New Bill Would Force Hardware Makers To Disclose Hidden Mics, Cameras

from the watching-you-watching-me dept

Back in February, you might recall that Google took some heat from owners of their Nest home security platform, after they suddenly discovered that the Nest Secure home security base station contained a hidden microphone the company had never publicly disclosed. The reveal came via a Google announcement sent to Nest customers informing them the hidden mic would soon be turned on, allowing the integration of Google Assistant on the platform. Given tech’s shaky history on privacy, some folks were understandably not amused:

While Google ultimately admitted the “error” and updated its hardware spec sheet, the episode did a nice job illustrating the fact that whether we’re talking about products getting better or worse, you don’t really own the products you buy, and your agreement with the manufacturer in the firmware-update era can pivot on a dime, often with far less disclosure than we saw here, or none whatsoever. When it comes to privacy (especially given the flimsy security in many IOT devices), that’s kind of an important conversation to be having.

Likely responding to the resulting fracas, Senator Cory Gardner has introduced the Protecting Privacy in our Homes Act, which would require tech companies to include a label on products disclosing the presence of recording devices. Gardner’s been trying to shore up the internet of broken things for a few years now, though the efforts usually stall in process and his IOT Cybersecurity Act, introduced last Spring, has struggled to gain much traction in a distracted and well lobbied Congress. Says Gardner of this latest effort:

“Consumers face a number of challenges when it comes to their privacy, but they shouldn?t have a challenge figuring out if a device they buy has a camera or microphone embedded into it. This legislation is about consumer information, consumer empowerment, and making sure we?re doing everything we can to protect consumer privacy.”

Outside of legislation, there’s not a whole lot being done to ensure the millions of devices we’ve connected to the internet annually have reasonable security and privacy safeguards in general. Like so many issues, the IOT industry doesn’t much care — they’re on to selling the next greatest thing and have little interest in retroactive security and privacy updates. Consumers often don’t care — in part because they’re completely clueless to the scope of the problem (especially if functionality is hidden). And lobbying ensures government usually doesn’t much care either.

That has left much of the problem in the laps of consumer groups, researchers, and activists, though many of these efforts (like Consumer Reports quest to shame companies for bad security and privacy practices in product reviews) can only accomplish so much without industry and government’s help. Ultimately this just means we’re going to see a lot more hacking, privacy violations, and related scandals (and even potentially tragedies) before we start taking the problem of IOT privacy, security, and transparency seriously.

Filed Under: , , , , , ,
Companies: google

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “New Bill Would Force Hardware Makers To Disclose Hidden Mics, Cameras”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
38 Comments

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Stoopnocracy is Peachy (film: International House) says:

This time you DO mention GOOGLE because can't avoid it.

Just gives you opportunity to NOT mention others, such as AMAZON, which should be unavoidable on this topic. — And of course the key aspect is corporatism and surveillance capitalism, which you’re for.

Ultimately this just means we’re going to see a lot more hacking, privacy violations, and related scandals (and even potentially tragedies) before we start taking the problem of IOT privacy, security, and transparency seriously.

So, passive whimpering is YOUR "ultimate". Just wait for DOOM to be delivered by corporate actors. No action, not even protest. — And I think I’m a pessimist!

This is just another story you run long after everyone else, and not at all excited, just state "resign yourself to more of same".

Don’t ever dare call yourselves "activists", Techdirt!

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: This time you DO mention GOOGLE because can't avoid it.

I’m curious if there was anything Techdirt could possibly write that you wouldn’t attack and pretend supports your strawman version of what Techdirt believes? You complain for years that they don’t ever attack Google (despite them constantly doing so) and then you mock them for getting to the story and not mentioning Amazon (a company techdirt regularly complains about). You insist that they support coparatism, despite them regularly calling out bad behavior by big companies (and ignoring that you regularly support "corporatism" in the form of abusive copyright laws that allow big companies to censor free speech by abusing the law).

So, honestly, what would Techdirt write that would have you agree with them?

This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
Wyrm (profile) says:

Re: Re: This time you DO mention GOOGLE because can't avoid it.

So, honestly, what would Techdirt write that would have you agree with them?

"We apologize for our stance as Big Tech shills all those years and are closing down this partisan website today."

😀

Then again, he might be able to rant about this too.

Gary (profile) says:

Re: This time you invoke Common Law

Don’t ever dare call yourselves "activists"

Please go back to your "Common Law Court" where you can enjoy your "Midwest" values Blue Balls. All you care about is your racist adgenda.

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/1998/hate-group-expert-daniel-levitas-discusses-posse-comitatus-christian-identity-movement-and

radix (profile) says:

They aren’t perfect, but I think food nutrition labeling requirements are a good model to start with on this front.

Standardized fonts, colors, and sizes in a conspicuous place on the exterior packaging that state clearly whether there are cameras, microphones, and wifi or other antennas. You could even add in some (audited) power consumption stats for operating and standby modes while we’re there.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Another on the list of 'Solutions that shouldn't be needed.'

The fact that a law like this is actually needed is just all sorts of messed up, and I would hope that it will sail clean through as a result. People should not have to wonder if a particular device has a mic and/or camera on it, that should be presented up-front and told to them well before purchase so they can make an informed decision on whether or not they want it in their house/on their body.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Zof (profile) says:

All I'm going to say about this,

is the technology to discover hidden microphones and cameras is stupidly simple. Simple to the point that you’ll never be able to design a camera or microphone that can’t be detected. Easily. It’s a few second to 10 second affair with some very common and cheap (comparatively) scientific/industrial devices/instruments. Things most builder/maker type folks probably already have.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Wyrm (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: All I'm going to say about this,

The example in the article is different. The microphone was left inactive. Not waiting for a trigger (motion, schedule) but for a full firmware update. The microphone was not recording nor transmitting anything for years.
So you buy your product, test it, nothing is found short of actually opening the device to physically look for microphone.
Then, a year later, firmware update and "Boom", you’re spied on unknowingly… unless you regularly test all your devices just for this kind of case.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Zof (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 All I'm going to say about this,

So, you can always win. You always have the upper hand. All you have to do is suspect a bug, and it’s over for them if you really think about it. The only option a would-be bugger has is trying to hide your signal in other loud noise. But even then, a dedicated person is going to be able to weed you out.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Zof (profile) says:

Re: Re: All I'm going to say about this,

It’s a null logic thing. Finding something talkative, that talks with conditions that it can not avoid, is ridiculously easy to find. The kind of technology necessary to avoid detection simply does not exist with our science. It would have to be able to draw energy without being detected, use energy without being detected, transmit data with sufficient strength to penetrate walls, meaning it’s going to be on very defined frequencies out of sheer necessity. Even if ALIENS with superior technology were bugging you, they’d not be able to get around the fact that only certain very defined frequencies would need to be used to transmit, and they’d have NO WAY AT ALL to stop you from looking for those transmissions.

When you really think about the situation, logically, it’s crazy easy to detect bugs if you suspect them. It’s all exploiting the necessary design features they need in order to function at all.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: All I'm going to say about this,

the technology to discover hidden microphones and cameras is stupidly simple

Not so much now that we know all kinds of things that aren’t cameras and microphones per se can be used as them. An accelerometer has been used as a microphone, a wifi chip as a camera, in recent research papers. Speakers worked as microphones decades ago.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: All I'm going to say about this,

Wi-Vi: See Through Walls with Wi-Fi Signals (Adib; Katabi — 2013)

Why is Seeing Through Walls Possible?
The concept underlying seeing through opaque obstacles is similar to radar and sonar imaging. Specifically, when faced with a non-metallic wall, a fraction of the RF signal would penetrate the wall, reflect off objects and humans, and come back imprinted with a signature of what is inside a closed room. By capturing these reflections, we can image objects behind a wall.

(Presumably, more recent wifi chips with more directional antennae will make this easier.)

bobob says:

Re: Re: Re:2 All I'm going to say about this,

Thanks for the link. However, I think calling that a camera is stretching it quite a bit. If you look at the "Evaluations" section, there are screenshots of the type of signals one sees. "Motion Sensor" might be a better description even if it can do a little better than just detect motion.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 All I'm going to say about this,

On the other hand, it can see through walls—unlike an actual camera—and that’s from 6 years ago. It’s a stretch much as the accelerometer as microphone (its audio quality was not good), but these attacks do tend to get stronger over time. The first cameras were bad too.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Zof (profile) says:

Re: All I'm going to say about this,

My favorite cheap bug detector: a spark gap emitter along with a channel hopping fm receiver circuit. You can build something yourself crazy cheap with a TDA7000, or just get a cheap multi frequency scanner. You’ll hear an echo after your sparkgap. Even if it’s (common now) encrypted radio from the bug to the endpoint, you’ll see/hear the "hop". More importantly, you can set any modern chip to stop on signal in the noise. Typically modern hidden transmitters have channel hopping, and you can find it hopping channels if you are looking for that pop. It’s not going to hop channels so fast that you can’t hear a few before it does. The fun thing is, once you’ve found the 3 or 4 channels it hops between, you can identify the type of bug. It’s like a fingerprint.

Anonymous Coward says:

I just refuse to buy any hardware from Google. They’re going to spy on me any and all ways. So if I get a NEST, they know what Temp I like. It senses movement so they know when someone is walking by it and are home. The same goes with their Alarm. The Mic, Not a fan at all, but now they know when you are coming and going. Add this stuff to your Android phone and Google services that you use, and now they know you better than you know yourself. No thanks!!!

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...