It's a Trojan horse because it is their way of rolling out "connected-home" devices without people having to decide to "move to a connected home". That's what all the non-enabled sensors and hardware are for.
It's a smart play on Google's part, and Ars is correct to note it.
It doesn't mean it is malicious in anyway.
And, "Trojan horse" always implies malicious deception; its an inappropriate metaphor for any other intended message.
So, I'd say this is doubly misguided.
[0] would disagree:
"more elaborate systems could easily reach up to $1000 if you have a lot of hardware to install and don't shoot for the cheapest units you can get. Putting in a smart switch in three bedrooms, a living room and a kitchen can be $200-250 by itself, and that assumes a fairly spartan set up and excludes any power outlet installations. Be sure to tally up all of the parts you'll need before you start buying anything."
>"Trojan horse" always implies malicious deception; its an inappropriate metaphor for any other intended message.
It's commonly used in this way. [1][2][3] are good examples.
[0] http://lifehacker.com/how-can-i-get-started-with-home-automa...
[1] http://www.taniaellis.com/blog/the-trojan-horse-changing-bus...
[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-schachner/a-trojan-horse-...
[3] http://www.techrepublic.com/article/microsofts-trojan-horse-...
If you're not talking about NSLs, please provide a reliable citation for this claim. :)
Every company that receives an NSL that passes the laugh test is more-or-less obligated to comply with it. It's my understanding that Google fights as hard as they legally can to protect the private information of their users.
Fun fact: Did you know that from 1986 until very, very recently the law of the land in the US was that emails stored on third-party servers for longer than 180 days were considered abandoned and could be retrieved -in their entirety- by law enforcement with nothing more than what is effectively a note that declared that the information was relevant to a law enforcement investigation? It's true! [0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Communications_Priv... but also http://www.cnet.com/news/doj-we-dont-need-warrants-for-e-mai...
"United States v. Warshak is a criminal case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit holding that government agents violated the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights by compelling his Internet Service Provider (ISP) to turn over his emails without first obtaining a search warrant based on probable cause."
So, yeah, I fucked up. :( It's a circuit court decision, so it's not law of the land, but it is promising.
Especially considering the talk around the device collecting data when it was announced.