Gatorguy: I believe you misread the article and jumped to conclusions. Mikey's article clearly states that Google did not reveal that they had paused the reviews globally until Friday. Your statement doesn't contradict that at all -- it refers exclusively to the pausing of audio review in Germany.
Interesting that you're so quick to defend Google that you'd make a careless error like that.
Also unchanged: Apple among the three companies was the only one that was always anonymizing its voice clips before all this controversy even started, as per their white paper. Anonymizing is not 100 percent foolproof against identifying someone (for example, they identify themselves in the recording, or its obviously a famous person with a distinctive voice etc), but it was and is better than what was previously the policy at Google and Amazon, which left identifying information intact.
I think you're wrong on both accounts. Read the headline. It says "Google follows Apple's lead... " That's not true. They didn't. There's no way to misinterpret that. Even from the article: "Shortly after we learned about the leaking of confidential Dutch audio data, we paused language reviews of the Assistant to investigate. This paused reviews globally," Google told Ars Technica. AI changed the context of that quote when they changed the attribution. The quote from the Ars article actually reads: "Shortly after we learned about the leaking of confidential Dutch audio data, we paused language reviews of the Assistant to investigate. This paused reviews globally," Google told Ars today. They had already paused the reviews when they spoke to Ars on Friday.
You're wrong about the claim that Apple was the only one anonymizing the voice clips. Google was anonymizing clips that were listened to as well. Google also made the storing of audio clips opt-in and even if you do you can opt-out at any time. If you've opted-in, you can set your account to auto-delete every 3 or 18 months. You can also manually delete them at any time. From the earlier Ars article on 11 Jul https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/07/google-defends-listening-to-ok-google-queries-after-voice-recordings-leak/
In case you misunderstand my intent, I'm not defending Google. I am countering your misinformation.
There almost appears to be a concerted spin effort since in general each of the articles these past days here at AI concerning Apple's review program have contained bits of misinformation, inaccuracies or misleading statements, too many to be coincidental IMO but perhaps they are just simple mistakes. I know it's not typical of AI writers to make such obvious ones though.
Ahh yes, the google guy is suggesting AI staff are peddling an anti-google narrative. Keep dropping those FUD pellets, fella!
Here's a refreshing idea for you: Try commenting on an article instead of the people posting in it.
If you think this article was an accurate portrayal simply say so and explain why. Some other's here agree with me, including very Apple-dedicated members and others have not tho in fairness a couple of them may not have had all the facts when posting. How about you?
Gatorguy: I believe you misread the article and jumped to conclusions. Mikey's article clearly states that Google did not reveal that they had paused the reviews globally until Friday. Your statement doesn't contradict that at all -- it refers exclusively to the pausing of audio review in Germany.
Interesting that you're so quick to defend Google that you'd make a careless error like that.
Also unchanged: Apple among the three companies was the only one that was always anonymizing its voice clips before all this controversy even started, as per their white paper. Anonymizing is not 100 percent foolproof against identifying someone (for example, they identify themselves in the recording, or its obviously a famous person with a distinctive voice etc), but it was and is better than what was previously the policy at Google and Amazon, which left identifying information intact.
I think you're wrong on both accounts. Read the headline. It says "Google follows Apple's lead... " That's not true. They didn't. There's no way to misinterpret that. Even from the article: "Shortly after we learned about the leaking of confidential Dutch audio data, we paused language reviews of the Assistant to investigate. This paused reviews globally," Google told Ars Technica. AI changed the context of that quote when they changed the attribution. The quote from the Ars article actually reads: "Shortly after we learned about the leaking of confidential Dutch audio data, we paused language reviews of the Assistant to investigate. This paused reviews globally," Google told Ars today. They had already paused the reviews when they spoke to Ars on Friday.
You're wrong about the claim that Apple was the only one anonymizing the voice clips. Google was anonymizing clips that were listened to as well. Google also made the storing of audio clips opt-in and even if you do you can opt-out at any time. If you've opted-in, you can set your account to auto-delete every 3 or 18 months. You can also manually delete them at any time. From the earlier Ars article on 11 Jul https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/07/google-defends-listening-to-ok-google-queries-after-voice-recordings-leak/
In case you misunderstand my intent, I'm not defending Google. I am countering your misinformation.
There almost appears to be a concerted spin effort since in general each of the articles these past days here at AI concerning Apple's review program have contained bits of misinformation, inaccuracies or misleading statements, too many to be coincidental IMO but perhaps they are just simple mistakes. I know it's not typical of AI writers to make such obvious ones though.
Ahh yes, the google guy is suggesting AI staff are peddling an anti-google narrative. Keep dropping those FUD pellets, fella!
Even Google employees are exposing Google. Talking about their political bias and spying.
Gatorguy: I believe you misread the article and jumped to conclusions. Mikey's article clearly states that Google did not reveal that they had paused the reviews globally until Friday. Your statement doesn't contradict that at all -- it refers exclusively to the pausing of audio review in Germany.
Interesting that you're so quick to defend Google that you'd make a careless error like that.
Also unchanged: Apple among the three companies was the only one that was always anonymizing its voice clips before all this controversy even started, as per their white paper. Anonymizing is not 100 percent foolproof against identifying someone (for example, they identify themselves in the recording, or its obviously a famous person with a distinctive voice etc), but it was and is better than what was previously the policy at Google and Amazon, which left identifying information intact.
I think you're wrong on both accounts. Read the headline. It says "Google follows Apple's lead... " That's not true. They didn't. There's no way to misinterpret that. Even from the article: "Shortly after we learned about the leaking of confidential Dutch audio data, we paused language reviews of the Assistant to investigate. This paused reviews globally," Google told Ars Technica. AI changed the context of that quote when they changed the attribution. The quote from the Ars article actually reads: "Shortly after we learned about the leaking of confidential Dutch audio data, we paused language reviews of the Assistant to investigate. This paused reviews globally," Google told Ars today. They had already paused the reviews when they spoke to Ars on Friday.
You're wrong about the claim that Apple was the only one anonymizing the voice clips. Google was anonymizing clips that were listened to as well. Google also made the storing of audio clips opt-in and even if you do you can opt-out at any time. If you've opted-in, you can set your account to auto-delete every 3 or 18 months. You can also manually delete them at any time. From the earlier Ars article on 11 Jul https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/07/google-defends-listening-to-ok-google-queries-after-voice-recordings-leak/
In case you misunderstand my intent, I'm not defending Google. I am countering your misinformation.
There almost appears to be a concerted spin effort since in general each of the articles these past days here at AI concerning Apple's review program have contained bits of misinformation, inaccuracies or misleading statements, too many to be coincidental IMO but perhaps they are just simple mistakes. I know it's not typical of AI writers to make such obvious ones though.
Ahh yes, the google guy is suggesting AI staff are peddling an anti-google narrative. Keep dropping those FUD pellets, fella!
Here's a refreshing idea for you: Try commenting on an article instead of the people posting in it.
If you think this article was an accurate portrayal simply say so and explain why. Some other's here agree with me, including very Apple-dedicated members and others have not tho in fairness a couple of them may not have had all the facts when posting. How about you?
Actually, I disagree that there is a concerted spin effort. I was merely commenting on a glaring inconsistency between the headline and the content. That doesn’t mean I think AI is running a conspiracy.
StrangeDays was responding to your “concerted spin effort” comment. Since you made the comment, you don’t get to say folk can’t respond to it. That’s not how discussions work.
Gatorguy: I believe you misread the article and jumped to conclusions. Mikey's article clearly states that Google did not reveal that they had paused the reviews globally until Friday. Your statement doesn't contradict that at all -- it refers exclusively to the pausing of audio review in Germany.
Interesting that you're so quick to defend Google that you'd make a careless error like that.
Also unchanged: Apple among the three companies was the only one that was always anonymizing its voice clips before all this controversy even started, as per their white paper. Anonymizing is not 100 percent foolproof against identifying someone (for example, they identify themselves in the recording, or its obviously a famous person with a distinctive voice etc), but it was and is better than what was previously the policy at Google and Amazon, which left identifying information intact.
I think you're wrong on both accounts. Read the headline. It says "Google follows Apple's lead... " That's not true. They didn't. There's no way to misinterpret that. Even from the article: "Shortly after we learned about the leaking of confidential Dutch audio data, we paused language reviews of the Assistant to investigate. This paused reviews globally," Google told Ars Technica. AI changed the context of that quote when they changed the attribution. The quote from the Ars article actually reads: "Shortly after we learned about the leaking of confidential Dutch audio data, we paused language reviews of the Assistant to investigate. This paused reviews globally," Google told Ars today. They had already paused the reviews when they spoke to Ars on Friday.
You're wrong about the claim that Apple was the only one anonymizing the voice clips. Google was anonymizing clips that were listened to as well. Google also made the storing of audio clips opt-in and even if you do you can opt-out at any time. If you've opted-in, you can set your account to auto-delete every 3 or 18 months. You can also manually delete them at any time. From the earlier Ars article on 11 Jul https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/07/google-defends-listening-to-ok-google-queries-after-voice-recordings-leak/
In case you misunderstand my intent, I'm not defending Google. I am countering your misinformation.
There almost appears to be a concerted spin effort since in general each of the articles these past days here at AI concerning Apple's review program have contained bits of misinformation, inaccuracies or misleading statements, too many to be coincidental IMO but perhaps they are just simple mistakes. I know it's not typical of AI writers to make such obvious ones though.
Ahh yes, the google guy is suggesting AI staff are peddling an anti-google narrative. Keep dropping those FUD pellets, fella!
Here's a refreshing idea for you: Try commenting on an article instead of the people posting in it.
If you think this article was an accurate portrayal simply say so and explain why. Some other's here agree with me, including very Apple-dedicated members and others have not tho in fairness a couple of them may not have had all the facts when posting. How about you?
Actually, I disagree that there is a concerted spin effort. I was merely commenting on a glaring inconsistency between the headline and the content. That doesn’t mean I think AI is running a conspiracy.
StrangeDays was responding to your “concerted spin effort” comment. Since you made the comment, you don’t get to say folk can’t respond to it. That’s not how discussions work.
What discussion? BTW re-read the original comment. It's not an accusation.
I wish some posters would put as much effort into discussing a topic as they do avoiding one to attack a personality instead. Even worse a couple of our members are now taking their egregious behavior to other Apple blog sites, exporting a less-than-admirable picture of what it means to be an Apple fan. It's well understood that AI has long had its own special flair, no need to turn other blogs into mirrors of it. Less ad-hom, more civility and on-topic conversation is always a good thing.
Can't believe as a moderator here you would not be advocating for the same thing, so I assume you do?
Comments
If you think this article was an accurate portrayal simply say so and explain why. Some other's here agree with me, including very Apple-dedicated members and others have not tho in fairness a couple of them may not have had all the facts when posting. How about you?
Even Google employees are exposing Google. Talking about their political bias and spying.
Search: Project Veritas.
StrangeDays was responding to your “concerted spin effort” comment. Since you made the comment, you don’t get to say folk can’t respond to it. That’s not how discussions work.
I wish some posters would put as much effort into discussing a topic as they do avoiding one to attack a personality instead. Even worse a couple of our members are now taking their egregious behavior to other Apple blog sites, exporting a less-than-admirable picture of what it means to be an Apple fan. It's well understood that AI has long had its own special flair, no need to turn other blogs into mirrors of it. Less ad-hom, more civility and on-topic conversation is always a good thing.
Can't believe as a moderator here you would not be advocating for the same thing, so I assume you do?