INSUBCONTINENT EXCLUSIVE:
Image copyrightGetty ImagesImage caption
Google's range of camera and microphone-fitted devices include the Nest Hub
Max
It's an admission that appears to have caught Google's devices chief by surprise.After being challenged as to
whether homeowners should tell guests smart devices - such as a Google Nest speaker or Amazon Echo display - are in use before they enter
the building, he concludes that the answer is indeed yes."Gosh, I haven't thought about this before in quite this way," Rick Osterloh
begins."It's quite important for all these technologies to think about all users we have to consider all stakeholders that might be in
proximity."And then he commits."Does the owner of a home need to disclose to a guest? I would and do when someone enters into my home, and
it's probably something that the products themselves should try to indicate."To be fair to Google, it hasn't completely ignored matters of
21st Century privacy etiquette until now.As Mr Osterloh points out, its Nest cameras shine an LED light when they are in record mode, which
cannot be overridden.But the idea of having to run around a home unplugging or at least restricting the capabilities of all its voice- and
camera-equipped kit if a visitor objects is quite the ask
The concession came at the end of one-on-one interview given to TheIndianSubcontinent News to mark the launch of Google's Pixel 4
smartphones, a new Nest smart speaker and other products.Image copyrightGetty ImagesImage caption
Mr Osterloh first
worked at Google when he headed its Motorola division, until it was sold in 2014 - he returned to the technology giant in 2016
The conversation below has been edited for clarity and brevity.The new Pixel phones have two cameras on their rear for the first time
But is there a risk consumers say: "The new iPhone and Galaxy S10 have three and some others have four
I'm just going to go with the ones that have more because two doesn't sound that great"?Users are very sophisticated now about their phone
You're going to live with them for two, three or four years
A lot of people remember from just a couple of years ago, where all the OEMs [original equipment manufacturers] were touting things such as:
"We have eight cores in our device, so it's super-fast."And then they realised the actual practical mechanics of that were almost none of
them was used and it was actually just sort of a marketing specification
Image copyrightGoogleImage caption
Google hopes to once again offer the best low-light photography of any smartphone
So, my view is in this market, people don't fall for simple numbers anymore
They look for user experiences and Pixel certainly has a brand that's known for having an absolutely terrific camera experience.The Pixel
phone is one of most leaked smartphones
You even tweeted details about its built-in radar in advance
Others go to great lengths to try to keep details of their devices under wraps until launch day
Presumably you don't think that matters?We definitely wanted to take a bit of a different approach in how we launch and reveal elements of
Several months ago, we started to disclose a little bit about how the product looked and some of the core technologies
We wanted to make sure people started to get excited about it and understood a little bit about it
Of course, there are other leaks we really would prefer did not happen
And unfortunately that shows a little bit of our adolescence in that we have to make sure we're reducing the amount of unintentional
information disclosed.At some level, we're at least happy people care and desire this information
But we do want to try to reduce leaks in the future.There's been controversy over facial-recognition tests carried out on the phone's
didn't property explain what was going on
Can you address that?Image copyrightGoogleImage caption
Google promoted the Pixel 4's ability to use face unlock with
dark skin tones, in a teaser video
It was very important for us to make sure the face unlock system works for all different
kinds of people, genders, races, et cetera
And as a consequence, we wanted to make sure we were able to get a large number of data points that allowed us to perfect this model in a
So, we went out and did a lot of research in this area
It's come to our attention there may be some methods that were not approved, not how we would do business
So, we're investigating that
We would never find that acceptable
And so we've suspended any data collection until this is straightened out.Just to be clear about what you think is unacceptable
Was it the targeting of homeless people? Was it not explaining exactly what people were testing? Or what?All of those allegations would be
different than what we would find acceptable.But do you still plan to retain the data collected in this way for 18 months?I don't know that
we've discussed the length of time that we're holding data
But there have been no changes to the programme with respect to data retention.[Note: The Verge reported being briefed about the 18-month
limit in July].But some people are going to think if the data wasn't collected with proper consent, surely you should delete it and start
again.This is all under investigation
So, I just want to be clear we do not know the full facts of what has happened
But if the investigation concludes people didn't know what they were consenting to, are you going to delete?The best approach here would be
to discuss it once we've actually looked into the facts and understood what has happened.There's a lot of concern about facial recognition
You're selling camera-enabled devices that sit in people's living rooms, bedrooms, and on their front doors that use the technology
Do you accept reports about what happened with the Pixel tests help undermine confidence in Google and other big technology companies' use
of facial recognition data?Image copyrightGoogleImage caption
The Pixel 4 is the first in the series to have two cameras
on the rear
There's a distinction between what's being used to train a model for face unlock and facial recognition
There are specific use cases for these different technologies and it's very important to examine each one and determine if they're being
used in a way appropriate for local laws and regulations
It is definitely important around the world for what is societally acceptable to be clearly defined in collaboration between tech companies
We want to take a very cautious and thoughtful approach to these technologies.They are very important to debate and discuss and then
together we have to clarify exactly what to do.When Amazon recently unveiled its rival Ring smart cameras many expected them to add facial
recognition but it decided not to
Do you think we need politicians to act quickly to set standards because there's a growing crisis of confidence?It would be great for
regulation to be clarified quickly.The approach we're taking is to try to keep all of this information on devices as much as possible and
always keep it private and secure and encrypted.There's certainly a key responsibility to make sure the user's information is
protected.But everyone would benefit from clarity of standards and regulation
It is a challenging space to navigate
And it's very important it's thoughtfully navigated.
