I was waiting for this comment. What's the alternative? No voice-recognition? Voice recognition that only runs client-side and lacks all the advantages a centralised service can provide?An equivalent provided by someone else that, for whatever reason, you trust more than Google?

Edit: I didn't downvote you, though, and I've upvoted to counteract whoever did. The point you're raising can clearly contribute to an interesting discussion.

> Voice recognition that only runs client-side and lacks all the advantages a centralised service can provide?

By the way, my impression from talking to someone in the know was that Google has been developing client-side voice recognition that is only a about couple of years behind their cloud voice recognition in quality. (The client-side service still requires the huge amounts of voice data to be used to train the software, but it can run offline on a cell phone processor.) Right now being two years behind in quality is quite noticeable, but that will change soon once quality plateaus near perfect, and client-side voice recognition will make sense again.

Just rumors though.

My prediction is client side voice recognition, as good as this, in >2 years.

Powered either by mobile GPU's and more efficient ML algorithms than we currently have, or specialist chips like http://www.movidius.com/

I understand that my comment makes people uncomfortable as in "ha this is the typical anti-Google-paranoid guy". I respect that, and I used a specifically skeptic tone on purpose.

I love Google, they make great products, but at the same time I can't help being afraid of this marvelous monster.

Oh, I hear you. Part of me totally shares your concern, and - just like pretty much anyone else - I wouldn't want Google recording everything I say into my microphone. But that's pure speculation right now; let's wait until we know whether or not they're actually doing that, or until someone's at least gone through the Ts&Cs with a fine toothcomb.

>What's the alternative? No voice-recognition? Voice recognition that only runs client-side and lacks all the advantages a centralised service can provide?

Distributed, self-hosting would be far safer than having all of your most personal information owned by a remote centralized authority.

The alternative would be for Google to take end-to-end encryption seriously, even for their databases, so even they can't access most of the information gathered from the users.

But they haven't even done that for Hangouts yet, let alone for their databases.

If the voice recognition were strictly client-side, I might actually be willing to try it. The advantages of a centralized service would appear to accrue largely to the centralizer.

Thanks for the edit. It is quite amusing to see the up and down votes going, my karma keeps moving but stays about the same. Maybe I should have been even more sarcastic!

This is what really concerns me, and why I've avoided using 'google now' on my phone. With this data, google could easily construct a 'voice signature' for every one of their users. And those voice signatures are just one FISA warrant away from falling into the hands of various national security agencies.

I would rather google had my DNA on file if I had to choose between the two. Why? Because voice signatures can be used to passively authenticate/identify someone without them even realising they've been authenticated/identified. You just need control of a nearby microphone while they happen to be talking. At least with DNA, I'd probably notice someone jabbing a needle in my arm or sticking a cotton swab in my mouth.

I could not envision living like Vincent Freeman (Ethan Hawke) in Gattaca, making sure you live no trace of yourself anywhere.

I you are alive, you already leave traces everywhere. No need for a needle or cotton swab here.

Of course I am being paranoid, but we all should be :)

I must admit I don't do a morning scrub-down a la Vincent in Gattaca :)

It's true that DNA can also be 'non-obviously' collected. But there are two key differences between DNA and voice auth, when looked at from the perspective of a national surveillance agency:

1. 'Non-obvious' DNA collection occurs after the fact, and is much more costly. You have to send someone to the physical location, collect samples, and process them in a lab.

2. Because of (1), DNA could never be used as a 'always on' mass surveillance system. As opposed to voice auth, where you just need enough microphones, covering enough area, streaming data back to a server for processing. Sorta like how Batman finds the Joker in 'The Dark Knight' :)

Your actual voice is one regular warrant away, with a wiretap on your phone.

True, but that warrant can only be obtained from the judicial branch of government by law enforcement officers conducting a criminal investigation, and only if it meets the following criteria (among many others which I've excluded for brevity, see: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2518):

- a full and complete statement of the facts and circumstances relied upon by the applicant, to justify his belief that an order should be issued, including (i) details as to the particular offense that has been, is being, or is about to be committed, (ii) except as provided in subsection (11), a particular description of the nature and location of the facilities from which or the place where the communication is to be intercepted, (iii) a particular description of the type of communications sought to be intercepted, (iv) the identity of the person, if known, committing the offense and whose communications are to be intercepted;

- a full and complete statement as to whether or not other investigative procedures have been tried and failed or why they reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried or to be too dangerous;

- there is probable cause for belief that an individual is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a particular offense enumerated in section 2516 of this chapter;

- there is probable cause for belief that particular communications concerning that offense will be obtained through such interception;

- normal investigative procedures have been tried and have failed or reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried or to be too dangerous;

- there is probable cause for belief that the facilities from which, or the place where, the wire, oral, or electronic communications are to be intercepted are being used, or are about to be used, in connection with the commission of such offense, or are leased to, listed in the name of, or commonly used by such person.

- No order entered under this section may authorize or approve the interception of any wire, oral, or electronic communication for any period longer than is necessary to achieve the objective of the authorization, nor in any event longer than thirty days.

In contrast, FISA warrants are indiscriminate and the criteria for acceptance seems to be 'asking for one'. Of the 35,529 FISA warrant applications made up to 2013, only 12 were rejected.

> that warrant can only be obtained from the judicial branch of government by law enforcement officers conducting a criminal investigation

You seem to be laboring under the assumption that your phone company is more benign than Google, which is an assumption I am not willing to make (for Verizon or ATT among others)

I think you have more faith than I do in the process. Couldn't the relevant LEs pick & choose the most friendly judge?