this post was submitted on 15 May 2024
181 points (97.4% liked)

A Boring Dystopia

9723 readers
945 users here now

Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.

Rules (Subject to Change)

--Be a Decent Human Being

--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title

--Posts must have something to do with the topic

--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.

--No NSFW content

--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Google promised to keep data from the phone calls private.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Volkditty@lemmy.world 96 points 5 months ago (3 children)

I already have a system where, if someone calls me, it's probably a scam.

[–] Bluefruit@lemmy.world 30 points 5 months ago (1 children)

If they leave a voicemail then its more legit but yea same here. I'd rather not have my phone calls be used as AI training.

[–] Neato@ttrpg.network 3 points 5 months ago

That's how I know it's real. If they don't leave a message they don't care enough. The only people I want to talk to are like my doctors offices. My friends and family text and message.

[–] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 16 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I literally ignore all unknown numbers. I also ignore the doorbell if I don't expect someone or something. If it is important then just send me a letter.

[–] Sir_Kevin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

One of the greatest moments in my life was when I was a young adult and realized I could just ignore someone at my door and leave them standing there. I didn't invite your ass to just show up so fuck right off.

Phone calls too. You better ask via text or something first if you expect me to stop what I'm doing to listen to your bullshit. Voicemail? Oh no, I never completed the setup so you can't leave a message. So sorry!

[–] Poayjay@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

Uninvited visitors are the real world version of a pop up ad. They get zero consideration from me

[–] metaStatic@kbin.social 8 points 5 months ago

my system is if you're not in my contacts my phone doesn't ring.

[–] Hobbes_Dent@lemmy.world 57 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Prevent 100% of crime by having a police officer in your home 24/7.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 33 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Google promised

You mean the company that got rid of their previous motto of "do no evil"?

[–] The_Dark_Knight@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 5 months ago

Cmon they pinky promised what else do you need ? Take that tinfoil hat off .

[–] magnetosphere@fedia.io 17 points 5 months ago

I wouldn’t even wipe my ass with Google’s “promise”.

[–] Rekonok@sh.itjust.works 15 points 5 months ago

Google promised I lol'd

[–] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 15 points 5 months ago

Google already prevents 100% of the scams on my phone without doing this. I haven't had any spam or scam calls in years.

[–] cccrontab@lemmy.world 13 points 5 months ago

The company that sells your information to scammers has an idea on how to prevent them. What a load.

[–] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 12 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Google exists to make money off of you. Unless you are actually paying them, you are the product. It's that simple.

Take with a grain of salt any claims they make about you regarding services they will offer you for free.

[–] Hildegarde@lemmy.world 13 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Paying for a product doesn't mean you are not the product. Corpos will double dip when they have the option.

Modern cars collect huge amounts of data on their drivers despite the company making money from selling the car. Stores will sell your purchase history to advertisers. You can't trust any one with data about you.

[–] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 5 months ago

Yes, excellent point. Realistically we should trust no one who stands to make money off of us, even if we are already giving them money.

[–] applepie@kbin.social 11 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Google literally pays this fake news site to post these clown ideas to see how public reacts to them.

Remember to not click that link :)

Don't feed the fake news machine, if Sundar the Creep wants your opinion, it can scrap it out of here

[–] solo@kbin.earth 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I don't think business insider qualifies as fake news site. Does it?

[–] applepie@kbin.social 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Business Insider was launched in 2007[7] and is based in Manhattan. Founded by DoubleClick's former CEO Kevin P. Ryan, Dwight Merriman, and Henry Blodget,[

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Insider

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_P._Ryan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Blodget

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_P._Ryan

I doubt with a bench like that they report anything against their class or financial interest aka fake news for plebs to consume to get their thinking "right"

But either way, that article is paid advert/engagement slop masquerading as journalism.

[–] solo@kbin.earth 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I see what you mean but for me when I think of fake news sites, this comes to mind:

List of fake news websites

[–] dev_null@lemmy.ml 10 points 5 months ago

It is truly a boring dystopia when we need AI to help protect ourselves against scammers. At least the overhyped buzzword found one application positive for humanity.

[–] gedaliyah@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago

Don't worry everyone, I'm sure all the voice data will be anonymized.

[–] WhyDoYouPersist@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago

What a coincidence!

[–] Delphia@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

As much as this is a fucking privacy nightmare, if it were an Opt-in only service it could be a godsend for the vulnerable and elderly.

[–] solo@kbin.earth 4 points 5 months ago

The elderly have nothing to lose anymore since google accidentally deleted their pensions

[–] _Sprite@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

nah I'll stick with steve smith trying to sell me car insurance for gift cards, ty

[–] Professorozone@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

I think they phrased that incorrectly. Don't they mean Google wants their AI to listen in on your conversations and in return they'll keep you safe. LOL.

[–] efstajas@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

God, everyone, read the article, please. The feature in question uses an on-device AI model, meaning none of the audio or transcript leaves the phone. If Google wanted to secretly record and steal your phone transcripts they could do so already. They wouldn't need this feature.

[–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 12 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (5 children)

Im sorry but are you high or something? You clearly understand enough about computers to know what those words mean, but you didnt even consider that google phones can do whatever they want with data thats "on-device". Every device with google services has a root backdoor. Ofcourse they will gather all that data, because why wouldnt they? They can also gather it on demand, because it will surely get logged on-device and can be extracted at any time. The rules could also be changed at any time without warning to allow them to collect the data or start using it in whatever ways they want.

Also even if they wouldnt collect the data, its a fucking horrible idea in the first place. Sure lets outsource trust in our communications to some shitty machine learning algorithm that is dumber than a fucking toddler.

[–] EnderMB@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

While I do agree with the premise of your comment, most countries (including the US) have strict and long-standing laws on recording phone conversations. Even if Google wanted to do this, I can see it being an absolute nightmare to egress data from a device onto external storage.

Unless it doesnt count as "recording" because the information is being transformed by the model in a way that keeps the law from applying to it. But yeah, it will be interesting to see how this might go in court.

[–] efstajas@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Before I get deeper into this argument, the main point I was trying to make is that people are clearly assuming based on the headline that the transcript analysis happens in the cloud, and aren't aware of them at least claiming that it's fully on-device. If Google wants to steal phone transcripts, they can do this already, this feature doesn't change anything about it.

Also even if they wouldnt collect the data, its a fucking horrible idea in the first place. Sure lets outsource trust to an algorithm that is dumber than a fucking toddler.

The privacy discussion aside, the feature is designed to step in and warn the user when it detects a likely scam in progress. I don't see how this is inherently a bad idea at all. My grandma got scammed on the phone hardcore a few years back — this likely would've prevented it. And "outsourcing trust to an algorithm" is clearly not what's happening here. People get scammed all the time, clearly more needs to be done to stop scams.

Other than this... I know that people especially here are super wary of google and their privacy-related claims for very good reason. I am too. I know this is a very sensitive topic. But realistically, for this particular discussion...

"Ofcourse they will gather all that data, because why wouldnt they?"

There are so, SO many reasons why a massive company like Google, especially one that is constantly under scrutiny for their privacy practices, wouldn't secretly record / analyze / store / whatever private phone conversations and tbh most probably just aren't. There is immense regulation around this topic in practically all markets they operate in. If Google was found straight up sending transcripts of phone conversations to their servers without very explicit consent (aka more than some clause in ToS somewhere) it'd realistically be the biggest scandal in Google's history, and likely significantly hurt, if not kill, at least their phone division. In many markets just the recording of phone conversations is already illegal without consent from both sides, and Google can't just do it anyway based on some ToS legalese — it's just illegal.

I'm not trying to say that I don't believe they do this because they're good people or anything, but because from a pure business standpoint it'd be immensely risky for gathering data that is also hardly usable in practice due to how sensitive it is. The circle of people that would even be allowed to know of its existence internally would have to be tiny and extremely trusted to prevent leaks.

The truth is that they can amass so much data through other potentially dubious yet totally legal ways already, so an immense and illegal overstep of privacy convention like this is just unnecessary.

[–] bobotron@lemm.ee 3 points 5 months ago

This is a really well written response and kudos for talking a rational argument up on the Internet

[–] solo@kbin.earth 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Of course they will gather all that data, because why wouldnt they?

But they promised...

pwetty pwease dond shawe my data 👉👈

[–] dev_null@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 months ago (4 children)

Sure lets outsource trust in our communications to some shitty machine learning algorithm that is dumber than a fucking toddler.

And it really doesn't need to be smarter than that, to show a "banks will never asks you to transfer money to another account, this is likely a scam" dialog when the speaker claiming to be from your bank tells you to do so. This will save lots of vulnerable and older people from getting scammed. If you think that's a horrible idea then I'm interested in your reasoning. Over $10 billion per year is lost to scams, making a dent in that is amazing.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] schwim@lemm.ee 3 points 5 months ago

Given the rarity in which I use my phone as a phone, they can knock themselves out with the bot call hangups that make up almost 100% of my call logs.

[–] KillingAndKindess@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I hope this isn't enabled by default.

I don't need Google's help keeping my phone from getting spam calls.

I've had the tiny modicom of mindfulness required to keep myself from sticking my number everywhere. I can't believe this isn't curriculum for public schooling at this point. Spam calls should and could be a problem that dies with the earlier generations of cell phone users.

Part of the issue is the government's doing yes, but, the lack of laws protecting Cell phone users from spam calls does NOT mean we'll always have bunches of spam calls.

I very, very, rarely get spam calls. I'm talking like.... maybe one every 2-3 months.

I've had this same number since 2006, so its not like its new. I've just always avoided putting my number into forms/profiles of any kind until I've actually weighed the need to do so. Sure, its meant that I have declined many conveniences and have occasionally been made fun of or "missed out" over the years, though I'd say less so as I've aged.

I just treat my phone number with the same guardedness as I do my routing and accounting info.

[–] Fleppensteijn@feddit.nl 3 points 5 months ago

The article discusses scam calls, not spam calls.

I got that fake Microsoft support scam call only once, back in early 2000s, on my parent's land line.

Spammers call random number in France, so not putting your number everywhere is useless.

[–] modifier@lemmy.ca 3 points 5 months ago

Hey, apropos of nothing, does anyone else remember when Google's mission statement was simply "Don't Be Evil" but then had to amend that?

[–] The_Dark_Knight@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 5 months ago

Did google pretty promised or pinky promise ?

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

Nope. No thanks. Noooo way.

[–] Boozilla@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

People take voice calls in 2024?