punishing for a past event or possibly preventing another occurrence nothing can be done without Google or Apple's or Amazon's assistance, The "authorities" CANNOT assist any possible victim. So should those companies be doing so? If that is not one of your concerns on then exactly what is your issue and your suggested fix for it ?
And my apologies for confusing you with the OP. Presumably your opinion and his do not agree based on your objections.
It’s really surprising that people are shocked by this. People who are involved in the design and development of the product need to know it’s working and also need to find ways to improve it. If companies only relied on customer feedback on how to improve it then improvements wouldn’t be as quick. They need to be proactive so by listening to recordings enables them to do this.
To an extent, I agree with you. But the general public are often surprised when they discover more details about how something works - a lot of the time, when something provides a feature, I don't care much how it works under the hood because I assume that the process follows the dictates of my personal morality. Should I discover that a different moral standard is being applied, I worry about it and seek alternatives.
One of the concerns I have about Google is that it appears to be decidedly amoral - it treats data as data and seeks understanding without applying judgement. In a lot of situations, this is fine. But as this article and the source show, the real world contains a lot of ambiguity and judgement needs to be applied so that our society continues to function. The most disturbing line to me was:
"One worker screening audio said he encountered a recording in which it sounded like a woman was being physically attacked, but that Google didn't have clear guidelines on what to do in such cases."
This is a sign of dysfunction. Firstly, there's a conflict experienced by the worker: he knows that sharing this personal information is contrary to the contractual obligation with Google, but also knows that there is a moral obligation to help someone in serious trouble. It's tempting to place blame on the worker, but we don't know how certain he was about what had occurred, how afraid he was of affecting his employment, and a host of other factors. He made the judgement call that it was somebody else's decision but he didn't know how to escalate it.
So, why does Google not have a procedure for dealing with situations like this? Every adult on the planet knows that this sort of thing occurs (as much as we wish it wouldn't), how does the management at Google treat this as a low priority issue or refuse to acknowledge that it is relevant?
On the one hand, we see Google argue that their mission is merely to organise the world's information: OK, fine, if that's the activity being undertaken then that clearly means there is no obligation to act, regardless of the information being managed. But on the other hand, Google is using the analysis of the data to provide services - that too is fine, taken in separation, but it clearly negates the neutrality implied by the stated mission. If you want to collect and analyse ever more intrusive amounts of information and then act on it, you need to act in a manner that benefits society as a whole - do that and you've earned the right to make a profit. If not, then you're a surveillance mechanism that will be resisted to the best of our ability.
<end rant>
You're basing your "rant" on a journalists second hand report of what a single former contract worker had to say , that Google didn't have any policies in place on how certain things were to be dealt with. Was he/she even in a position to know? FWIW the contractors weren't listening to live streams anyway. Whatever was heard in those short snippets they were tasked with transcribing was almost certainly old stuff and not actionable for preventing or interfering with whatever was heard.
This would have to be your worst defence of google ever.
Google doesn't need defending in this case from what I can tell. Human input is a vital piece of improving the service and I'd be shocked if even the privacy-minded Apple isn't using real humans to listen to and transcribe Siri recordings to determine the speakers actual intent and identify cases where Siri thought it "heard" a wake phrase but did not. A machine would certainly not be dependable for discovering another machine heard wrong and why. Apple is almost assuredly doing the same thing whether with their own employees or with contracted companies.
...the issues around if Google has a responsibility to act on what the contractor believes they heard are very complex and we really don't have enough information to know for sure what the right/moral thing would be in this case or if Google already has appropriate policies in place or not. I'm not arguing that.
I'm just saying your weak excuse that if there was a crime being overheard it was in the past and therefore didn't matter anymore is deplorable. If the woman was being attacked as the contractor suspected then how do we know it wasn't an ongoing situation? Even if it wasn't an ongoing situation we don't give up on prosecting crimes because "that was in the past". All crimes were committed in the past. Are you suggesting that unless Google has some sort of Minority Report level of technology then it's irrelevant because the crime has already occurred? That is just ridiculous. There are many factors as to why it may not be possible/appropriate for Google to act on what is overheard by these contractors but you really missed the mark on this one...
Apple has acknowledged using human curators to determine the intent of certain Siri recordings and whether a person's voice was accurately heard and appropriately handled. Do you believe based on Apple's vaunted protection of user's privacy at (nearly) all cost that they would voluntarily pivot to sending private voice recordings to authorities for investigation into possible crimes? Would that be deplorable of Apple as well if they do not? I think that's speaking directly to the crux of the matter as you requested.
No it's not speaking to the crux of the matter. You keep trying to bring it back to if Google (or Apple as you later brought into the discussion) should or shouldn't be required to disclose this information. As I stated right from the beginning that is a complex question and not one I was attempting to answer based on the limited information provided in the original story. I simply stated that saying the recorded call would only contain "old stuff" implied that it didn't matter what may or may not have happened to the woman as it was in the past. This is what I took issue with.
You continue to ignore/detract from what you are being called out for which unfortunately is your usually approach. I never said it was deplorable for Google not to send the information to the police as you are now trying to imply I did. In fact I said we don't know what policies Google already have in place around this. I acknowledged right from the start that it's a complex issue and yet you continue to try and argue with me about points I never made while ignoring the comment I did make. Or even worse trying to twist it into something I never said.
I'm not trying to attack Google or compare them to Apple, although you seem to be very pre-occupied with the whole Apple vs Google battle. I'm simply saying that the fact the recorded call occurred in the past and only contained "old stuff" is not a reason for it to be dismissed. You have come up with a lot more intelligent talking points after your initial quick jerk reaction but still will not address what you initially said.
It speaks volumes that you still continue to ignore the one critique I raised at the very beginning.
@lolliver ; My apologies if I misunderstood the point you were attempting to make when you wrote: "One worker screening audio said he encountered a recording in which it sounded like a woman was being physically attacked, but that Google didn't have clear guidelines on what to do in such cases."
This is a sign of dysfunction. Firstly, there's a conflict experienced by the worker: he knows that sharing this personal information is contrary to the contractual obligation with Google, but (he) also knows that there is a moral obligation to help someone in serious trouble."
I read that as a concern on your part that an active crime might be underway and no one was helping. My response to you was that it was not a current conversation being transcribed but one from the past, saying and I quote: "Whatever was heard in those short snippets they were tasked with transcribing was almost certainly old stuff and not actionable for preventing or interfering with whatever was heard."
What wasn't accurate based on what I understood you to be saying? There was nothing that could be done at that time to prevent or interfere with the possible crime taking place. Now if you want to question whether Google (or Apple or Amazon) should report the old snippet to the police for investigation that's an entirely separate conversation.
Really??? I never wrote that. There was an original commenter that wrote that but it wasn't me. So your comment about it being "old stuff" was in response to the original commenter. I then responded to your comment about it being "old stuff" because I have a few very serious concerns with that point of view:
1. Dealing with crime isn't just about preventing something from occurring at the time. Perpetrators need to be held accountable for their actions. There needs to be punishment for crime. You don't just let it go because it occurred in the past. 2. Crimes like violence against women are not usually a one of occurrence. Just because this was an incident that occurred in the past doesn't mean it won't occur again. So your comment that it's "not actionable for prevention" is complete nonsense.
After re-reading your comment now and in light of the way you continue to respond, the even greater concern I have is around the type of language you use when referring to the incident. Your choice of the words "preventing or interfering" is incredibly troubling. If someone was to interfere in the case of a woman being physically assaulted that implies that you would be getting involved in someone else's business. Your use of those terms conveys the message that you don't believe it would be appropriate to assist the woman as it's not anyone else's business.
If violence towards woman is something that you struggle with (or anyone else reading this struggles with) then in most cases there is support services available: USA: 1-800-799-SAFE (7233) www.TheHotline.org UK: 0808 2000 247 http://www.nationaldomesticviolencehelpline.org.uk/ Australia:
1800 737 732https://www.1800respect.org.au/ There are support lines available in many other countries also. Violence against women is never acceptable.
And then lastly. I have said several times I was speaking directly to your attitude towards the potential crime and not the "question whether Google (or Apple or Amazon) should report" the evidence they have of the potential crime. I have already stated several times these are separate issues so saying the same thing I have said several times before you as if it's a new point being made in the conversation isn't really helping. But I'm glad you are finally at least starting to understand that part of the discussion.
Having a discussion with you if very difficult when you make assumptions about what my attitude is for reasons known only to you.
Such silliness to assume I condone violence of any type, no matter the gender. Read my comments for exactly what they say. If the concern was that a crime was underway and the transcriber might be distressed at not being able to stop it the event had already occurred and that was no longer possible. If you think that someone should be doing something that would speak to a discussion about how Apple or Google should now respond. Do they report it to the police since "perpetrators need to be held accountable for their actions, you don't just let it go because it happened in the past"?
You tell me if Google (and Apple and Amazon) is being deplorable" (I think that was they word you used) if not doing so as you said a few posts back.
I wasn't assuming what your attitude was. I was reading the comments for exactly what they were and raising a concern because of what you said and the message that it conveys. I wasn't assuming you did condone violence. I simply stated that your choice of language left that open to interpretation and that is what I was concerned by. I was not trying to offend you in any way. I was simply concerned by the way you were communicating the message. If this is not something you struggle with then I am glad to hear it. However, based on your choice of terminology and the way you were approaching the discussion this isn't something I could just ignore.
All it would take to resolve this debate is for you to admit that just because a potential crime has occurred in the past does not mean the authorities would be unable to assist the victim.
I'm not saying that Google should be required to provide the evidence (and I'm not saying that they shouldn't). But I am saying that your comment that because it's "old stuff" nothing can be done is ridiculous.
Nothing can be done without Google or Apple's or Amazon's assistance, The "authorities" CANNOT assist any possible victim. So should those companies be doing so?
Seriously??? Still only looking at it from your need to defend Google at all costs point of view?
Here, I'll write a potential reply for you and lets see if you can agree on this:
"Crimes of violence can be an ongoing situation in many cases. Even though this was a recorded incident and the contractor was not listening in live, there is still the potential to prevent future incidents or to bring the perpetrator to justice. However, the discussion around 'IF' Google should hand over the recordings is a separate issue and is far more complex for many reasons."
It’s really surprising that people are shocked by this. People who are involved in the design and development of the product need to know it’s working and also need to find ways to improve it. If companies only relied on customer feedback on how to improve it then improvements wouldn’t be as quick. They need to be proactive so by listening to recordings enables them to do this.
To an extent, I agree with you. But the general public are often surprised when they discover more details about how something works - a lot of the time, when something provides a feature, I don't care much how it works under the hood because I assume that the process follows the dictates of my personal morality. Should I discover that a different moral standard is being applied, I worry about it and seek alternatives.
One of the concerns I have about Google is that it appears to be decidedly amoral - it treats data as data and seeks understanding without applying judgement. In a lot of situations, this is fine. But as this article and the source show, the real world contains a lot of ambiguity and judgement needs to be applied so that our society continues to function. The most disturbing line to me was:
"One worker screening audio said he encountered a recording in which it sounded like a woman was being physically attacked, but that Google didn't have clear guidelines on what to do in such cases."
This is a sign of dysfunction. Firstly, there's a conflict experienced by the worker: he knows that sharing this personal information is contrary to the contractual obligation with Google, but also knows that there is a moral obligation to help someone in serious trouble. It's tempting to place blame on the worker, but we don't know how certain he was about what had occurred, how afraid he was of affecting his employment, and a host of other factors. He made the judgement call that it was somebody else's decision but he didn't know how to escalate it.
So, why does Google not have a procedure for dealing with situations like this? Every adult on the planet knows that this sort of thing occurs (as much as we wish it wouldn't), how does the management at Google treat this as a low priority issue or refuse to acknowledge that it is relevant?
On the one hand, we see Google argue that their mission is merely to organise the world's information: OK, fine, if that's the activity being undertaken then that clearly means there is no obligation to act, regardless of the information being managed. But on the other hand, Google is using the analysis of the data to provide services - that too is fine, taken in separation, but it clearly negates the neutrality implied by the stated mission. If you want to collect and analyse ever more intrusive amounts of information and then act on it, you need to act in a manner that benefits society as a whole - do that and you've earned the right to make a profit. If not, then you're a surveillance mechanism that will be resisted to the best of our ability.
<end rant>
You're basing your "rant" on a journalists second hand report of what a single former contract worker had to say , that Google didn't have any policies in place on how certain things were to be dealt with. Was he/she even in a position to know? FWIW the contractors weren't listening to live streams anyway. Whatever was heard in those short snippets they were tasked with transcribing was almost certainly old stuff and not actionable for preventing or interfering with whatever was heard.
This would have to be your worst defence of google ever.
Google doesn't need defending in this case from what I can tell. Human input is a vital piece of improving the service and I'd be shocked if even the privacy-minded Apple isn't using real humans to listen to and transcribe Siri recordings to determine the speakers actual intent and identify cases where Siri thought it "heard" a wake phrase but did not. A machine would certainly not be dependable for discovering another machine heard wrong and why. Apple is almost assuredly doing the same thing whether with their own employees or with contracted companies.
...the issues around if Google has a responsibility to act on what the contractor believes they heard are very complex and we really don't have enough information to know for sure what the right/moral thing would be in this case or if Google already has appropriate policies in place or not. I'm not arguing that.
I'm just saying your weak excuse that if there was a crime being overheard it was in the past and therefore didn't matter anymore is deplorable. If the woman was being attacked as the contractor suspected then how do we know it wasn't an ongoing situation? Even if it wasn't an ongoing situation we don't give up on prosecting crimes because "that was in the past". All crimes were committed in the past. Are you suggesting that unless Google has some sort of Minority Report level of technology then it's irrelevant because the crime has already occurred? That is just ridiculous. There are many factors as to why it may not be possible/appropriate for Google to act on what is overheard by these contractors but you really missed the mark on this one...
Apple has acknowledged using human curators to determine the intent of certain Siri recordings and whether a person's voice was accurately heard and appropriately handled. Do you believe based on Apple's vaunted protection of user's privacy at (nearly) all cost that they would voluntarily pivot to sending private voice recordings to authorities for investigation into possible crimes? Would that be deplorable of Apple as well if they do not? I think that's speaking directly to the crux of the matter as you requested.
No it's not speaking to the crux of the matter. You keep trying to bring it back to if Google (or Apple as you later brought into the discussion) should or shouldn't be required to disclose this information. As I stated right from the beginning that is a complex question and not one I was attempting to answer based on the limited information provided in the original story. I simply stated that saying the recorded call would only contain "old stuff" implied that it didn't matter what may or may not have happened to the woman as it was in the past. This is what I took issue with.
You continue to ignore/detract from what you are being called out for which unfortunately is your usually approach. I never said it was deplorable for Google not to send the information to the police as you are now trying to imply I did. In fact I said we don't know what policies Google already have in place around this. I acknowledged right from the start that it's a complex issue and yet you continue to try and argue with me about points I never made while ignoring the comment I did make. Or even worse trying to twist it into something I never said.
I'm not trying to attack Google or compare them to Apple, although you seem to be very pre-occupied with the whole Apple vs Google battle. I'm simply saying that the fact the recorded call occurred in the past and only contained "old stuff" is not a reason for it to be dismissed. You have come up with a lot more intelligent talking points after your initial quick jerk reaction but still will not address what you initially said.
It speaks volumes that you still continue to ignore the one critique I raised at the very beginning.
@lolliver ; My apologies if I misunderstood the point you were attempting to make when you wrote: "One worker screening audio said he encountered a recording in which it sounded like a woman was being physically attacked, but that Google didn't have clear guidelines on what to do in such cases."
This is a sign of dysfunction. Firstly, there's a conflict experienced by the worker: he knows that sharing this personal information is contrary to the contractual obligation with Google, but (he) also knows that there is a moral obligation to help someone in serious trouble."
I read that as a concern on your part that an active crime might be underway and no one was helping. My response to you was that it was not a current conversation being transcribed but one from the past, saying and I quote: "Whatever was heard in those short snippets they were tasked with transcribing was almost certainly old stuff and not actionable for preventing or interfering with whatever was heard."
What wasn't accurate based on what I understood you to be saying? There was nothing that could be done at that time to prevent or interfere with the possible crime taking place. Now if you want to question whether Google (or Apple or Amazon) should report the old snippet to the police for investigation that's an entirely separate conversation.
Really??? I never wrote that. There was an original commenter that wrote that but it wasn't me. So your comment about it being "old stuff" was in response to the original commenter. I then responded to your comment about it being "old stuff" because I have a few very serious concerns with that point of view:
1. Dealing with crime isn't just about preventing something from occurring at the time. Perpetrators need to be held accountable for their actions. There needs to be punishment for crime. You don't just let it go because it occurred in the past. 2. Crimes like violence against women are not usually a one of occurrence. Just because this was an incident that occurred in the past doesn't mean it won't occur again. So your comment that it's "not actionable for prevention" is complete nonsense.
After re-reading your comment now and in light of the way you continue to respond, the even greater concern I have is around the type of language you use when referring to the incident. Your choice of the words "preventing or interfering" is incredibly troubling. If someone was to interfere in the case of a woman being physically assaulted that implies that you would be getting involved in someone else's business. Your use of those terms conveys the message that you don't believe it would be appropriate to assist the woman as it's not anyone else's business.
If violence towards woman is something that you struggle with (or anyone else reading this struggles with) then in most cases there is support services available: USA: 1-800-799-SAFE (7233) www.TheHotline.org UK: 0808 2000 247 http://www.nationaldomesticviolencehelpline.org.uk/ Australia:
1800 737 732https://www.1800respect.org.au/ There are support lines available in many other countries also. Violence against women is never acceptable.
And then lastly. I have said several times I was speaking directly to your attitude towards the potential crime and not the "question whether Google (or Apple or Amazon) should report" the evidence they have of the potential crime. I have already stated several times these are separate issues so saying the same thing I have said several times before you as if it's a new point being made in the conversation isn't really helping. But I'm glad you are finally at least starting to understand that part of the discussion.
Having a discussion with you if very difficult when you make assumptions about what my attitude is for reasons known only to you.
Such silliness to assume I condone violence of any type, no matter the gender. Read my comments for exactly what they say. If the concern was that a crime was underway and the transcriber might be distressed at not being able to stop it the event had already occurred and that was no longer possible. If you think that someone should be doing something that would speak to a discussion about how Apple or Google should now respond. Do they report it to the police since "perpetrators need to be held accountable for their actions, you don't just let it go because it happened in the past"?
You tell me if Google (and Apple and Amazon) is being deplorable" (I think that was they word you used) if not doing so as you said a few posts back.
I wasn't assuming what your attitude was. I was reading the comments for exactly what they were and raising a concern because of what you said and the message that it conveys. I wasn't assuming you did condone violence. I simply stated that your choice of language left that open to interpretation and that is what I was concerned by. I was not trying to offend you in any way. I was simply concerned by the way you were communicating the message. If this is not something you struggle with then I am glad to hear it. However, based on your choice of terminology and the way you were approaching the discussion this isn't something I could just ignore.
All it would take to resolve this debate is for you to admit that just because a potential crime has occurred in the past does not mean the authorities would be unable to assist the victim.
I'm not saying that Google should be required to provide the evidence (and I'm not saying that they shouldn't). But I am saying that your comment that because it's "old stuff" nothing can be done is ridiculous.
Nothing can be done without Google or Apple's or Amazon's assistance, The "authorities" CANNOT assist any possible victim. So should those companies be doing so?
Here, I'll write a potential reply for you and lets see if you can agree on this:
"Crimes of violence can be an ongoing situation in many cases. Even though this was a recorded incident and the contractor was not listening in live, there is still the potential to prevent future incidents or to bring the perpetrator to justice. However, the discussion around 'IF' Google should hand over the recordings is a separate issue and is far more complex for many reasons."
...but you still would prefer not you give your personal opinion on whether the right to personal privacy should override the protection of innocents from violent acts now or in the future? Surely you must have one as vociferous as you've been.
It’s really surprising that people are shocked by this. People who are involved in the design and development of the product need to know it’s working and also need to find ways to improve it. If companies only relied on customer feedback on how to improve it then improvements wouldn’t be as quick. They need to be proactive so by listening to recordings enables them to do this.
To an extent, I agree with you. But the general public are often surprised when they discover more details about how something works - a lot of the time, when something provides a feature, I don't care much how it works under the hood because I assume that the process follows the dictates of my personal morality. Should I discover that a different moral standard is being applied, I worry about it and seek alternatives.
One of the concerns I have about Google is that it appears to be decidedly amoral - it treats data as data and seeks understanding without applying judgement. In a lot of situations, this is fine. But as this article and the source show, the real world contains a lot of ambiguity and judgement needs to be applied so that our society continues to function. The most disturbing line to me was:
"One worker screening audio said he encountered a recording in which it sounded like a woman was being physically attacked, but that Google didn't have clear guidelines on what to do in such cases."
This is a sign of dysfunction. Firstly, there's a conflict experienced by the worker: he knows that sharing this personal information is contrary to the contractual obligation with Google, but also knows that there is a moral obligation to help someone in serious trouble. It's tempting to place blame on the worker, but we don't know how certain he was about what had occurred, how afraid he was of affecting his employment, and a host of other factors. He made the judgement call that it was somebody else's decision but he didn't know how to escalate it.
So, why does Google not have a procedure for dealing with situations like this? Every adult on the planet knows that this sort of thing occurs (as much as we wish it wouldn't), how does the management at Google treat this as a low priority issue or refuse to acknowledge that it is relevant?
On the one hand, we see Google argue that their mission is merely to organise the world's information: OK, fine, if that's the activity being undertaken then that clearly means there is no obligation to act, regardless of the information being managed. But on the other hand, Google is using the analysis of the data to provide services - that too is fine, taken in separation, but it clearly negates the neutrality implied by the stated mission. If you want to collect and analyse ever more intrusive amounts of information and then act on it, you need to act in a manner that benefits society as a whole - do that and you've earned the right to make a profit. If not, then you're a surveillance mechanism that will be resisted to the best of our ability.
<end rant>
You're basing your "rant" on a journalists second hand report of what a single former contract worker had to say , that Google didn't have any policies in place on how certain things were to be dealt with. Was he/she even in a position to know? FWIW the contractors weren't listening to live streams anyway. Whatever was heard in those short snippets they were tasked with transcribing was almost certainly old stuff and not actionable for preventing or interfering with whatever was heard.
This would have to be your worst defence of google ever.
Google doesn't need defending in this case from what I can tell. Human input is a vital piece of improving the service and I'd be shocked if even the privacy-minded Apple isn't using real humans to listen to and transcribe Siri recordings to determine the speakers actual intent and identify cases where Siri thought it "heard" a wake phrase but did not. A machine would certainly not be dependable for discovering another machine heard wrong and why. Apple is almost assuredly doing the same thing whether with their own employees or with contracted companies.
...the issues around if Google has a responsibility to act on what the contractor believes they heard are very complex and we really don't have enough information to know for sure what the right/moral thing would be in this case or if Google already has appropriate policies in place or not. I'm not arguing that.
I'm just saying your weak excuse that if there was a crime being overheard it was in the past and therefore didn't matter anymore is deplorable. If the woman was being attacked as the contractor suspected then how do we know it wasn't an ongoing situation? Even if it wasn't an ongoing situation we don't give up on prosecting crimes because "that was in the past". All crimes were committed in the past. Are you suggesting that unless Google has some sort of Minority Report level of technology then it's irrelevant because the crime has already occurred? That is just ridiculous. There are many factors as to why it may not be possible/appropriate for Google to act on what is overheard by these contractors but you really missed the mark on this one...
Apple has acknowledged using human curators to determine the intent of certain Siri recordings and whether a person's voice was accurately heard and appropriately handled. Do you believe based on Apple's vaunted protection of user's privacy at (nearly) all cost that they would voluntarily pivot to sending private voice recordings to authorities for investigation into possible crimes? Would that be deplorable of Apple as well if they do not? I think that's speaking directly to the crux of the matter as you requested.
No it's not speaking to the crux of the matter. You keep trying to bring it back to if Google (or Apple as you later brought into the discussion) should or shouldn't be required to disclose this information. As I stated right from the beginning that is a complex question and not one I was attempting to answer based on the limited information provided in the original story. I simply stated that saying the recorded call would only contain "old stuff" implied that it didn't matter what may or may not have happened to the woman as it was in the past. This is what I took issue with.
You continue to ignore/detract from what you are being called out for which unfortunately is your usually approach. I never said it was deplorable for Google not to send the information to the police as you are now trying to imply I did. In fact I said we don't know what policies Google already have in place around this. I acknowledged right from the start that it's a complex issue and yet you continue to try and argue with me about points I never made while ignoring the comment I did make. Or even worse trying to twist it into something I never said.
I'm not trying to attack Google or compare them to Apple, although you seem to be very pre-occupied with the whole Apple vs Google battle. I'm simply saying that the fact the recorded call occurred in the past and only contained "old stuff" is not a reason for it to be dismissed. You have come up with a lot more intelligent talking points after your initial quick jerk reaction but still will not address what you initially said.
It speaks volumes that you still continue to ignore the one critique I raised at the very beginning.
@lolliver ; My apologies if I misunderstood the point you were attempting to make when you wrote: "One worker screening audio said he encountered a recording in which it sounded like a woman was being physically attacked, but that Google didn't have clear guidelines on what to do in such cases."
This is a sign of dysfunction. Firstly, there's a conflict experienced by the worker: he knows that sharing this personal information is contrary to the contractual obligation with Google, but (he) also knows that there is a moral obligation to help someone in serious trouble."
I read that as a concern on your part that an active crime might be underway and no one was helping. My response to you was that it was not a current conversation being transcribed but one from the past, saying and I quote: "Whatever was heard in those short snippets they were tasked with transcribing was almost certainly old stuff and not actionable for preventing or interfering with whatever was heard."
What wasn't accurate based on what I understood you to be saying? There was nothing that could be done at that time to prevent or interfere with the possible crime taking place. Now if you want to question whether Google (or Apple or Amazon) should report the old snippet to the police for investigation that's an entirely separate conversation.
Really??? I never wrote that. There was an original commenter that wrote that but it wasn't me. So your comment about it being "old stuff" was in response to the original commenter. I then responded to your comment about it being "old stuff" because I have a few very serious concerns with that point of view:
1. Dealing with crime isn't just about preventing something from occurring at the time. Perpetrators need to be held accountable for their actions. There needs to be punishment for crime. You don't just let it go because it occurred in the past. 2. Crimes like violence against women are not usually a one of occurrence. Just because this was an incident that occurred in the past doesn't mean it won't occur again. So your comment that it's "not actionable for prevention" is complete nonsense.
After re-reading your comment now and in light of the way you continue to respond, the even greater concern I have is around the type of language you use when referring to the incident. Your choice of the words "preventing or interfering" is incredibly troubling. If someone was to interfere in the case of a woman being physically assaulted that implies that you would be getting involved in someone else's business. Your use of those terms conveys the message that you don't believe it would be appropriate to assist the woman as it's not anyone else's business.
If violence towards woman is something that you struggle with (or anyone else reading this struggles with) then in most cases there is support services available: USA: 1-800-799-SAFE (7233) www.TheHotline.org UK: 0808 2000 247 http://www.nationaldomesticviolencehelpline.org.uk/ Australia:
1800 737 732https://www.1800respect.org.au/ There are support lines available in many other countries also. Violence against women is never acceptable.
And then lastly. I have said several times I was speaking directly to your attitude towards the potential crime and not the "question whether Google (or Apple or Amazon) should report" the evidence they have of the potential crime. I have already stated several times these are separate issues so saying the same thing I have said several times before you as if it's a new point being made in the conversation isn't really helping. But I'm glad you are finally at least starting to understand that part of the discussion.
Having a discussion with you if very difficult when you make assumptions about what my attitude is for reasons known only to you.
Such silliness to assume I condone violence of any type, no matter the gender. Read my comments for exactly what they say. If the concern was that a crime was underway and the transcriber might be distressed at not being able to stop it the event had already occurred and that was no longer possible. If you think that someone should be doing something that would speak to a discussion about how Apple or Google should now respond. Do they report it to the police since "perpetrators need to be held accountable for their actions, you don't just let it go because it happened in the past"?
You tell me if Google (and Apple and Amazon) is being deplorable" (I think that was they word you used) if not doing so as you said a few posts back.
I wasn't assuming what your attitude was. I was reading the comments for exactly what they were and raising a concern because of what you said and the message that it conveys. I wasn't assuming you did condone violence. I simply stated that your choice of language left that open to interpretation and that is what I was concerned by. I was not trying to offend you in any way. I was simply concerned by the way you were communicating the message. If this is not something you struggle with then I am glad to hear it. However, based on your choice of terminology and the way you were approaching the discussion this isn't something I could just ignore.
All it would take to resolve this debate is for you to admit that just because a potential crime has occurred in the past does not mean the authorities would be unable to assist the victim.
I'm not saying that Google should be required to provide the evidence (and I'm not saying that they shouldn't). But I am saying that your comment that because it's "old stuff" nothing can be done is ridiculous.
At no time did I ever say "it didn't matter" as you wrote. That was your preferred interpretation of my statement that whatever happened was in the past and whatever happened could not prevented from having occurred. As for punishing for a past event or possibly preventing another occurrence nothing can be done without Google or Apple's or Amazon's assistance, The "authorities" CANNOT assist any possible victim. So should those companies be doing so? If that is not one of your concerns on then exactly what is your issue and your suggested fix for it ?
And my apologies for confusing you with the OP. Presumably your opinion and his do not agree based on your objections.
You added a lot in when you edited this post after I responded to it as it previously only said:
Nothing can be done without Google or Apple's or Amazon's assistance, The "authorities" CANNOT assist any possible victim. So should those companies be doing so?
What you wrote the second time makes a lot more sense but it does make it difficult to have a conversation with you when you go back and change prior posts based on my later responses...
It’s really surprising that people are shocked by this. People who are involved in the design and development of the product need to know it’s working and also need to find ways to improve it. If companies only relied on customer feedback on how to improve it then improvements wouldn’t be as quick. They need to be proactive so by listening to recordings enables them to do this.
To an extent, I agree with you. But the general public are often surprised when they discover more details about how something works - a lot of the time, when something provides a feature, I don't care much how it works under the hood because I assume that the process follows the dictates of my personal morality. Should I discover that a different moral standard is being applied, I worry about it and seek alternatives.
One of the concerns I have about Google is that it appears to be decidedly amoral - it treats data as data and seeks understanding without applying judgement. In a lot of situations, this is fine. But as this article and the source show, the real world contains a lot of ambiguity and judgement needs to be applied so that our society continues to function. The most disturbing line to me was:
"One worker screening audio said he encountered a recording in which it sounded like a woman was being physically attacked, but that Google didn't have clear guidelines on what to do in such cases."
This is a sign of dysfunction. Firstly, there's a conflict experienced by the worker: he knows that sharing this personal information is contrary to the contractual obligation with Google, but also knows that there is a moral obligation to help someone in serious trouble. It's tempting to place blame on the worker, but we don't know how certain he was about what had occurred, how afraid he was of affecting his employment, and a host of other factors. He made the judgement call that it was somebody else's decision but he didn't know how to escalate it.
So, why does Google not have a procedure for dealing with situations like this? Every adult on the planet knows that this sort of thing occurs (as much as we wish it wouldn't), how does the management at Google treat this as a low priority issue or refuse to acknowledge that it is relevant?
On the one hand, we see Google argue that their mission is merely to organise the world's information: OK, fine, if that's the activity being undertaken then that clearly means there is no obligation to act, regardless of the information being managed. But on the other hand, Google is using the analysis of the data to provide services - that too is fine, taken in separation, but it clearly negates the neutrality implied by the stated mission. If you want to collect and analyse ever more intrusive amounts of information and then act on it, you need to act in a manner that benefits society as a whole - do that and you've earned the right to make a profit. If not, then you're a surveillance mechanism that will be resisted to the best of our ability.
<end rant>
You're basing your "rant" on a journalists second hand report of what a single former contract worker had to say , that Google didn't have any policies in place on how certain things were to be dealt with. Was he/she even in a position to know? FWIW the contractors weren't listening to live streams anyway. Whatever was heard in those short snippets they were tasked with transcribing was almost certainly old stuff and not actionable for preventing or interfering with whatever was heard.
This would have to be your worst defence of google ever.
Google doesn't need defending in this case from what I can tell. Human input is a vital piece of improving the service and I'd be shocked if even the privacy-minded Apple isn't using real humans to listen to and transcribe Siri recordings to determine the speakers actual intent and identify cases where Siri thought it "heard" a wake phrase but did not. A machine would certainly not be dependable for discovering another machine heard wrong and why. Apple is almost assuredly doing the same thing whether with their own employees or with contracted companies.
...the issues around if Google has a responsibility to act on what the contractor believes they heard are very complex and we really don't have enough information to know for sure what the right/moral thing would be in this case or if Google already has appropriate policies in place or not. I'm not arguing that.
I'm just saying your weak excuse that if there was a crime being overheard it was in the past and therefore didn't matter anymore is deplorable. If the woman was being attacked as the contractor suspected then how do we know it wasn't an ongoing situation? Even if it wasn't an ongoing situation we don't give up on prosecting crimes because "that was in the past". All crimes were committed in the past. Are you suggesting that unless Google has some sort of Minority Report level of technology then it's irrelevant because the crime has already occurred? That is just ridiculous. There are many factors as to why it may not be possible/appropriate for Google to act on what is overheard by these contractors but you really missed the mark on this one...
Apple has acknowledged using human curators to determine the intent of certain Siri recordings and whether a person's voice was accurately heard and appropriately handled. Do you believe based on Apple's vaunted protection of user's privacy at (nearly) all cost that they would voluntarily pivot to sending private voice recordings to authorities for investigation into possible crimes? Would that be deplorable of Apple as well if they do not? I think that's speaking directly to the crux of the matter as you requested.
No it's not speaking to the crux of the matter. You keep trying to bring it back to if Google (or Apple as you later brought into the discussion) should or shouldn't be required to disclose this information. As I stated right from the beginning that is a complex question and not one I was attempting to answer based on the limited information provided in the original story. I simply stated that saying the recorded call would only contain "old stuff" implied that it didn't matter what may or may not have happened to the woman as it was in the past. This is what I took issue with.
You continue to ignore/detract from what you are being called out for which unfortunately is your usually approach. I never said it was deplorable for Google not to send the information to the police as you are now trying to imply I did. In fact I said we don't know what policies Google already have in place around this. I acknowledged right from the start that it's a complex issue and yet you continue to try and argue with me about points I never made while ignoring the comment I did make. Or even worse trying to twist it into something I never said.
I'm not trying to attack Google or compare them to Apple, although you seem to be very pre-occupied with the whole Apple vs Google battle. I'm simply saying that the fact the recorded call occurred in the past and only contained "old stuff" is not a reason for it to be dismissed. You have come up with a lot more intelligent talking points after your initial quick jerk reaction but still will not address what you initially said.
It speaks volumes that you still continue to ignore the one critique I raised at the very beginning.
@lolliver ; My apologies if I misunderstood the point you were attempting to make when you wrote: "One worker screening audio said he encountered a recording in which it sounded like a woman was being physically attacked, but that Google didn't have clear guidelines on what to do in such cases."
This is a sign of dysfunction. Firstly, there's a conflict experienced by the worker: he knows that sharing this personal information is contrary to the contractual obligation with Google, but (he) also knows that there is a moral obligation to help someone in serious trouble."
I read that as a concern on your part that an active crime might be underway and no one was helping. My response to you was that it was not a current conversation being transcribed but one from the past, saying and I quote: "Whatever was heard in those short snippets they were tasked with transcribing was almost certainly old stuff and not actionable for preventing or interfering with whatever was heard."
What wasn't accurate based on what I understood you to be saying? There was nothing that could be done at that time to prevent or interfere with the possible crime taking place. Now if you want to question whether Google (or Apple or Amazon) should report the old snippet to the police for investigation that's an entirely separate conversation.
Really??? I never wrote that. There was an original commenter that wrote that but it wasn't me. So your comment about it being "old stuff" was in response to the original commenter. I then responded to your comment about it being "old stuff" because I have a few very serious concerns with that point of view:
1. Dealing with crime isn't just about preventing something from occurring at the time. Perpetrators need to be held accountable for their actions. There needs to be punishment for crime. You don't just let it go because it occurred in the past. 2. Crimes like violence against women are not usually a one of occurrence. Just because this was an incident that occurred in the past doesn't mean it won't occur again. So your comment that it's "not actionable for prevention" is complete nonsense.
After re-reading your comment now and in light of the way you continue to respond, the even greater concern I have is around the type of language you use when referring to the incident. Your choice of the words "preventing or interfering" is incredibly troubling. If someone was to interfere in the case of a woman being physically assaulted that implies that you would be getting involved in someone else's business. Your use of those terms conveys the message that you don't believe it would be appropriate to assist the woman as it's not anyone else's business.
If violence towards woman is something that you struggle with (or anyone else reading this struggles with) then in most cases there is support services available: USA: 1-800-799-SAFE (7233) www.TheHotline.org UK: 0808 2000 247 http://www.nationaldomesticviolencehelpline.org.uk/ Australia:
1800 737 732https://www.1800respect.org.au/ There are support lines available in many other countries also. Violence against women is never acceptable.
And then lastly. I have said several times I was speaking directly to your attitude towards the potential crime and not the "question whether Google (or Apple or Amazon) should report" the evidence they have of the potential crime. I have already stated several times these are separate issues so saying the same thing I have said several times before you as if it's a new point being made in the conversation isn't really helping. But I'm glad you are finally at least starting to understand that part of the discussion.
Having a discussion with you if very difficult when you make assumptions about what my attitude is for reasons known only to you.
Such silliness to assume I condone violence of any type, no matter the gender. Read my comments for exactly what they say. If the concern was that a crime was underway and the transcriber might be distressed at not being able to stop it the event had already occurred and that was no longer possible. If you think that someone should be doing something that would speak to a discussion about how Apple or Google should now respond. Do they report it to the police since "perpetrators need to be held accountable for their actions, you don't just let it go because it happened in the past"?
You tell me if Google (and Apple and Amazon) is being deplorable" (I think that was they word you used) if not doing so as you said a few posts back.
I wasn't assuming what your attitude was. I was reading the comments for exactly what they were and raising a concern because of what you said and the message that it conveys. I wasn't assuming you did condone violence. I simply stated that your choice of language left that open to interpretation and that is what I was concerned by. I was not trying to offend you in any way. I was simply concerned by the way you were communicating the message. If this is not something you struggle with then I am glad to hear it. However, based on your choice of terminology and the way you were approaching the discussion this isn't something I could just ignore.
All it would take to resolve this debate is for you to admit that just because a potential crime has occurred in the past does not mean the authorities would be unable to assist the victim.
I'm not saying that Google should be required to provide the evidence (and I'm not saying that they shouldn't). But I am saying that your comment that because it's "old stuff" nothing can be done is ridiculous.
Nothing can be done without Google or Apple's or Amazon's assistance, The "authorities" CANNOT assist any possible victim. So should those companies be doing so?
Here, I'll write a potential reply for you and lets see if you can agree on this:
"Crimes of violence can be an ongoing situation in many cases. Even though this was a recorded incident and the contractor was not listening in live, there is still the potential to prevent future incidents or to bring the perpetrator to justice. However, the discussion around 'IF' Google should hand over the recordings is a separate issue and is far more complex for many reasons."
...but you still would prefer not you give your personal opinion on whether the right to personal privacy should override the protection of innocents from violent acts now or in the future? Surely you must have one as vociferous as you've been.
I do have an opinion on it which I have only ever touched on in this conversation as you seem to get too easily distracted and try and side track the conversation. But now that the first point is finally clear.
My view is that it is a very complex issue. In a perfect world (which we of course do not live in) then requiring Google (Or any other tech company with access to similar recordings) to provide the data in the event of a crime may make sense. However that is a very simplistic approach and is not that straightforward in the real world.
Some of the issues with that approach would be: 1. Tech companies such as Google take steps to keep the data anonymous so being able to track down the victim/perpetrator may not always be possible or may require changes that reduce user privacy. 2. Contractors/employees are not experts in crime and may not be well suited to identify potential crimes. 3. If it was required for a human employee to report potential crimes then would the next step be that Google Assistant, Alexa or Siri would also need to be designed (once the technology has advanced) to assess when a potential crime is being committed and report that also? 4. If tech companies were required to hand over evidence of "potential crimes" then where does that end? Would they be required to hand over all recordings to law enforcement so that they can assess if it should be considered evidence or not? Would law enforcement then wish to turn an Echo, Google Home or HomePod into a surveillance device?
There are also many other concerns I would have with how this may be handled. I know if you say something along the lines of "Hey Siri, call the police" or "Hey Siri, call emergency services" she will do so and I would assume the same of other virtual assistants. So those assistants are already designed to provide assistance in an emergency without invading privacy.
Edit: Corrected where I had written Amazon instead of Siri
It’s really surprising that people are shocked by this. People who are involved in the design and development of the product need to know it’s working and also need to find ways to improve it. If companies only relied on customer feedback on how to improve it then improvements wouldn’t be as quick. They need to be proactive so by listening to recordings enables them to do this.
To an extent, I agree with you. But the general public are often surprised when they discover more details about how something works - a lot of the time, when something provides a feature, I don't care much how it works under the hood because I assume that the process follows the dictates of my personal morality. Should I discover that a different moral standard is being applied, I worry about it and seek alternatives.
One of the concerns I have about Google is that it appears to be decidedly amoral - it treats data as data and seeks understanding without applying judgement. In a lot of situations, this is fine. But as this article and the source show, the real world contains a lot of ambiguity and judgement needs to be applied so that our society continues to function. The most disturbing line to me was:
"One worker screening audio said he encountered a recording in which it sounded like a woman was being physically attacked, but that Google didn't have clear guidelines on what to do in such cases."
This is a sign of dysfunction. Firstly, there's a conflict experienced by the worker: he knows that sharing this personal information is contrary to the contractual obligation with Google, but also knows that there is a moral obligation to help someone in serious trouble. It's tempting to place blame on the worker, but we don't know how certain he was about what had occurred, how afraid he was of affecting his employment, and a host of other factors. He made the judgement call that it was somebody else's decision but he didn't know how to escalate it.
So, why does Google not have a procedure for dealing with situations like this? Every adult on the planet knows that this sort of thing occurs (as much as we wish it wouldn't), how does the management at Google treat this as a low priority issue or refuse to acknowledge that it is relevant?
On the one hand, we see Google argue that their mission is merely to organise the world's information: OK, fine, if that's the activity being undertaken then that clearly means there is no obligation to act, regardless of the information being managed. But on the other hand, Google is using the analysis of the data to provide services - that too is fine, taken in separation, but it clearly negates the neutrality implied by the stated mission. If you want to collect and analyse ever more intrusive amounts of information and then act on it, you need to act in a manner that benefits society as a whole - do that and you've earned the right to make a profit. If not, then you're a surveillance mechanism that will be resisted to the best of our ability.
<end rant>
You're basing your "rant" on a journalists second hand report of what a single former contract worker had to say , that Google didn't have any policies in place on how certain things were to be dealt with. Was he/she even in a position to know? FWIW the contractors weren't listening to live streams anyway. Whatever was heard in those short snippets they were tasked with transcribing was almost certainly old stuff and not actionable for preventing or interfering with whatever was heard.
This would have to be your worst defence of google ever.
Google doesn't need defending in this case from what I can tell. Human input is a vital piece of improving the service and I'd be shocked if even the privacy-minded Apple isn't using real humans to listen to and transcribe Siri recordings to determine the speakers actual intent and identify cases where Siri thought it "heard" a wake phrase but did not. A machine would certainly not be dependable for discovering another machine heard wrong and why. Apple is almost assuredly doing the same thing whether with their own employees or with contracted companies.
...the issues around if Google has a responsibility to act on what the contractor believes they heard are very complex and we really don't have enough information to know for sure what the right/moral thing would be in this case or if Google already has appropriate policies in place or not. I'm not arguing that.
I'm just saying your weak excuse that if there was a crime being overheard it was in the past and therefore didn't matter anymore is deplorable. If the woman was being attacked as the contractor suspected then how do we know it wasn't an ongoing situation? Even if it wasn't an ongoing situation we don't give up on prosecting crimes because "that was in the past". All crimes were committed in the past. Are you suggesting that unless Google has some sort of Minority Report level of technology then it's irrelevant because the crime has already occurred? That is just ridiculous. There are many factors as to why it may not be possible/appropriate for Google to act on what is overheard by these contractors but you really missed the mark on this one...
Apple has acknowledged using human curators to determine the intent of certain Siri recordings and whether a person's voice was accurately heard and appropriately handled. Do you believe based on Apple's vaunted protection of user's privacy at (nearly) all cost that they would voluntarily pivot to sending private voice recordings to authorities for investigation into possible crimes? Would that be deplorable of Apple as well if they do not? I think that's speaking directly to the crux of the matter as you requested.
No it's not speaking to the crux of the matter. You keep trying to bring it back to if Google (or Apple as you later brought into the discussion) should or shouldn't be required to disclose this information. As I stated right from the beginning that is a complex question and not one I was attempting to answer based on the limited information provided in the original story. I simply stated that saying the recorded call would only contain "old stuff" implied that it didn't matter what may or may not have happened to the woman as it was in the past. This is what I took issue with.
You continue to ignore/detract from what you are being called out for which unfortunately is your usually approach. I never said it was deplorable for Google not to send the information to the police as you are now trying to imply I did. In fact I said we don't know what policies Google already have in place around this. I acknowledged right from the start that it's a complex issue and yet you continue to try and argue with me about points I never made while ignoring the comment I did make. Or even worse trying to twist it into something I never said.
I'm not trying to attack Google or compare them to Apple, although you seem to be very pre-occupied with the whole Apple vs Google battle. I'm simply saying that the fact the recorded call occurred in the past and only contained "old stuff" is not a reason for it to be dismissed. You have come up with a lot more intelligent talking points after your initial quick jerk reaction but still will not address what you initially said.
It speaks volumes that you still continue to ignore the one critique I raised at the very beginning.
@lolliver ; My apologies if I misunderstood the point you were attempting to make when you wrote: "One worker screening audio said he encountered a recording in which it sounded like a woman was being physically attacked, but that Google didn't have clear guidelines on what to do in such cases."
This is a sign of dysfunction. Firstly, there's a conflict experienced by the worker: he knows that sharing this personal information is contrary to the contractual obligation with Google, but (he) also knows that there is a moral obligation to help someone in serious trouble."
I read that as a concern on your part that an active crime might be underway and no one was helping. My response to you was that it was not a current conversation being transcribed but one from the past, saying and I quote: "Whatever was heard in those short snippets they were tasked with transcribing was almost certainly old stuff and not actionable for preventing or interfering with whatever was heard."
What wasn't accurate based on what I understood you to be saying? There was nothing that could be done at that time to prevent or interfere with the possible crime taking place. Now if you want to question whether Google (or Apple or Amazon) should report the old snippet to the police for investigation that's an entirely separate conversation.
Really??? I never wrote that. There was an original commenter that wrote that but it wasn't me. So your comment about it being "old stuff" was in response to the original commenter. I then responded to your comment about it being "old stuff" because I have a few very serious concerns with that point of view:
1. Dealing with crime isn't just about preventing something from occurring at the time. Perpetrators need to be held accountable for their actions. There needs to be punishment for crime. You don't just let it go because it occurred in the past. 2. Crimes like violence against women are not usually a one of occurrence. Just because this was an incident that occurred in the past doesn't mean it won't occur again. So your comment that it's "not actionable for prevention" is complete nonsense.
After re-reading your comment now and in light of the way you continue to respond, the even greater concern I have is around the type of language you use when referring to the incident. Your choice of the words "preventing or interfering" is incredibly troubling. If someone was to interfere in the case of a woman being physically assaulted that implies that you would be getting involved in someone else's business. Your use of those terms conveys the message that you don't believe it would be appropriate to assist the woman as it's not anyone else's business.
If violence towards woman is something that you struggle with (or anyone else reading this struggles with) then in most cases there is support services available: USA: 1-800-799-SAFE (7233) www.TheHotline.org UK: 0808 2000 247 http://www.nationaldomesticviolencehelpline.org.uk/ Australia:
1800 737 732https://www.1800respect.org.au/ There are support lines available in many other countries also. Violence against women is never acceptable.
And then lastly. I have said several times I was speaking directly to your attitude towards the potential crime and not the "question whether Google (or Apple or Amazon) should report" the evidence they have of the potential crime. I have already stated several times these are separate issues so saying the same thing I have said several times before you as if it's a new point being made in the conversation isn't really helping. But I'm glad you are finally at least starting to understand that part of the discussion.
Having a discussion with you if very difficult when you make assumptions about what my attitude is for reasons known only to you.
Such silliness to assume I condone violence of any type, no matter the gender. Read my comments for exactly what they say. If the concern was that a crime was underway and the transcriber might be distressed at not being able to stop it the event had already occurred and that was no longer possible. If you think that someone should be doing something that would speak to a discussion about how Apple or Google should now respond. Do they report it to the police since "perpetrators need to be held accountable for their actions, you don't just let it go because it happened in the past"?
You tell me if Google (and Apple and Amazon) is being deplorable" (I think that was they word you used) if not doing so as you said a few posts back.
I wasn't assuming what your attitude was. I was reading the comments for exactly what they were and raising a concern because of what you said and the message that it conveys. I wasn't assuming you did condone violence. I simply stated that your choice of language left that open to interpretation and that is what I was concerned by. I was not trying to offend you in any way. I was simply concerned by the way you were communicating the message. If this is not something you struggle with then I am glad to hear it. However, based on your choice of terminology and the way you were approaching the discussion this isn't something I could just ignore.
All it would take to resolve this debate is for you to admit that just because a potential crime has occurred in the past does not mean the authorities would be unable to assist the victim.
I'm not saying that Google should be required to provide the evidence (and I'm not saying that they shouldn't). But I am saying that your comment that because it's "old stuff" nothing can be done is ridiculous.
Nothing can be done without Google or Apple's or Amazon's assistance, The "authorities" CANNOT assist any possible victim. So should those companies be doing so?
Here, I'll write a potential reply for you and lets see if you can agree on this:
"Crimes of violence can be an ongoing situation in many cases. Even though this was a recorded incident and the contractor was not listening in live, there is still the potential to prevent future incidents or to bring the perpetrator to justice. However, the discussion around 'IF' Google should hand over the recordings is a separate issue and is far more complex for many reasons."
...but you still would prefer not you give your personal opinion on whether the right to personal privacy should override the protection of innocents from violent acts now or in the future? Surely you must have one as vociferous as you've been.
My view is that it is a very complex issue. etc etc....
And here is where you discover we are of the same mind.
It’s really surprising that people are shocked by this. People who are involved in the design and development of the product need to know it’s working and also need to find ways to improve it. If companies only relied on customer feedback on how to improve it then improvements wouldn’t be as quick. They need to be proactive so by listening to recordings enables them to do this.
To an extent, I agree with you. But the general public are often surprised when they discover more details about how something works - a lot of the time, when something provides a feature, I don't care much how it works under the hood because I assume that the process follows the dictates of my personal morality. Should I discover that a different moral standard is being applied, I worry about it and seek alternatives.
One of the concerns I have about Google is that it appears to be decidedly amoral - it treats data as data and seeks understanding without applying judgement. In a lot of situations, this is fine. But as this article and the source show, the real world contains a lot of ambiguity and judgement needs to be applied so that our society continues to function. The most disturbing line to me was:
"One worker screening audio said he encountered a recording in which it sounded like a woman was being physically attacked, but that Google didn't have clear guidelines on what to do in such cases."
This is a sign of dysfunction. Firstly, there's a conflict experienced by the worker: he knows that sharing this personal information is contrary to the contractual obligation with Google, but also knows that there is a moral obligation to help someone in serious trouble. It's tempting to place blame on the worker, but we don't know how certain he was about what had occurred, how afraid he was of affecting his employment, and a host of other factors. He made the judgement call that it was somebody else's decision but he didn't know how to escalate it.
So, why does Google not have a procedure for dealing with situations like this? Every adult on the planet knows that this sort of thing occurs (as much as we wish it wouldn't), how does the management at Google treat this as a low priority issue or refuse to acknowledge that it is relevant?
On the one hand, we see Google argue that their mission is merely to organise the world's information: OK, fine, if that's the activity being undertaken then that clearly means there is no obligation to act, regardless of the information being managed. But on the other hand, Google is using the analysis of the data to provide services - that too is fine, taken in separation, but it clearly negates the neutrality implied by the stated mission. If you want to collect and analyse ever more intrusive amounts of information and then act on it, you need to act in a manner that benefits society as a whole - do that and you've earned the right to make a profit. If not, then you're a surveillance mechanism that will be resisted to the best of our ability.
<end rant>
You're basing your "rant" on a journalists second hand report of what a single former contract worker had to say , that Google didn't have any policies in place on how certain things were to be dealt with. Was he/she even in a position to know? FWIW the contractors weren't listening to live streams anyway. Whatever was heard in those short snippets they were tasked with transcribing was almost certainly old stuff and not actionable for preventing or interfering with whatever was heard.
This would have to be your worst defence of google ever.
Google doesn't need defending in this case from what I can tell. Human input is a vital piece of improving the service and I'd be shocked if even the privacy-minded Apple isn't using real humans to listen to and transcribe Siri recordings to determine the speakers actual intent and identify cases where Siri thought it "heard" a wake phrase but did not. A machine would certainly not be dependable for discovering another machine heard wrong and why. Apple is almost assuredly doing the same thing whether with their own employees or with contracted companies.
...the issues around if Google has a responsibility to act on what the contractor believes they heard are very complex and we really don't have enough information to know for sure what the right/moral thing would be in this case or if Google already has appropriate policies in place or not. I'm not arguing that.
I'm just saying your weak excuse that if there was a crime being overheard it was in the past and therefore didn't matter anymore is deplorable. If the woman was being attacked as the contractor suspected then how do we know it wasn't an ongoing situation? Even if it wasn't an ongoing situation we don't give up on prosecting crimes because "that was in the past". All crimes were committed in the past. Are you suggesting that unless Google has some sort of Minority Report level of technology then it's irrelevant because the crime has already occurred? That is just ridiculous. There are many factors as to why it may not be possible/appropriate for Google to act on what is overheard by these contractors but you really missed the mark on this one...
Apple has acknowledged using human curators to determine the intent of certain Siri recordings and whether a person's voice was accurately heard and appropriately handled. Do you believe based on Apple's vaunted protection of user's privacy at (nearly) all cost that they would voluntarily pivot to sending private voice recordings to authorities for investigation into possible crimes? Would that be deplorable of Apple as well if they do not? I think that's speaking directly to the crux of the matter as you requested.
No it's not speaking to the crux of the matter. You keep trying to bring it back to if Google (or Apple as you later brought into the discussion) should or shouldn't be required to disclose this information. As I stated right from the beginning that is a complex question and not one I was attempting to answer based on the limited information provided in the original story. I simply stated that saying the recorded call would only contain "old stuff" implied that it didn't matter what may or may not have happened to the woman as it was in the past. This is what I took issue with.
You continue to ignore/detract from what you are being called out for which unfortunately is your usually approach. I never said it was deplorable for Google not to send the information to the police as you are now trying to imply I did. In fact I said we don't know what policies Google already have in place around this. I acknowledged right from the start that it's a complex issue and yet you continue to try and argue with me about points I never made while ignoring the comment I did make. Or even worse trying to twist it into something I never said.
I'm not trying to attack Google or compare them to Apple, although you seem to be very pre-occupied with the whole Apple vs Google battle. I'm simply saying that the fact the recorded call occurred in the past and only contained "old stuff" is not a reason for it to be dismissed. You have come up with a lot more intelligent talking points after your initial quick jerk reaction but still will not address what you initially said.
It speaks volumes that you still continue to ignore the one critique I raised at the very beginning.
@lolliver ; My apologies if I misunderstood the point you were attempting to make when you wrote: "One worker screening audio said he encountered a recording in which it sounded like a woman was being physically attacked, but that Google didn't have clear guidelines on what to do in such cases."
This is a sign of dysfunction. Firstly, there's a conflict experienced by the worker: he knows that sharing this personal information is contrary to the contractual obligation with Google, but (he) also knows that there is a moral obligation to help someone in serious trouble."
I read that as a concern on your part that an active crime might be underway and no one was helping. My response to you was that it was not a current conversation being transcribed but one from the past, saying and I quote: "Whatever was heard in those short snippets they were tasked with transcribing was almost certainly old stuff and not actionable for preventing or interfering with whatever was heard."
What wasn't accurate based on what I understood you to be saying? There was nothing that could be done at that time to prevent or interfere with the possible crime taking place. Now if you want to question whether Google (or Apple or Amazon) should report the old snippet to the police for investigation that's an entirely separate conversation.
Really??? I never wrote that. There was an original commenter that wrote that but it wasn't me. So your comment about it being "old stuff" was in response to the original commenter. I then responded to your comment about it being "old stuff" because I have a few very serious concerns with that point of view:
1. Dealing with crime isn't just about preventing something from occurring at the time. Perpetrators need to be held accountable for their actions. There needs to be punishment for crime. You don't just let it go because it occurred in the past. 2. Crimes like violence against women are not usually a one of occurrence. Just because this was an incident that occurred in the past doesn't mean it won't occur again. So your comment that it's "not actionable for prevention" is complete nonsense.
After re-reading your comment now and in light of the way you continue to respond, the even greater concern I have is around the type of language you use when referring to the incident. Your choice of the words "preventing or interfering" is incredibly troubling. If someone was to interfere in the case of a woman being physically assaulted that implies that you would be getting involved in someone else's business. Your use of those terms conveys the message that you don't believe it would be appropriate to assist the woman as it's not anyone else's business.
If violence towards woman is something that you struggle with (or anyone else reading this struggles with) then in most cases there is support services available: USA: 1-800-799-SAFE (7233) www.TheHotline.org UK: 0808 2000 247 http://www.nationaldomesticviolencehelpline.org.uk/ Australia:
1800 737 732https://www.1800respect.org.au/ There are support lines available in many other countries also. Violence against women is never acceptable.
And then lastly. I have said several times I was speaking directly to your attitude towards the potential crime and not the "question whether Google (or Apple or Amazon) should report" the evidence they have of the potential crime. I have already stated several times these are separate issues so saying the same thing I have said several times before you as if it's a new point being made in the conversation isn't really helping. But I'm glad you are finally at least starting to understand that part of the discussion.
Having a discussion with you if very difficult when you make assumptions about what my attitude is for reasons known only to you.
Such silliness to assume I condone violence of any type, no matter the gender. Read my comments for exactly what they say. If the concern was that a crime was underway and the transcriber might be distressed at not being able to stop it the event had already occurred and that was no longer possible. If you think that someone should be doing something that would speak to a discussion about how Apple or Google should now respond. Do they report it to the police since "perpetrators need to be held accountable for their actions, you don't just let it go because it happened in the past"?
You tell me if Google (and Apple and Amazon) is being deplorable" (I think that was they word you used) if not doing so as you said a few posts back.
I wasn't assuming what your attitude was. I was reading the comments for exactly what they were and raising a concern because of what you said and the message that it conveys. I wasn't assuming you did condone violence. I simply stated that your choice of language left that open to interpretation and that is what I was concerned by. I was not trying to offend you in any way. I was simply concerned by the way you were communicating the message. If this is not something you struggle with then I am glad to hear it. However, based on your choice of terminology and the way you were approaching the discussion this isn't something I could just ignore.
All it would take to resolve this debate is for you to admit that just because a potential crime has occurred in the past does not mean the authorities would be unable to assist the victim.
I'm not saying that Google should be required to provide the evidence (and I'm not saying that they shouldn't). But I am saying that your comment that because it's "old stuff" nothing can be done is ridiculous.
Nothing can be done without Google or Apple's or Amazon's assistance, The "authorities" CANNOT assist any possible victim. So should those companies be doing so?
Here, I'll write a potential reply for you and lets see if you can agree on this:
"Crimes of violence can be an ongoing situation in many cases. Even though this was a recorded incident and the contractor was not listening in live, there is still the potential to prevent future incidents or to bring the perpetrator to justice. However, the discussion around 'IF' Google should hand over the recordings is a separate issue and is far more complex for many reasons."
...but you still would prefer not you give your personal opinion on whether the right to personal privacy should override the protection of innocents from violent acts now or in the future? Surely you must have one as vociferous as you've been.
My view is that it is a very complex issue. etc etc....
And here is where you discover we are of the same mind.
On the fact that it's a complex issue yes. On the simplistic argument you used to begin with and the implications it carried, no. But we got there in the end.
It’s really surprising that people are shocked by this. People who are involved in the design and development of the product need to know it’s working and also need to find ways to improve it. If companies only relied on customer feedback on how to improve it then improvements wouldn’t be as quick. They need to be proactive so by listening to recordings enables them to do this.
To an extent, I agree with you. But the general public are often surprised when they discover more details about how something works - a lot of the time, when something provides a feature, I don't care much how it works under the hood because I assume that the process follows the dictates of my personal morality. Should I discover that a different moral standard is being applied, I worry about it and seek alternatives.
One of the concerns I have about Google is that it appears to be decidedly amoral - it treats data as data and seeks understanding without applying judgement. In a lot of situations, this is fine. But as this article and the source show, the real world contains a lot of ambiguity and judgement needs to be applied so that our society continues to function. The most disturbing line to me was:
"One worker screening audio said he encountered a recording in which it sounded like a woman was being physically attacked, but that Google didn't have clear guidelines on what to do in such cases."
This is a sign of dysfunction. Firstly, there's a conflict experienced by the worker: he knows that sharing this personal information is contrary to the contractual obligation with Google, but also knows that there is a moral obligation to help someone in serious trouble. It's tempting to place blame on the worker, but we don't know how certain he was about what had occurred, how afraid he was of affecting his employment, and a host of other factors. He made the judgement call that it was somebody else's decision but he didn't know how to escalate it.
So, why does Google not have a procedure for dealing with situations like this? Every adult on the planet knows that this sort of thing occurs (as much as we wish it wouldn't), how does the management at Google treat this as a low priority issue or refuse to acknowledge that it is relevant?
On the one hand, we see Google argue that their mission is merely to organise the world's information: OK, fine, if that's the activity being undertaken then that clearly means there is no obligation to act, regardless of the information being managed. But on the other hand, Google is using the analysis of the data to provide services - that too is fine, taken in separation, but it clearly negates the neutrality implied by the stated mission. If you want to collect and analyse ever more intrusive amounts of information and then act on it, you need to act in a manner that benefits society as a whole - do that and you've earned the right to make a profit. If not, then you're a surveillance mechanism that will be resisted to the best of our ability.
<end rant>
You're basing your "rant" on a journalists second hand report of what a single former contract worker had to say , that Google didn't have any policies in place on how certain things were to be dealt with. Was he/she even in a position to know? FWIW the contractors weren't listening to live streams anyway. Whatever was heard in those short snippets they were tasked with transcribing was almost certainly old stuff and not actionable for preventing or interfering with whatever was heard.
This would have to be your worst defence of google ever.
Google doesn't need defending in this case from what I can tell. Human input is a vital piece of improving the service and I'd be shocked if even the privacy-minded Apple isn't using real humans to listen to and transcribe Siri recordings to determine the speakers actual intent and identify cases where Siri thought it "heard" a wake phrase but did not. A machine would certainly not be dependable for discovering another machine heard wrong and why. Apple is almost assuredly doing the same thing whether with their own employees or with contracted companies.
...the issues around if Google has a responsibility to act on what the contractor believes they heard are very complex and we really don't have enough information to know for sure what the right/moral thing would be in this case or if Google already has appropriate policies in place or not. I'm not arguing that.
I'm just saying your weak excuse that if there was a crime being overheard it was in the past and therefore didn't matter anymore is deplorable. If the woman was being attacked as the contractor suspected then how do we know it wasn't an ongoing situation? Even if it wasn't an ongoing situation we don't give up on prosecting crimes because "that was in the past". All crimes were committed in the past. Are you suggesting that unless Google has some sort of Minority Report level of technology then it's irrelevant because the crime has already occurred? That is just ridiculous. There are many factors as to why it may not be possible/appropriate for Google to act on what is overheard by these contractors but you really missed the mark on this one...
Apple has acknowledged using human curators to determine the intent of certain Siri recordings and whether a person's voice was accurately heard and appropriately handled. Do you believe based on Apple's vaunted protection of user's privacy at (nearly) all cost that they would voluntarily pivot to sending private voice recordings to authorities for investigation into possible crimes? Would that be deplorable of Apple as well if they do not? I think that's speaking directly to the crux of the matter as you requested.
No it's not speaking to the crux of the matter. You keep trying to bring it back to if Google (or Apple as you later brought into the discussion) should or shouldn't be required to disclose this information. As I stated right from the beginning that is a complex question and not one I was attempting to answer based on the limited information provided in the original story. I simply stated that saying the recorded call would only contain "old stuff" implied that it didn't matter what may or may not have happened to the woman as it was in the past. This is what I took issue with.
You continue to ignore/detract from what you are being called out for which unfortunately is your usually approach. I never said it was deplorable for Google not to send the information to the police as you are now trying to imply I did. In fact I said we don't know what policies Google already have in place around this. I acknowledged right from the start that it's a complex issue and yet you continue to try and argue with me about points I never made while ignoring the comment I did make. Or even worse trying to twist it into something I never said.
I'm not trying to attack Google or compare them to Apple, although you seem to be very pre-occupied with the whole Apple vs Google battle. I'm simply saying that the fact the recorded call occurred in the past and only contained "old stuff" is not a reason for it to be dismissed. You have come up with a lot more intelligent talking points after your initial quick jerk reaction but still will not address what you initially said.
It speaks volumes that you still continue to ignore the one critique I raised at the very beginning.
@lolliver ; My apologies if I misunderstood the point you were attempting to make when you wrote: "One worker screening audio said he encountered a recording in which it sounded like a woman was being physically attacked, but that Google didn't have clear guidelines on what to do in such cases."
This is a sign of dysfunction. Firstly, there's a conflict experienced by the worker: he knows that sharing this personal information is contrary to the contractual obligation with Google, but (he) also knows that there is a moral obligation to help someone in serious trouble."
I read that as a concern on your part that an active crime might be underway and no one was helping. My response to you was that it was not a current conversation being transcribed but one from the past, saying and I quote: "Whatever was heard in those short snippets they were tasked with transcribing was almost certainly old stuff and not actionable for preventing or interfering with whatever was heard."
What wasn't accurate based on what I understood you to be saying? There was nothing that could be done at that time to prevent or interfere with the possible crime taking place. Now if you want to question whether Google (or Apple or Amazon) should report the old snippet to the police for investigation that's an entirely separate conversation.
Really??? I never wrote that. There was an original commenter that wrote that but it wasn't me. So your comment about it being "old stuff" was in response to the original commenter. I then responded to your comment about it being "old stuff" because I have a few very serious concerns with that point of view:
1. Dealing with crime isn't just about preventing something from occurring at the time. Perpetrators need to be held accountable for their actions. There needs to be punishment for crime. You don't just let it go because it occurred in the past. 2. Crimes like violence against women are not usually a one of occurrence. Just because this was an incident that occurred in the past doesn't mean it won't occur again. So your comment that it's "not actionable for prevention" is complete nonsense.
After re-reading your comment now and in light of the way you continue to respond, the even greater concern I have is around the type of language you use when referring to the incident. Your choice of the words "preventing or interfering" is incredibly troubling. If someone was to interfere in the case of a woman being physically assaulted that implies that you would be getting involved in someone else's business. Your use of those terms conveys the message that you don't believe it would be appropriate to assist the woman as it's not anyone else's business.
If violence towards woman is something that you struggle with (or anyone else reading this struggles with) then in most cases there is support services available: USA: 1-800-799-SAFE (7233) www.TheHotline.org UK: 0808 2000 247 http://www.nationaldomesticviolencehelpline.org.uk/ Australia:
1800 737 732https://www.1800respect.org.au/ There are support lines available in many other countries also. Violence against women is never acceptable.
And then lastly. I have said several times I was speaking directly to your attitude towards the potential crime and not the "question whether Google (or Apple or Amazon) should report" the evidence they have of the potential crime. I have already stated several times these are separate issues so saying the same thing I have said several times before you as if it's a new point being made in the conversation isn't really helping. But I'm glad you are finally at least starting to understand that part of the discussion.
Having a discussion with you if very difficult when you make assumptions about what my attitude is for reasons known only to you.
Such silliness to assume I condone violence of any type, no matter the gender. Read my comments for exactly what they say. If the concern was that a crime was underway and the transcriber might be distressed at not being able to stop it the event had already occurred and that was no longer possible. If you think that someone should be doing something that would speak to a discussion about how Apple or Google should now respond. Do they report it to the police since "perpetrators need to be held accountable for their actions, you don't just let it go because it happened in the past"?
You tell me if Google (and Apple and Amazon) is being deplorable" (I think that was they word you used) if not doing so as you said a few posts back.
I wasn't assuming what your attitude was. I was reading the comments for exactly what they were and raising a concern because of what you said and the message that it conveys. I wasn't assuming you did condone violence. I simply stated that your choice of language left that open to interpretation and that is what I was concerned by. I was not trying to offend you in any way. I was simply concerned by the way you were communicating the message. If this is not something you struggle with then I am glad to hear it. However, based on your choice of terminology and the way you were approaching the discussion this isn't something I could just ignore.
All it would take to resolve this debate is for you to admit that just because a potential crime has occurred in the past does not mean the authorities would be unable to assist the victim.
I'm not saying that Google should be required to provide the evidence (and I'm not saying that they shouldn't). But I am saying that your comment that because it's "old stuff" nothing can be done is ridiculous.
Nothing can be done without Google or Apple's or Amazon's assistance, The "authorities" CANNOT assist any possible victim. So should those companies be doing so?
Here, I'll write a potential reply for you and lets see if you can agree on this:
"Crimes of violence can be an ongoing situation in many cases. Even though this was a recorded incident and the contractor was not listening in live, there is still the potential to prevent future incidents or to bring the perpetrator to justice. However, the discussion around 'IF' Google should hand over the recordings is a separate issue and is far more complex for many reasons."
...but you still would prefer not you give your personal opinion on whether the right to personal privacy should override the protection of innocents from violent acts now or in the future? Surely you must have one as vociferous as you've been.
My view is that it is a very complex issue. etc etc....
And here is where you discover we are of the same mind.
But I have stated the issue around disclosing the information was complex right from the start, but then you should have already known that...
It’s really surprising that people are shocked by this. People who are involved in the design and development of the product need to know it’s working and also need to find ways to improve it. If companies only relied on customer feedback on how to improve it then improvements wouldn’t be as quick. They need to be proactive so by listening to recordings enables them to do this.
To an extent, I agree with you. But the general public are often surprised when they discover more details about how something works - a lot of the time, when something provides a feature, I don't care much how it works under the hood because I assume that the process follows the dictates of my personal morality. Should I discover that a different moral standard is being applied, I worry about it and seek alternatives.
One of the concerns I have about Google is that it appears to be decidedly amoral - it treats data as data and seeks understanding without applying judgement. In a lot of situations, this is fine. But as this article and the source show, the real world contains a lot of ambiguity and judgement needs to be applied so that our society continues to function. The most disturbing line to me was:
"One worker screening audio said he encountered a recording in which it sounded like a woman was being physically attacked, but that Google didn't have clear guidelines on what to do in such cases."
This is a sign of dysfunction. Firstly, there's a conflict experienced by the worker: he knows that sharing this personal information is contrary to the contractual obligation with Google, but also knows that there is a moral obligation to help someone in serious trouble. It's tempting to place blame on the worker, but we don't know how certain he was about what had occurred, how afraid he was of affecting his employment, and a host of other factors. He made the judgement call that it was somebody else's decision but he didn't know how to escalate it.
So, why does Google not have a procedure for dealing with situations like this? Every adult on the planet knows that this sort of thing occurs (as much as we wish it wouldn't), how does the management at Google treat this as a low priority issue or refuse to acknowledge that it is relevant?
On the one hand, we see Google argue that their mission is merely to organise the world's information: OK, fine, if that's the activity being undertaken then that clearly means there is no obligation to act, regardless of the information being managed. But on the other hand, Google is using the analysis of the data to provide services - that too is fine, taken in separation, but it clearly negates the neutrality implied by the stated mission. If you want to collect and analyse ever more intrusive amounts of information and then act on it, you need to act in a manner that benefits society as a whole - do that and you've earned the right to make a profit. If not, then you're a surveillance mechanism that will be resisted to the best of our ability.
<end rant>
You're basing your "rant" on a journalists second hand report of what a single former contract worker had to say , that Google didn't have any policies in place on how certain things were to be dealt with. Was he/she even in a position to know? FWIW the contractors weren't listening to live streams anyway. Whatever was heard in those short snippets they were tasked with transcribing was almost certainly old stuff and not actionable for preventing or interfering with whatever was heard.
This would have to be your worst defence of google ever.
Google doesn't need defending in this case from what I can tell. Human input is a vital piece of improving the service and I'd be shocked if even the privacy-minded Apple isn't using real humans to listen to and transcribe Siri recordings to determine the speakers actual intent and identify cases where Siri thought it "heard" a wake phrase but did not. A machine would certainly not be dependable for discovering another machine heard wrong and why. Apple is almost assuredly doing the same thing whether with their own employees or with contracted companies.
...the issues around if Google has a responsibility to act on what the contractor believes they heard are very complex and we really don't have enough information to know for sure what the right/moral thing would be in this case or if Google already has appropriate policies in place or not. I'm not arguing that.
I'm just saying your weak excuse that if there was a crime being overheard it was in the past and therefore didn't matter anymore is deplorable. If the woman was being attacked as the contractor suspected then how do we know it wasn't an ongoing situation? Even if it wasn't an ongoing situation we don't give up on prosecting crimes because "that was in the past". All crimes were committed in the past. Are you suggesting that unless Google has some sort of Minority Report level of technology then it's irrelevant because the crime has already occurred? That is just ridiculous. There are many factors as to why it may not be possible/appropriate for Google to act on what is overheard by these contractors but you really missed the mark on this one...
Apple has acknowledged using human curators to determine the intent of certain Siri recordings and whether a person's voice was accurately heard and appropriately handled. Do you believe based on Apple's vaunted protection of user's privacy at (nearly) all cost that they would voluntarily pivot to sending private voice recordings to authorities for investigation into possible crimes? Would that be deplorable of Apple as well if they do not? I think that's speaking directly to the crux of the matter as you requested.
No it's not speaking to the crux of the matter. You keep trying to bring it back to if Google (or Apple as you later brought into the discussion) should or shouldn't be required to disclose this information. As I stated right from the beginning that is a complex question and not one I was attempting to answer based on the limited information provided in the original story. I simply stated that saying the recorded call would only contain "old stuff" implied that it didn't matter what may or may not have happened to the woman as it was in the past. This is what I took issue with.
You continue to ignore/detract from what you are being called out for which unfortunately is your usually approach. I never said it was deplorable for Google not to send the information to the police as you are now trying to imply I did. In fact I said we don't know what policies Google already have in place around this. I acknowledged right from the start that it's a complex issue and yet you continue to try and argue with me about points I never made while ignoring the comment I did make. Or even worse trying to twist it into something I never said.
I'm not trying to attack Google or compare them to Apple, although you seem to be very pre-occupied with the whole Apple vs Google battle. I'm simply saying that the fact the recorded call occurred in the past and only contained "old stuff" is not a reason for it to be dismissed. You have come up with a lot more intelligent talking points after your initial quick jerk reaction but still will not address what you initially said.
It speaks volumes that you still continue to ignore the one critique I raised at the very beginning.
@lolliver ; My apologies if I misunderstood the point you were attempting to make when you wrote: "One worker screening audio said he encountered a recording in which it sounded like a woman was being physically attacked, but that Google didn't have clear guidelines on what to do in such cases."
This is a sign of dysfunction. Firstly, there's a conflict experienced by the worker: he knows that sharing this personal information is contrary to the contractual obligation with Google, but (he) also knows that there is a moral obligation to help someone in serious trouble."
I read that as a concern on your part that an active crime might be underway and no one was helping. My response to you was that it was not a current conversation being transcribed but one from the past, saying and I quote: "Whatever was heard in those short snippets they were tasked with transcribing was almost certainly old stuff and not actionable for preventing or interfering with whatever was heard."
What wasn't accurate based on what I understood you to be saying? There was nothing that could be done at that time to prevent or interfere with the possible crime taking place. Now if you want to question whether Google (or Apple or Amazon) should report the old snippet to the police for investigation that's an entirely separate conversation.
Really??? I never wrote that. There was an original commenter that wrote that but it wasn't me. So your comment about it being "old stuff" was in response to the original commenter. I then responded to your comment about it being "old stuff" because I have a few very serious concerns with that point of view:
1. Dealing with crime isn't just about preventing something from occurring at the time. Perpetrators need to be held accountable for their actions. There needs to be punishment for crime. You don't just let it go because it occurred in the past. 2. Crimes like violence against women are not usually a one of occurrence. Just because this was an incident that occurred in the past doesn't mean it won't occur again. So your comment that it's "not actionable for prevention" is complete nonsense.
After re-reading your comment now and in light of the way you continue to respond, the even greater concern I have is around the type of language you use when referring to the incident. Your choice of the words "preventing or interfering" is incredibly troubling. If someone was to interfere in the case of a woman being physically assaulted that implies that you would be getting involved in someone else's business. Your use of those terms conveys the message that you don't believe it would be appropriate to assist the woman as it's not anyone else's business.
If violence towards woman is something that you struggle with (or anyone else reading this struggles with) then in most cases there is support services available: USA: 1-800-799-SAFE (7233) www.TheHotline.org UK: 0808 2000 247 http://www.nationaldomesticviolencehelpline.org.uk/ Australia:
1800 737 732https://www.1800respect.org.au/ There are support lines available in many other countries also. Violence against women is never acceptable.
And then lastly. I have said several times I was speaking directly to your attitude towards the potential crime and not the "question whether Google (or Apple or Amazon) should report" the evidence they have of the potential crime. I have already stated several times these are separate issues so saying the same thing I have said several times before you as if it's a new point being made in the conversation isn't really helping. But I'm glad you are finally at least starting to understand that part of the discussion.
Having a discussion with you if very difficult when you make assumptions about what my attitude is for reasons known only to you.
Such silliness to assume I condone violence of any type, no matter the gender. Read my comments for exactly what they say. If the concern was that a crime was underway and the transcriber might be distressed at not being able to stop it the event had already occurred and that was no longer possible. If you think that someone should be doing something that would speak to a discussion about how Apple or Google should now respond. Do they report it to the police since "perpetrators need to be held accountable for their actions, you don't just let it go because it happened in the past"?
You tell me if Google (and Apple and Amazon) is being deplorable" (I think that was they word you used) if not doing so as you said a few posts back.
I wasn't assuming what your attitude was. I was reading the comments for exactly what they were and raising a concern because of what you said and the message that it conveys. I wasn't assuming you did condone violence. I simply stated that your choice of language left that open to interpretation and that is what I was concerned by. I was not trying to offend you in any way. I was simply concerned by the way you were communicating the message. If this is not something you struggle with then I am glad to hear it. However, based on your choice of terminology and the way you were approaching the discussion this isn't something I could just ignore.
All it would take to resolve this debate is for you to admit that just because a potential crime has occurred in the past does not mean the authorities would be unable to assist the victim.
I'm not saying that Google should be required to provide the evidence (and I'm not saying that they shouldn't). But I am saying that your comment that because it's "old stuff" nothing can be done is ridiculous.
Nothing can be done without Google or Apple's or Amazon's assistance, The "authorities" CANNOT assist any possible victim. So should those companies be doing so?
Here, I'll write a potential reply for you and lets see if you can agree on this:
"Crimes of violence can be an ongoing situation in many cases. Even though this was a recorded incident and the contractor was not listening in live, there is still the potential to prevent future incidents or to bring the perpetrator to justice. However, the discussion around 'IF' Google should hand over the recordings is a separate issue and is far more complex for many reasons."
...but you still would prefer not you give your personal opinion on whether the right to personal privacy should override the protection of innocents from violent acts now or in the future? Surely you must have one as vociferous as you've been.
My view is that it is a very complex issue. etc etc....
And here is where you discover we are of the same mind.
On the fact that it's a complex issue yes. On the simplistic argument you used to begin with and the implications it carried, no. But we got there in the end.
It was your interpretation of what I wrote that was in error and not the point itself. My error was the wording of it wasn't sufficiently expansive for you to understand the context for the comment made to the OP. That's something I thought you finally got came to realize after too many posts. If you still don't then further words won't ihelp I'm afraid.
Thanks for all your comments anyway tho. You made some thoughtful points on what techs might do about things heard in voice recordings and why.
Comments
Really??? I never wrote that. There was an original commenter that wrote that but it wasn't me. So your comment about it being "old stuff" was in response to the original commenter. I then responded to your comment about it being "old stuff" because I have a few very serious concerns with that point of view:
1. Dealing with crime isn't just about preventing something from occurring at the time. Perpetrators need to be held accountable for their actions. There needs to be punishment for crime. You don't just let it go because it occurred in the past.
2. Crimes like violence against women are not usually a one of occurrence. Just because this was an incident that occurred in the past doesn't mean it won't occur again. So your comment that it's "not actionable for prevention" is complete nonsense.
After re-reading your comment now and in light of the way you continue to respond, the even greater concern I have is around the type of language you use when referring to the incident. Your choice of the words "preventing or interfering" is incredibly troubling. If someone was to interfere in the case of a woman being physically assaulted that implies that you would be getting involved in someone else's business. Your use of those terms conveys the message that you don't believe it would be appropriate to assist the woman as it's not anyone else's business.
If violence towards woman is something that you struggle with (or anyone else reading this struggles with) then in most cases there is support services available:
USA: 1-800-799-SAFE (7233) www.TheHotline.org
UK: 0808 2000 247 http://www.nationaldomesticviolencehelpline.org.uk/
Australia: 1800 737 732 https://www.1800respect.org.au/
There are support lines available in many other countries also. Violence against women is never acceptable.
And then lastly. I have said several times I was speaking directly to your attitude towards the potential crime and not the "question whether Google (or Apple or Amazon) should report" the evidence they have of the potential crime. I have already stated several times these are separate issues so saying the same thing I have said several times before you as if it's a new point being made in the conversation isn't really helping. But I'm glad you are finally at least starting to understand that part of the discussion.
So such silliness coming from you, claiming I condone violence of any type no matter the gender. Read my comments for exactly what they say. If the concern was that a crime was underway and the transcriber might be distressed at not being able to stop it the event had already occurred and that was no longer possible.
If it's not that and instead its all about someone at the tech should be doing something then that would speak to a discussion about how Apple or Google should now respond, correct? They would be the only parties who could potentially investigate to find where those recordings originated. Nothing at all that the transcriber can do.other than turn it over to the company who collected the speech snippet. Do they report it to the police since "perpetrators need to be held accountable for their actions, you don't just let it go because it happened in the past"? I think that's what you're saying.
You tell me if Google (and Apple and Amazon) is being deplorable" (I think that was they word you used) if not doing so as you said a few posts back.
I wasn't assuming what your attitude was. I was reading the comments for exactly what they were and raising a concern because of what you said and the message that it conveys. I wasn't assuming you did condone violence. I simply stated that your choice of language left that open to interpretation and that is what I was concerned by. I was not trying to offend you in any way. I was simply concerned by the way you were communicating the message. If this is not something you struggle with then I am glad to hear it. However, based on your choice of terminology and the way you were approaching the discussion this isn't something I could just ignore.
In relation to this:
"You tell me if Google (and Apple and Amazon) is being deplorable" (I think that was they word you used)"
You have tried to twist my words on this once before and I have already corrected you on it. I said YOUR comment was deplorable. I have never made any statement on my views about how Google, Apple or Amazon should be dealing with this other than to say that is a complex issue. I told you this the last time you tried to twist my words and accuse me of something I never said.
You say it's difficult to have a conversation with me but I'm not the one trying to twist and change what the other has said. My issue was around you implying that "old stuff" doesn't matter and your choice of the word "interfering" instead of thinking about the opportunity to assist or help someone who may have been (and may continue to be) in danger.
All it would take to resolve this debate is for you to admit that just because a potential crime has occurred in the past does not mean the authorities would be unable to assist the victim.
I'm not saying that Google should be required to provide the evidence (and I'm not saying that they shouldn't). But I am saying that your comment that because it's "old stuff" nothing can be done is ridiculous.
And my apologies for confusing you with the OP. Presumably your opinion and his do not agree based on your objections.
Seriously??? Still only looking at it from your need to defend Google at all costs point of view?
Here, I'll write a potential reply for you and lets see if you can agree on this:
"Crimes of violence can be an ongoing situation in many cases. Even though this was a recorded incident and the contractor was not listening in live, there is still the potential to prevent future incidents or to bring the perpetrator to justice. However, the discussion around 'IF' Google should hand over the recordings is a separate issue and is far more complex for many reasons."
Is that something you would agree with?
https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/comment/3175279/#Comment_3175279
...but you still would prefer not you give your personal opinion on whether the right to personal privacy should override the protection of innocents from violent acts now or in the future? Surely you must have one as vociferous as you've been.
You added a lot in when you edited this post after I responded to it as it previously only said:
What you wrote the second time makes a lot more sense but it does make it difficult to have a conversation with you when you go back and change prior posts based on my later responses...
I do have an opinion on it which I have only ever touched on in this conversation as you seem to get too easily distracted and try and side track the conversation. But now that the first point is finally clear.
My view is that it is a very complex issue. In a perfect world (which we of course do not live in) then requiring Google (Or any other tech company with access to similar recordings) to provide the data in the event of a crime may make sense. However that is a very simplistic approach and is not that straightforward in the real world.
Some of the issues with that approach would be:
1. Tech companies such as Google take steps to keep the data anonymous so being able to track down the victim/perpetrator may not always be possible or may require changes that reduce user privacy.
2. Contractors/employees are not experts in crime and may not be well suited to identify potential crimes.
3. If it was required for a human employee to report potential crimes then would the next step be that Google Assistant, Alexa or Siri would also need to be designed (once the technology has advanced) to assess when a potential crime is being committed and report that also?
4. If tech companies were required to hand over evidence of "potential crimes" then where does that end? Would they be required to hand over all recordings to law enforcement so that they can assess if it should be considered evidence or not? Would law enforcement then wish to turn an Echo, Google Home or HomePod into a surveillance device?
There are also many other concerns I would have with how this may be handled. I know if you say something along the lines of "Hey Siri, call the police" or "Hey Siri, call emergency services" she will do so and I would assume the same of other virtual assistants. So those assistants are already designed to provide assistance in an emergency without invading privacy.
Edit: Corrected where I had written Amazon instead of Siri
But I have stated the issue around disclosing the information was complex right from the start, but then you should have already known that...
Thanks for all your comments anyway tho. You made some thoughtful points on what techs might do about things heard in voice recordings and why.