The issue has nothing to do with whether they are anonymized or not. The issue is permissions and disclosure. Period.
I expect we'll hear from Apple more on this.
FTA: "The main thrust of the report claims that Apple does not explicitly disclose to consumers that recordings are passed along to contractors -- but Apple does tell users that some queries are manually reviewed, and has since the release of the service. Despite the information having been public-facing for at least six iterations of iOS, the "whistleblower" advised that they were concerned over the lack of disclosure, especially considering the contents of some recordings containing "extremely sensitive personal information."
Where does it say that it is manually reviewed by outside contractors? Could you provide a link to that specific wording? Thanks.
"When you use Siri or Dictation, the things you say will be recorded and sent to Apple in order to convert what you say into text and to process your requests. Your device will also send Apple other information, such as your first name and nickname; the names, nicknames, and relationship with you (e.g., “my dad”) of your address book contacts; and song names in your collection (collectively, your “User Data”). All of this data is used to help Siri and Dictation understand you better and recognize what you say. It is not linked to other data that Apple may have from your use of other Apple services. By using Siri or Dictation, you agree and consent to Apple’s and its subsidiaries’ and agents’ transmission, collection, maintenance, processing, and use of this information, including your voice input and User Data, to provide and improve Siri, Dictation, and dictation functionality in other Apple products and services."
My life is simple but happy. I have nothing I do or say that is nothing Siri can hear that I couldn’t tell someone else. Sooo you can use my info even though I didn’t know you could. The only info that I wouldn’t want someone to use would be my payments made on my phone and I don’t use Siri for that
I don't know who the author of the article is but in the very last paragraph he says that with both Google and Facebook the voice snippets were directly connected to a user account. In the case of Facebook it may have been in fact I believe they were even given first names. the As for Google and voice transcription it was handled exactly as it is with Apple as far as I've seen written: Anonymized and not connected to an identifiable account.
Unless the author has additional information otherwise that assertion should be corrected as it would be misleading readers if left as is.
So, if TVs can trigger Siri and the like, how would the reviewer know whether or not they were listening to people and not actors In TV shows or movies? How likely is it that people are actually triggering Siri when using drug deals, having sex, and talking to their doctors?
I don't know who the author of the article is but in the very last paragraph he says that with both Google and Facebook the voice snippets were directly connected to a user account. In the case of Facebook it may have been in fact I believe they were even given first names. the As for Google and voice transcription it was handled exactly as it is with Apple as far as I've seen written: Anonymized and not connected to an identifiable account.
Unless the author has additional information otherwise that assertion should be corrected as it would be misleading readers if left as is.
If I recall the earlier article correctly, this isn't the case. The other tech companies included customer ID or IP address along with the data whereas Apple only included a randomly generated ID. Legally that is the difference between "personal data" and non-personal data. Apple is doing it correctly (and legally), the others are (or were) cutting some corners.
Now the whistleblower in this article mentions that location and phone numbers were included. If true, that's a major problem, because that defeats anonymity.
I don't know who the author of the article is but in the very last paragraph he says that with both Google and Facebook the voice snippets were directly connected to a user account. In the case of Facebook it may have been in fact I believe they were even given first names. the As for Google and voice transcription it was handled exactly as it is with Apple as far as I've seen written: Anonymized and not connected to an identifiable account.
Unless the author has additional information otherwise that assertion should be corrected as it would be misleading readers if left as is.
If what you say is true — and I recall people here (including me), as well as the media, being bent out of shape about Google and Facebook on this issue — then, in all fairness, what Apple is doing here is no different from what they are doing.
If so, there’s little doubt that we’ll be hearing a lot more about this.
The issue has nothing to do with whether they are anonymized or not. The issue is permissions and disclosure. Period.
I expect we'll hear from Apple more on this.
FTA: "The main thrust of the report claims that Apple does not explicitly disclose to consumers that recordings are passed along to contractors -- but Apple does tell users that some queries are manually reviewed, and has since the release of the service. Despite the information having been public-facing for at least six iterations of iOS, the "whistleblower" advised that they were concerned over the lack of disclosure, especially considering the contents of some recordings containing "extremely sensitive personal information."
Where does it say that it is manually reviewed by outside contractors? Could you provide a link to that specific wording? Thanks.
"When you use Siri or Dictation, the things you say will be recorded and sent to Apple in order to convert what you say into text and to process your requests. Your device will also send Apple other information, such as your first name and nickname; the names, nicknames, and relationship with you (e.g., “my dad”) of your address book contacts; and song names in your collection (collectively, your “User Data”). All of this data is used to help Siri and Dictation understand you better and recognize what you say. It is not linked to other data that Apple may have from your use of other Apple services. By using Siri or Dictation, you agree and consent to Apple’s and its subsidiaries’ and agents’ transmission, collection, maintenance, processing, and use of this information, including your voice input and User Data, to provide and improve Siri, Dictation, and dictation functionality in other Apple products and services."
The issue has nothing to do with whether they are anonymized or not. The issue is permissions and disclosure. Period.
I expect we'll hear from Apple more on this.
FTA: "The main thrust of the report claims that Apple does not explicitly disclose to consumers that recordings are passed along to contractors -- but Apple does tell users that some queries are manually reviewed, and has since the release of the service. Despite the information having been public-facing for at least six iterations of iOS, the "whistleblower" advised that they were concerned over the lack of disclosure, especially considering the contents of some recordings containing "extremely sensitive personal information."
Where does it say that it is manually reviewed by outside contractors? Could you provide a link to that specific wording? Thanks.
"When you use Siri or Dictation, the things you say will be recorded and sent to Apple in order to convert what you say into text and to process your requests. Your device will also send Apple other information, such as your first name and nickname; the names, nicknames, and relationship with you (e.g., “my dad”) of your address book contacts; and song names in your collection (collectively, your “User Data”). All of this data is used to help Siri and Dictation understand you better and recognize what you say. It is not linked to other data that Apple may have from your use of other Apple services. By using Siri or Dictation, you agree and consent to Apple’s and its subsidiaries’ and agents’ transmission, collection, maintenance, processing, and use of this information, including your voice input and User Data, to provide and improve Siri, Dictation, and dictation functionality in other Apple products and services."
I think it would help if Apple added something like Section 4(c) of their ios6.pdf "Software License Agreement" to their iOS12.pdf "Software License Agreement". The latter retains Section 4(h) from ios6.pdf for "Maps", now under Section 4(d): "By using Maps, you agree and consent to Apple’s and its subsidiaries’ and agents’ transmission, collection, maintenance, processing, and use of this information, to provide and improve the Maps features and service, and other Apple products and services."
Why remove similar language for "Siri and Dictation" from the legal "Software License Agreement", and relegate its essence to "Ask Siri, Dictation & Privacy" under iOS 12 "Siri & Search" "Settings"? It would be even better if this clearer language were in Apple's "Privacy Policy" since it's the intuitive first place to look for such legal information in the first place.
Mine often gets triggered when I say "serious" so I'm not surprised many of these inadvertent triggers are at doctor's offices ("you have a serious illness") or other "serious" situations.
I don't know who the author of the article is but in the very last paragraph he says that with both Google and Facebook the voice snippets were directly connected to a user account. In the case of Facebook it may have been in fact I believe they were even given first names. the As for Google and voice transcription it was handled exactly as it is with Apple as far as I've seen written: Anonymized and not connected to an identifiable account.
Unless the author has additional information otherwise that assertion should be corrected as it would be misleading readers if left as is.
I've clarified the statement -- but realize that a reporter was given his own recording by a Google researcher, so there was some form of identification.
I don't know who the author of the article is but in the very last paragraph he says that with both Google and Facebook the voice snippets were directly connected to a user account. In the case of Facebook it may have been in fact I believe they were even given first names. the As for Google and voice transcription it was handled exactly as it is with Apple as far as I've seen written: Anonymized and not connected to an identifiable account.
Unless the author has additional information otherwise that assertion should be corrected as it would be misleading readers if left as is.
If I recall the earlier article correctly, this isn't the case. The other tech companies included customer ID or IP address along with the data whereas Apple only included a randomly generated ID.
You should read again. The means of identification would be the same as it is for Apple: Something heard in the voice snippet, not anything supplied by either Google or Apple.
There's a big difference between 'hearing" a Siri request ("where's the closest pizza place") and hearing conversations when a request isn't specifically being made. Which is it? The former doesn't bother me, but the latter does.
But if they were listening to me using Siri, all they would hear is a lot of annoyance and cursing after I asked the initial query.
I'm sure there's some caught that are inadvertent triggers. That's the whole point of process improvement.
Exactly. A friend and I have been collaborating on a couple of medical apps. There is something about when we have conversations involving the word “server” frequently that stirs Siri up; she starts trying to respond. I cannot reproduce it at will.
I don't know who the author of the article is but in the very last paragraph he says that with both Google and Facebook the voice snippets were directly connected to a user account. In the case of Facebook it may have been in fact I believe they were even given first names. the As for Google and voice transcription it was handled exactly as it is with Apple as far as I've seen written: Anonymized and not connected to an identifiable account.
Unless the author has additional information otherwise that assertion should be corrected as it would be misleading readers if left as is.
If I recall the earlier article correctly, this isn't the case. The other tech companies included customer ID or IP address along with the data whereas Apple only included a randomly generated ID.
You should read again. The means of identification would be the same as it is for Apple: Something heard in the voice snippet, not anything supplied by either Google or Apple.
I don't know who the author of the article is but in the very last paragraph he says that with both Google and Facebook the voice snippets were directly connected to a user account. In the case of Facebook it may have been in fact I believe they were even given first names. the As for Google and voice transcription it was handled exactly as it is with Apple as far as I've seen written: Anonymized and not connected to an identifiable account.
Unless the author has additional information otherwise that assertion should be corrected as it would be misleading readers if left as is.
If I recall the earlier article correctly, this isn't the case. The other tech companies included customer ID or IP address along with the data whereas Apple only included a randomly generated ID.
You should read again. The means of identification would be the same as it is for Apple: Something heard in the voice snippet, not anything supplied by either Google or Apple.
LOL... All Google all the time. No reason to be suspicious of the agenda. /s
So about the article's topic and Apple supplying outside contractors with sometimes identifiable voice snippets. Whaddya think? Any different than Google doing so? Let me guess, no comment just misdirection.
No Apple IDs are stored and they're one random clip at a time. I can see the concerns but keeping it anonymous means we shouldn't worry.
I'm not sure I'd go that far. I think the point is that it isn't necessarily anonymous. Apple IDs are pretty meaningless to most people, but if you get a conversation where Siri is accidentally triggered... especially if it is true that it comes with location data and such, then that could create some interesting situations if the (probably low paid) workers listening to the stuff wanted to take advantage of it.
So, if TVs can trigger Siri and the like, how would the reviewer know whether or not they were listening to people and not actors In TV shows or movies? How likely is it that people are actually triggering Siri when using drug deals, having sex, and talking to their doctors? Sounds a little La La Land to me...
Fairly likely. I seem to trigger Siri on a fairly regular basis AND I have it set to only respond when I have the phone unlocked. So, imagine if it was set to all the time. (I only have my phone unlocked a few percent of its use time).
What I'd like to know is how much below 1% of the clips get sent for analysis. With hundreds of billions of iDevices out there and Siri being regularly used, that would be a LOT of stuff being sent for analysis. Hopefully it's more like 0.001% or something like that.
gatorguy said: So about the article's topic and Apple supplying outside contractors with sometimes identifiable voice snippets. Whaddya think? Any different than Google doing so? Let me guess, no comment just misdirection.
I think my main issue with either is the outside contractor thing. At least with their own staff, they have a bit more control (and people with more to risk). I'm guessing they probably use contractors to hire cheaper labor (and not be as directly connected to that), not have to deal with all the burnout, and maybe remove the accountability a step out?
If Google devices aren't listing/sending more often, then no, it seems they are quite similar in this regard.
gatorguy said: So about the article's topic and Apple supplying outside contractors with sometimes identifiable voice snippets. Whaddya think? Any different than Google doing so? Let me guess, no comment just misdirection.
I think my main issue with either is the outside contractor thing. At least with their own staff, they have a bit more control (and people with more to risk). I'm guessing they probably use contractors to hire cheaper labor (and not be as directly connected to that), not have to deal with all the burnout, and maybe remove the accountability a step out?
If Google devices aren't listing/sending more often, then no, it seems they are quite similar in this regard.
Google commented after this quarter's numbers were announced yesterday that profitability may take a bit of a hit in the upcoming quarter as some previously contracted services are brought in-house with Google employees. Considering how concerned they were when a voice transcription contractor broke contract this may be one of those.
“ A 'whistleblower' has taken issue with Apple's lack of disclosure that it has contractors listening to anonymized Siri queries -- but the company has said all along that it does.”
So what percentage of Siri users are aware that humans may listen to their conversations? No-one reads software license agreements.
Just as willful ignorance is not a valid legal defense, suggesting that Apple hasn’t adequately notified users because users don’t read software license agreements is not a valid argument.
Comments
the
As for Google and voice transcription it was handled exactly as it is with Apple as far as I've seen written: Anonymized and not connected to an identifiable account.
Unless the author has additional information otherwise that assertion should be corrected as it would be misleading readers if left as is.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Sounds a little La La Land to me...
Now the whistleblower in this article mentions that location and phone numbers were included. If true, that's a major problem, because that defeats anonymity.
If so, there’s little doubt that we’ll be hearing a lot more about this.
Thanks!
Why remove similar language for "Siri and Dictation" from the legal "Software License Agreement", and relegate its essence to "Ask Siri, Dictation & Privacy" under iOS 12 "Siri & Search" "Settings"? It would be even better if this clearer language were in Apple's "Privacy Policy" since it's the intuitive first place to look for such legal information in the first place.
EDIT: Google response was almost identical to what Apple is using now.
"Audio snippets are not associated with user accounts as part of the review process, and reviewers are directed not to transcribe background conversations or other noises, and only to transcribe snippets that are directed to Google."
https://www.blog.google/products/assistant/more-information-about-our-processes-safeguard-speech-data/
So about the article's topic and Apple supplying outside contractors with sometimes identifiable voice snippets. Whaddya think? Any different than Google doing so? Let me guess, no comment just misdirection.
Apple IDs are pretty meaningless to most people, but if you get a conversation where Siri is accidentally triggered... especially if it is true that it comes with location data and such, then that could create some interesting situations if the (probably low paid) workers listening to the stuff wanted to take advantage of it.
Fairly likely. I seem to trigger Siri on a fairly regular basis AND I have it set to only respond when I have the phone unlocked. So, imagine if it was set to all the time. (I only have my phone unlocked a few percent of its use time).
What I'd like to know is how much below 1% of the clips get sent for analysis. With hundreds of billions of iDevices out there and Siri being regularly used, that would be a LOT of stuff being sent for analysis. Hopefully it's more like 0.001% or something like that.
I think my main issue with either is the outside contractor thing. At least with their own staff, they have a bit more control (and people with more to risk). I'm guessing they probably use contractors to hire cheaper labor (and not be as directly connected to that), not have to deal with all the burnout, and maybe remove the accountability a step out?
If Google devices aren't listing/sending more often, then no, it seems they are quite similar in this regard.
1. Wearing tight-fitting pants can cause the side button to be pressed on the iPhone in my pocket. It doesn't have "Hey Siri" enabled.
2. Someone says "Hey Siri" on TV in your home. This can certainly trigger HomePod or iPhones you have set to listen for "Hey Siri."
3. Some jerk yells out "hey Siri, would you marry me" or similarly oafish question when they see me about to use Siri on my Watch or iPhone.