[stinkytaco]

I don't have any smart speakers in my house, but I can also see how a rational person might accept the trade-off. Aggregate data to support advertising isn't necessarily evil, nor is using that data to improve service. In fact, you could argue that's what a good business should be doing: evaluating customer needs and adjusting to meet them.

[tedivm]

I can't speak for the google home, but with the echo there's a lot of work that has gone into making it so it is difficult, on a hardware level, to record without showing some sign of doing so. When the mic is on the lights are on as well and the mute button is a physical hardware disconnect that stops voltage from the mics.

There is also some interesting circuitry around the mic itself- the keyword activation chip essentially has control over the mics- they buffer input until they hear the codeword ('alexa') and then activate the main circuitry and dump the buffer into it. The upside to this is that software can't turn the mic on by itself- the chip needs to help. This isn't completely perfect though as once the software has been given control it can keep that control forever (with the caveat that lights would be on).

It's possible to use technology to our advantage without having to sacrifice privacy, we just have to demand it (and, as we all should have learned from Therac-25, hardware limits are preferable over software).

[Apocryphon]

Rational people are also emotional, and apathy is the default emotion. Recognizing that many products are privacy invasive becomes the same as realizing that they are produced in ways that harm the environment, or hurt workers. A fact acknowledged but accepted in exchange for the benefits they offer.

[stinkytaco]

If you're equating giving up personal data to harming the environment or workers, I'm afraid I don't agree. One of these actions is under your control, is a trade off we make simply to live in society, and even provides some benefits to users and society. To bank, to get mail, to shop online, to support services we like, to receive communications, etc, etc. Privacy is also something you can control, rather than something that is being perpetrated on other people or places that do not have agency in the matter. There is a place for privacy regulation and education, but it's not the same as environmental or human damage.

[Apocryphon]

The point is that these are all examples of negative choices that consumers choose to take because it’s easier to accept short-term personal gain while causing long-term, depersonalized, harm.

[stinkytaco]

My point is that if you assume giving up some privacy is going to cause long-term harm, then you are correct. But a rational person can weigh the cost/benefit of giving up privacy for some convenience and decide there's a net gain to it. People who use the internet or carry cell phones or even vote or do banking have given up personal information, and likely know they've given that information. If they found the trade off beneficial, it's not necessarily apathy, but a decision. It may be a bridge to far for you, but perhaps not for everyone.