We already know that Apple and Google are doing it that way because it makes sense for them to do so (it's in Apple's best interests to not have the ability to hand over your data since that improves their hardware sales, and Google's best interests to secure your data against illicit use since using your data is where they make their money) and is trivial to verify. Just run Wireshark or something similar on your network and check to see whether your phone is phoning home constantly or not. Easy peazy to check, and companies that fail get raked across the coals. Plus, Apple has published white papers over the subject, detailing exactly what steps they've taken to secure the data and how they are using it.

The reason I presumed that Microsoft was doing the same as its other competitors is because they've already been raked across the coals regarding this exact topic even when they were doing it exactly that same way (see: the "Xbox, on" controversy), so there's no way they'd be stupid enough to try and do otherwise...at least not until the market comes to accept this stuff.

As for how cozy they are with the NSA, that's an entirely separate issue. One worth discussing, I believe, but one which is entirely tangential to this discussion here.

P.S. It'd be a lot easier to take you seriously if you stopped with all of the unnecessary scare quotes and question marks.

The issue here isn't simply that the audio is being sent off to be parsed. The bigger issue is that the audio is being sent off to be parsed without the user's awareness. In the case of Siri or Google, I have to press a button or use a keyphrase (e.g. "Ok Google" or "Hey Siri") before the device will start sending audio off to be parsed at remote servers. And having read through Apple's white paper over how they secure and use that data, a user can be reasonably confident that their audio isn't being used by third parties, whether via a business deal or via illicit capturing of the audio as it's en route. If Google has published a white paper over their technology, I haven't seen it yet, but I can at least be confident that they're taking steps to secure the data, given that data is their bread and butter, even if they might be looking for ways to monetize that data.

Samsung though? We can't safely make any assumptions regarding their efforts or success at protecting me from third parties of any sort.

I can't speak for Cortona, but I would assume it works the same way as Siri and Google, in that it doesn't start sending data until the local device first either hears a specific key phrase (e.g. "Ok Google" or "Hey Siri") or is purposefully activated by the user by the press of a button.

There's a big difference between speech that I want to have parsed getting sent off to be parsed, and speech that I never knew was being captured at all being sent off to be parsed. Apple, Google, and I would presume Microsoft are all doing the former. Based on the summary, it sounds like Samsung is doing the latter.

I see no evidence that governments do want them taken down. I've seen no direction one way or another from government. I do, however, think that media companies are wise to refuse to show them. Why? Very simple: Because ISIS wants them to be seen. We can dig deeper to explore their rationale and analyze potential effects one way or the other, but i don't think we even need to go there. The mere fact that ISIS wants them to be seen is enough to make me conclude that everyone opposed to ISIS' behavior and tactics should not want them to be seen.

Really? I've never seen any kiddie porn, and I'm both aware of its existence and seriously concerned about the children that suffer in its making, and potentially suffer due to desires that may be inflamed by its viewing.

Similarly, I've avoided seeing the graphic videos of ISIS beheadings, and I'm quite aware of that situation as well.

Your premise is questionable at best, which makes your conclusion worthless unless and until you can substantiate the premise.

I understand the pragmatic need to accept collateral damage. But ISIS is an insurrection style force. Like any rebellion rising from the ranks of the populace- you CANNOT bomb it into submission. You will only strengthen its numbers. Collateral damage maybe nearly impossible to eliminate, but in a war against a popular uprising (ISIS is recruited from among the populace of the area- and outside of its area, populations that belong to the very groups it's fighting) you simply have to eliminate it. The longer it goes on, the more recruiting power every collateral kill has. Unless we're ready to just firebomb the entire fucking place into oblivion, we've got to do it the ugly way. Go in with people and catch the bad guys.

You're right- that was incorrect wording from me.
More accurately, we gave an ideology the fuel it needed to become a real problem.
We gave them their Great Satan. There's way too much blood on our hands.

You're an idiot if you think that matters to the people this organization recruits.

Furthermore, I'd argue children in their homes aren't civilians who wandered into a combat zone.

We can argue all day who is more immoral, but the fact is, we're acting like the British Empire trying to put down an annoying insurrection of restless natives. Hitting them with the heavy hand of someone who is convinced in their own superiority, moral righteousness, and not afraid to use overwhelming force. These things may work against a country, but they won't work against small organizations that recruit the wronged that WE are wronging.

The only thing going our way at this point, is that they may finally end up pissing off enough of their own recruiting source that their insurrection gets stamped out by the massive reserves of manpower surrounding them.

Agreed- 100%.

Of course. If not 100%, I have no doubt they were in the modeled outcome.

One that fell within the range of "acceptable", I imagine.

Can't argue that.

Not relevant to the example above, at all. But again, that they do that can't be argued.

That's pretty rich, coming from us.

I'm bitching less about the morality of it (my opinion is clearly that it is wrong), but the sheer stupidity of it. We're fighting an ideology that is created by our actions. It would be like trying to fight the American Revolution by quartering Continental soldiers in private homes and taxing them without representation. It's stupidity. There's no doubt that what we are doing, is in some part, originated from a sense of trying to do right (ignoring any corrupting influences), but we're still Doing It Wrong (TM). What's the right way? I don't know. But this isn't it. We have to stop killing those innocents. We have to stop creating those grieving fathers and brothers. This isn't a symmetrical war where we're trying to stamp out morale- you can't stamp out the morale of people with a well-earned vendetta against you.

Damn, I really regret commenting on this page now. You're down at the bottom and very deserving of my mod points :/

Mod this dude up. His brain works.

You seem like a really reasonable guy.
These people are evil, sick fucks. There's no doubt about it. But you should put what they do in the context of what is done to them. First thing to look at- the bombed out building.
https://firstlook.org/theinter...
Then that.

I want these guys stomped out of existence as much as the next guy, but I'm pretty goddamn sure we're doing *nothing* but making more of them with every father that sees his child's destroyed remains in a bombing campaign against those people. I'm sure this dynamic has existed long enough that they're figured it out and actively WANT us to bomb them to some extent.

That being said, do we just let them win? Of course not. But we HAVE to find a way to fight them without creating more of them. Doing so is the very definition of fucking stupid.

You are right that the deliberateness of the act can definitely be contrasted to the indifference in the American counterpart, which would be firing missiles into houses full of people to kill a single guy, watching from a remotely piloted armed surveillance platform as they burned, with not a single picture of the charred bodies of children appearing on American media sources.

These people are fucking savages, but I don't believe our top brass in the defense-intelligence structure are any better. We're just a little more worried about being re-elected.

You are right- there is a difference. But that difference becomes muddy to the father or brother of a murdered child. If I were a psychotic religious nutjob that wanted to spread my ideology across a fertile landscape, all I'd need to do is troll the government (or people out to stop me) into creating enough sentiment against itself. At that point, it doesn't even fucking matter why they were doing it. All that matters is the blood of innocents is on their hands, and people will take up arms against them. They will rally to any fucking flag that waves high enough.

Nonsense. I know some "things" that have the right of free political spending... I mean speech.

I didn't see that- you're dead on, then.

My position is correct. But how'd you make the jump toward arrest? If collaborating with terrorists were a crime, half of the top 1% of this country would be incarcerated overnight.