Hacker News Reader

Comment by ehsankia | Hacker News Reader

You start off with disagreeing that smartphones are more dangerous as home speakers, then every single subsequent point you make is along the line as "this may not be as bad as smartphones but they're still an issue".

Yes the processor is still strong but it's weaker than smartphones. Yes you can still sneak data past home networks but it's harder than 3rd party networks. Yes they can be more overlooked, but they still have access to less data than smartphones.

None of the points you make prove that home speakers are as bad or worse than smartphones. The original comment wasn't arguing that smart speakers are safe, they were just pointing out the hypocrisy over owning a smartphone and being against smart speakers.

View on HN

Since most people buy phones in 20 packs, and change devices between each charge, this is a non-issue, no?

The main issue with smart speakers is that they're in your home and they have access to continuous power, so they're always on. Sure, they might not have all of the processing power of your flagship smartphone, and you can check their traffic, but this doesn't mean that they aren't less dangerous. With smartphones, you can tell pretty quickly if someone's been recording audio in the background: just check to see if your battery is depleting quickly. Smart speakers also have better range than smartphones: they're meant to pick up noise from far away.

> The main issue with smart speakers

And? Your phone is with you 24/7

> they have access to continuous power

I don't know about you but my phone hasn't run out of power in months.

> this doesn't mean that they aren't less dangerous

No one is saying that they aren't dangerous, you're missing the point. What I'm saying is if you carry a smartphone around, that's just as risky. Therefore, it's hypocritical to warn against smart homes unless you also don't have a smartphone.

> Smart speakers also have better range than smartphones

But smartphones are literally next to you at all time, they don't need better microphones.

> I don't know about you but my phone hasn't run out of power in months.

I don't understand your argument here. If your smart speaker 100% maxed out its CPU and sensors for a month, would you notice? Probably not. I guarantee you would if your smartphone did, though, unless you keep it constantly plugged in.

> But smartphones are literally next to you at all time, they don't need better microphones.

I'll chalk this one up to individual preference. Personally, my phone is usually not near me at home (e.g. downstairs) since I have access to my computer, which I prefer using instead.

Sure, but you don't need to max out CPU to collect and upload data. It's fairly trivial amount of computation for most things it can collect.

Using the microphone continuously does require power, though…

> Therefore, it's hypocritical to warn against smart homes unless you also don't have a smartphone.

It's not hypocrisy to warn of dangers, regardless of being exposed in other ways. Also, your comment here equates 'smart speakers' with 'smart homes', which are not the same thing (yet).

This conversation can only progress when you consider the actual threat models (like security folks talk about). It seem strange to me to rant about the risks of smartphones vs smart home devices, when the data from both of those is potentially ending up with the same small set of companies.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com