Bose headphones spy on listeners: lawsuit (2017)(reuters.com)
reuters.com
Bose headphones spy on listeners: lawsuit (2017)
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bose-lawsuit-idUSKBN17L2BT
165 comments
Not an intruding party?! Well who the heck invited them to the conversation!!
I was assuming it would be thrown out because they only collected metadata and if they didn’t pull full audio that they didn’t meet a required element.
Luckily the wording implies that it’s not that the judge found from the evidence that they were an invited party, just that the claim failed to properly lay the foundation in their briefs?
I hope they refile.
I was assuming it would be thrown out because they only collected metadata and if they didn’t pull full audio that they didn’t meet a required element.
Luckily the wording implies that it’s not that the judge found from the evidence that they were an invited party, just that the claim failed to properly lay the foundation in their briefs?
I hope they refile.
It looks like the app only sent song selections so there's no "communication" in general.
> The alleged eavesdropping would deliver user information – including song selections . . .
[GP's source]
---
Honestly I think it might be worth looking into the idea of metadata collection as eavesdropping. Unless there's an implicit technical requirement for data, the company should need to explicitly request it.
For phone lines it's obvious why the service provider is party to the communications:
> The alleged eavesdropping would deliver user information – including song selections . . .
[GP's source]
---
Honestly I think it might be worth looking into the idea of metadata collection as eavesdropping. Unless there's an implicit technical requirement for data, the company should need to explicitly request it.
For phone lines it's obvious why the service provider is party to the communications:
caller --> switching equipment --> callee
user --> bluetooth --> headphones
|
+--> bose
> the wording implies that it’s not that the judge found from the evidence that they were an invited party, just that the claim failed to properly lay the foundation in their briefs
The Wiretap Act complaint has bigger problems.
“‘Electronic communication’ is defined, in relevant part, as ‘any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photooptical system that affects interstate or foreign commerce . . . .’ 18 U.S.C. § 2510(12)” [1]. It would be tough to claim the Bluetooth connection between the phone and headphones are engaged in interstate commerce.
“Moreover, Zak’s Brief in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss (‘Opposition Brief’) further clarifies the FAC’s allegations6 and makes clear that in fact ‘Bose Connect is part of the listener to music provider communication[,]’ indeed ‘the App is supposed to function as a leg in the listener-to-music provider communication pathway—one that can be used to request new material or view audio track information.’ (Opp. Br. at 7 n.5, 8.) The Opposition Brief further explains that ‘information is . . . routed to the App where track information—e.g. song name, album, and artist information—is displayed.’ (Id. at 1.) It is clear from the facts alleged in the FAC, and clarified in the Opposition Brief, that the App is in fact a known participant in—and intended recipient of—the communication of the Media Information.”
[1] https://f.datasrvr.com/fr1/319/48563/Bose_Memo_and_Order.pdf
The Wiretap Act complaint has bigger problems.
“‘Electronic communication’ is defined, in relevant part, as ‘any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photooptical system that affects interstate or foreign commerce . . . .’ 18 U.S.C. § 2510(12)” [1]. It would be tough to claim the Bluetooth connection between the phone and headphones are engaged in interstate commerce.
“Moreover, Zak’s Brief in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss (‘Opposition Brief’) further clarifies the FAC’s allegations6 and makes clear that in fact ‘Bose Connect is part of the listener to music provider communication[,]’ indeed ‘the App is supposed to function as a leg in the listener-to-music provider communication pathway—one that can be used to request new material or view audio track information.’ (Opp. Br. at 7 n.5, 8.) The Opposition Brief further explains that ‘information is . . . routed to the App where track information—e.g. song name, album, and artist information—is displayed.’ (Id. at 1.) It is clear from the facts alleged in the FAC, and clarified in the Opposition Brief, that the App is in fact a known participant in—and intended recipient of—the communication of the Media Information.”
[1] https://f.datasrvr.com/fr1/319/48563/Bose_Memo_and_Order.pdf
This is exactly why I refuse to use an app for setting up hardware. Bose pushes really hard to get you to use an app for something that really doesn't require an app.
I switched from a Bose QC35 to a Sony WH-1000XM3 about half a year ago, and the Sony app on iOS was egregiously requesting permission for location access, even while the app is in background. The cited reason for location access sounded rather flimsy and suspicious. Luckily, everything that can be done with the app can also be done with the physical buttons on the headphones. I guess their design philosophy is that if you want the convenience of using an app with the product that you’ve already paid a lot of money for, you’ll need to pay for it with your location info.
I own the WH-1000XM2 (same app for both models) and the reason the app requests location is for a singular feature called 'Adaptive Sound Control'. This feature lets the app change sound profiles based on where you are, so yes - location access is required.
Stating that this is "their design philosophy" is a stretch here. I realize Sony doesn't have a stellar track record but in their defense if you don't use 'Adaptive Sound Control' the app does not and will not try to enable Location access unless you turn said feature on and the app doesn't already have access.
So, no - you don't need to pay for the convenience of Sony's app by allowing Location access as it's not required but for a singular feature that is fundamentally based around setting profiles based on your location.
Stating that this is "their design philosophy" is a stretch here. I realize Sony doesn't have a stellar track record but in their defense if you don't use 'Adaptive Sound Control' the app does not and will not try to enable Location access unless you turn said feature on and the app doesn't already have access.
So, no - you don't need to pay for the convenience of Sony's app by allowing Location access as it's not required but for a singular feature that is fundamentally based around setting profiles based on your location.
> So, no - you don't need to pay for the convenience of Sony's app by allowing Location access as it's not required but for a singular feature that is fundamentally based around setting profiles based on your location.
I reinstalled the app to see if I was misremembering it. The app requests for always on location information upon installation and pairing with the headphones. The garden path in the UX of the app is to allow location access. If the user chooses to not allow location access by tapping the tiny "Later" button, the main screen prominently features a Switch control (which is off) for Adaptive Sound Control, tempting the user to toggle it on, which requests always on location access. Given all of this, it's very difficult to interpret this "feature" in a favorable light.
Fortunately, the app's privacy policy[1] does not seem to mention anything about them collecting location information (but they do claim to collect "country or region"). On the other hand, the manual for the app[2] also has no mention of it requesting always on location access either, which doesn't inspire much confidence. Not to mention the 27 month data retention policy and the policy of sharing with their "affiliates".
After having read the privacy policy, I'm glad I chose not to use the app and will continue to do so.
[1]: https://musiccenter-cdn.meta.ndmdhs.com/headphones/pp/201903... [2]: https://helpguide.sony.net/mdr/hpc/v1/en/index.html
I reinstalled the app to see if I was misremembering it. The app requests for always on location information upon installation and pairing with the headphones. The garden path in the UX of the app is to allow location access. If the user chooses to not allow location access by tapping the tiny "Later" button, the main screen prominently features a Switch control (which is off) for Adaptive Sound Control, tempting the user to toggle it on, which requests always on location access. Given all of this, it's very difficult to interpret this "feature" in a favorable light.
Fortunately, the app's privacy policy[1] does not seem to mention anything about them collecting location information (but they do claim to collect "country or region"). On the other hand, the manual for the app[2] also has no mention of it requesting always on location access either, which doesn't inspire much confidence. Not to mention the 27 month data retention policy and the policy of sharing with their "affiliates".
After having read the privacy policy, I'm glad I chose not to use the app and will continue to do so.
[1]: https://musiccenter-cdn.meta.ndmdhs.com/headphones/pp/201903... [2]: https://helpguide.sony.net/mdr/hpc/v1/en/index.html
> Given all of this, it's very difficult to interpret this "feature" in a favorable light.
What would you rather they do? They ask for permission for a specific feature and when denied, the feature is turned off. When you try to turn on the feature, it requests access for that feature. It sounds like it works exactly as it should.
What would you rather they do? They ask for permission for a specific feature and when denied, the feature is turned off. When you try to turn on the feature, it requests access for that feature. It sounds like it works exactly as it should.
> What would you rather they do?
I would rather that they document why they need background location access and not try to hoodwink their users into granting them carte blanche access to the users' location data. There's a fairly established pattern in mobile apps where they show a screen informing the user of the reasons why an app needs location access before requesting it from the OS. And that isn't the case with the app in question. Nowhere in their product documentation (for both the app and the headphones) do they mention that their product needs background location access.
Also, let's not forget the context of the post here. The Bose Connect app (at least on iOS) does not demand access to the user's location. They got sued for lesser privacy violation (in my subjective opinion) and rightly so. Any app demanding background location access, especially an app for a pair of headphones is a serious concern, IMO.
The other commenter in this thread seems to be insinuating that I have a bias against Sony. But that's certainly not the case. I've spent a lot of money on Sony's mirrorless cameras and lenses and continue to do so. Sony undoubtedly makes great hardware, but on the other hand, privacy is also very important to many of us. One could argue that privacy is far more important than the fancy hardware.
Finally, coming back to the "feature" in question, "Adaptive Sound Control". The feature seems to be built around classifying whether the wearer of the headphones is standing still, or walking or running or using a mode of transport and applying the user selected profile based on the activity. Couldn't this be implemented in a much more efficient manner in hardware with an accelerometer in the headphones? I understand that this would mean a slightly reduced battery life on the headphones for people using the feature, but would be a better trade off, IMO. And yes, decisions like this are a product of a company's design philosophy.
I would rather that they document why they need background location access and not try to hoodwink their users into granting them carte blanche access to the users' location data. There's a fairly established pattern in mobile apps where they show a screen informing the user of the reasons why an app needs location access before requesting it from the OS. And that isn't the case with the app in question. Nowhere in their product documentation (for both the app and the headphones) do they mention that their product needs background location access.
Also, let's not forget the context of the post here. The Bose Connect app (at least on iOS) does not demand access to the user's location. They got sued for lesser privacy violation (in my subjective opinion) and rightly so. Any app demanding background location access, especially an app for a pair of headphones is a serious concern, IMO.
The other commenter in this thread seems to be insinuating that I have a bias against Sony. But that's certainly not the case. I've spent a lot of money on Sony's mirrorless cameras and lenses and continue to do so. Sony undoubtedly makes great hardware, but on the other hand, privacy is also very important to many of us. One could argue that privacy is far more important than the fancy hardware.
Finally, coming back to the "feature" in question, "Adaptive Sound Control". The feature seems to be built around classifying whether the wearer of the headphones is standing still, or walking or running or using a mode of transport and applying the user selected profile based on the activity. Couldn't this be implemented in a much more efficient manner in hardware with an accelerometer in the headphones? I understand that this would mean a slightly reduced battery life on the headphones for people using the feature, but would be a better trade off, IMO. And yes, decisions like this are a product of a company's design philosophy.
> Also, let's not forget the context of the post here. The Bose Connect app (at least on iOS) does not demand access to the user's location. They got sued for lesser privacy violation (in my subjective opinion) and rightly so. Any app demanding background location access, especially an app for a pair of headphones is a serious concern, IMO.
I'm not sure you are understanding the feature. It allows you to set profiles for your location automatically. Like if you're at home maybe you care more about ambient noise while cancelling is enabled. Maybe while you're at work you want to dial it down. Yes, you can switch between profiles in other ways but this allows your phone to do it automatically for you. The app does not "demand" access, I wish you'd stop saying this because it is not true. Again if you do not use the feature it, literally, will never ask you for location permissions until you try to turn the feature that requires it on.
> Finally, coming back to the "feature" in question, "Adaptive Sound Control". The feature seems to be built around classifying whether the wearer of the headphones is standing still, or walking or running or using a mode of transport and applying the user selected profile based on the activity. Couldn't this be implemented in a much more efficient manner in hardware with an accelerometer in the headphones? I understand that this would mean a slightly reduced battery life on the headphones for people using the feature, but would be a better trade off, IMO. And yes, decisions like this are a product of a company's design philosophy.
You're wrong here. Maybe try to understand the feature before making a bunch of incorrect assumptions. You think an accelerometer is going to be able to differentiate your work and home location? No. It's a pair of headphones and a feature that has been blown way out of proportion with your strawman. Finally, a feature does not a company's design philosophy make as, again, you assume here with absolutely zero basis to back up your argument. Not only have you failed to show how this feature is ill used by Sony you've also failed to comprehend what it actually is or how it's used.
I'm not sure you are understanding the feature. It allows you to set profiles for your location automatically. Like if you're at home maybe you care more about ambient noise while cancelling is enabled. Maybe while you're at work you want to dial it down. Yes, you can switch between profiles in other ways but this allows your phone to do it automatically for you. The app does not "demand" access, I wish you'd stop saying this because it is not true. Again if you do not use the feature it, literally, will never ask you for location permissions until you try to turn the feature that requires it on.
> Finally, coming back to the "feature" in question, "Adaptive Sound Control". The feature seems to be built around classifying whether the wearer of the headphones is standing still, or walking or running or using a mode of transport and applying the user selected profile based on the activity. Couldn't this be implemented in a much more efficient manner in hardware with an accelerometer in the headphones? I understand that this would mean a slightly reduced battery life on the headphones for people using the feature, but would be a better trade off, IMO. And yes, decisions like this are a product of a company's design philosophy.
You're wrong here. Maybe try to understand the feature before making a bunch of incorrect assumptions. You think an accelerometer is going to be able to differentiate your work and home location? No. It's a pair of headphones and a feature that has been blown way out of proportion with your strawman. Finally, a feature does not a company's design philosophy make as, again, you assume here with absolutely zero basis to back up your argument. Not only have you failed to show how this feature is ill used by Sony you've also failed to comprehend what it actually is or how it's used.
> You're wrong here. Maybe try to understand the feature before making a bunch of incorrect assumptions. You think an accelerometer is going to be able to differentiate your work and home location? No. It's a pair of headphones and a feature that has been blown way out of proportion with your strawman. Finally, a feature does not a company's design philosophy make as, again, you assume here with absolutely zero basis to back up your argument. Not only have you failed to show how this feature is ill used by Sony you've also failed to comprehend what it actually is or how it's used.
Perhaps I am. This seems like right occasion to pull out my trusty old iPhone 6S Plus from my drawer that I keep around for testing dodgy apps.
I installed the latest version of the "Sony | Headphones Connect" from the iOS App Store on the aforementioned phone with a throwaway app store account. Also, I allowed it the full location access that it had been asking for, to enable the "feature". I took screenshots of every screen along the way. I've uploaded them here[1]. You'll only need to see the first 4 screenshots there to see what I'm talking about. The screenshots are in reverse chronological order and have been cropped to remove the iOS status bar.
As evidenced by the screenshots, the only modes the "Ambient Sound Control" "feature" is able to differentiate in between are "Transport", "Running", "Walking", and "Staying". Now, it's amply evident that you're either lying or using some special version of the app that isn't publicly available and allows your pair of headphones to distinguish between when you're using them at home and when you're using them at work.
Also, to cite from another contradictory comment[2] of yours on this thread: > I've never allowed any permissions for this app and have yet to have any functionality diminished.
If you've never allowed permissions for this app, then how did jump to the false conclusion about the app being able to differentiate your work and home location? It looks like the only way to ascertain that would be to allow location access to the app.
The certitude with which you state your opinions on this thread and the extent to which you're willing to ignore the facts, makes me suspicious of your motives here.
[1]: https://imgur.com/a/dtUTYZU
[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20016409
Perhaps I am. This seems like right occasion to pull out my trusty old iPhone 6S Plus from my drawer that I keep around for testing dodgy apps.
I installed the latest version of the "Sony | Headphones Connect" from the iOS App Store on the aforementioned phone with a throwaway app store account. Also, I allowed it the full location access that it had been asking for, to enable the "feature". I took screenshots of every screen along the way. I've uploaded them here[1]. You'll only need to see the first 4 screenshots there to see what I'm talking about. The screenshots are in reverse chronological order and have been cropped to remove the iOS status bar.
As evidenced by the screenshots, the only modes the "Ambient Sound Control" "feature" is able to differentiate in between are "Transport", "Running", "Walking", and "Staying". Now, it's amply evident that you're either lying or using some special version of the app that isn't publicly available and allows your pair of headphones to distinguish between when you're using them at home and when you're using them at work.
Also, to cite from another contradictory comment[2] of yours on this thread: > I've never allowed any permissions for this app and have yet to have any functionality diminished.
If you've never allowed permissions for this app, then how did jump to the false conclusion about the app being able to differentiate your work and home location? It looks like the only way to ascertain that would be to allow location access to the app.
The certitude with which you state your opinions on this thread and the extent to which you're willing to ignore the facts, makes me suspicious of your motives here.
[1]: https://imgur.com/a/dtUTYZU
[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20016409
Agreed. I feel like the argument against in this thread is a poor strawman. I've never allowed any permissions for this app and have yet to have any functionality diminished. The app doesn't require any registration (which is not oft the case these days) and as others have pointed out most all functionality can be had via direct controls on the headphones. You can get away with not using this app for most everything except firmware updates and location specific features.
A company should exist that simply takes wonderful products, removes the offending bits, and resells them, perhaps at a premium. Both headphones are really good, and I certainly would pay a $100 premium if the maker was "one of the good ones" and provided, e.g., an optional, open-source app with minimal permissions.
I'm 100% right there with you. But the inner pessimist in me isn't holding my breath. Said new company would perhaps start with an excellent and wholesome mission statement, make some great products and then take on funding, need to experience exponential growth, maybe have an IPO, and eventually betray it's users in the quest for "maximizing shareholder value" and providing a "better user experience". If it can happen to Google it can happen to anyone...
Also, can I even buy a sound bar for my TV that doesn't listen to me and need an internet connection these days... It's unreal the unneeded complexity and bullshit they put in some electronics.
The real heroes the world needs are just independent founders that use slow growth over several generations and never sell the business, thus minimizing incentives other than having a lifestyle business and making great stuff. But the money is just too tempting eventually, or the business just isn't feasible at that scale.
Also, can I even buy a sound bar for my TV that doesn't listen to me and need an internet connection these days... It's unreal the unneeded complexity and bullshit they put in some electronics.
The real heroes the world needs are just independent founders that use slow growth over several generations and never sell the business, thus minimizing incentives other than having a lifestyle business and making great stuff. But the money is just too tempting eventually, or the business just isn't feasible at that scale.
Google was never “wholesome”. Their business model from day one was to collect user information and sell ads.
For the first few years of its life, Google (nee BackRub) was a business-model-less company that just ran a search indexer. They looked like they were heading toward the Inktomi model of selling their compiled search-index (or access to their index data warehouse) to companies to use. Google Ads came later, and was honestly quite a shock to everyone who was telling their friends that Google is an unalloyed good as the new AltaVista.
Google was incorporated in September 1998. AdWords was introduced in October 2000. They were an ad company from almost day one as a business.
Sure, but Google was a search engine since 1996. They only incorporated once they figured out a potential business model. Until then they were “a company” in the sense of being founders working together on an idea with the goal of monetizing it; but, since they had nothing to sell yet, no brand, and no salaries to pay, they didn’t bother to wrap a legal company around the “company in their hearts.”
2 years is Day 1? AdWords itself didn't even collect user data.
If they introduced ads 2 years after their incorporation. How long were they working on it?
But there's still a difference I think.
IIRC, and I'm quite confident about this particular one, ads used to be served based on the site you were visiting or the search had typed.
Some people hate all ads.
For me I felt old google ads were OK.
Some people will say this isn't a good enough business model and to that I'll point out that google was widely profitable back then as well, again IIRC.
IIRC, and I'm quite confident about this particular one, ads used to be served based on the site you were visiting or the search had typed.
Some people hate all ads.
For me I felt old google ads were OK.
Some people will say this isn't a good enough business model and to that I'll point out that google was widely profitable back then as well, again IIRC.
Google ads on desktops on Google’s site aren’t that bad. But, because of limited real estate, almost all ads on mobile devices are bad. Web page ads on other sites have gotten so annoying that the web is horrible without an ad blocker.
Strangely enough, ads in feeds like Facebook, LinkedIn, or Twitter don’t annoy me as much.
I also think the ads in the iOS App Store are horrible.
Strangely enough, ads in feeds like Facebook, LinkedIn, or Twitter don’t annoy me as much.
I also think the ads in the iOS App Store are horrible.
You are describing the Rick and Morty episode with the Devil to a t. “Let’s just pay at this store, you don’t pay with money evil laugh.” “You pay with curses right?... I’ll just get them remove at Curse Purge Plus!”
We need that for user-hostile businesses, except run by someone who won't abandon it when it gets boring.
The main obstacle will be the convoluted IP mess user-hostile companies create, through laws preventing you from reversing and replacing the firmware, and through tying the hardware to an Internet service.
The main obstacle will be the convoluted IP mess user-hostile companies create, through laws preventing you from reversing and replacing the firmware, and through tying the hardware to an Internet service.
You would. But most people wouldn't.
People have done studies on how much people will pay for minimally permissioned apps. It's basically nothing.
People have done studies on how much people will pay for minimally permissioned apps. It's basically nothing.
On iOS location access is a workaround for being able to kinda stay awake in the background. Some photo sync apps do that so they can (near) constantly sync your photos.
On that subject, I really wish Apple would allow me to use photos app to sync with a network share.
On that subject, I really wish Apple would allow me to use photos app to sync with a network share.
From the link:
Note: Autotransfer on iOS is "location based transfer" only.
I won’t use it because of that. But thanks.
Note: Autotransfer on iOS is "location based transfer" only.
I won’t use it because of that. But thanks.
I only saw one instance of the word “location” on the entire page.
Transfers original files and preserves EXIF metadata including location data in all directions.
What is “location based transfer”?
Transfers original files and preserves EXIF metadata including location data in all directions.
What is “location based transfer”?
In the autotransfer section. Click learn more.
Ok. What’s wrong with that? Wouldn’t you want a file transfer to your own server happen when you are at home?
If you are worried about the privacy implications, when an app tells iOS that it wants to be notified when it is in a certain location. It doesn’t get your location until you are there. It doesn’t have the ability to continuously track you.
If you are worried about the privacy implications, when an app tells iOS that it wants to be notified when it is in a certain location. It doesn’t get your location until you are there. It doesn’t have the ability to continuously track you.
Same, WH-900N. I just used the app to flash updated firmware on the headphones (!) and then deleted the app. It has zero value.
Pre-GDPR Sony’s terms claimed a very wide scope of data collection (“content” of the device the headphones were connected to) without opt-out UI. It appears that the terms have been narrowed now to cover only the technical attributes of content, such as codec. Is there now a way to opt out of data collection?
> I switched from a Bose QC35 to a Sony WH-1000XM3 about half a year ago, and the Sony app on iOS was egregiously requesting permission for location access
I did too, and I stopped using them largely because of the amount of information the app collects. If this lawsuit gets a class certified, an analog for Sony might be something I look into.
I did too, and I stopped using them largely because of the amount of information the app collects. If this lawsuit gets a class certified, an analog for Sony might be something I look into.
What was the "cited reason"?
It uses your movement and location to determine what noise-cancelling mode to put the headphones in. It is awful at picking though, not worth the privacy implications or battery life drain.
It's more likely just that BLE access in Android requires location permissions.
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/33045581/location-needs-...
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/33045581/location-needs-...
Which, IIRC, is because having BLE access equates to having location permissions, in the sense that you can reconstruct someone’s location from the BLE tags (Bluetooth MAC addresses) you sense, using location correlates of those tags in a separate database you’ve purchased. (This is equivalent to how phones reconstruct their location—in absence of GPS signal—using a wi-fi SSID triangulation database.)
Due to the bad layering of the BLE model it’s next to impossible to actually hide from the app the data of what peers are around the device, while still allowing the app to communicate over BLE. This isn’t true of regular Bluetooth, but BLE is solving a harder problem, sort of like how WebRTC is solving a harder problem than HTTP.
Still, you’d hope they’d come up with some way to obscure the peer BT MAC addresses or something. Maybe an approach like Apple used with device IDs, where each app sees the device ID hashed with a per-app salt—each app would see a separate list of virtual BT MACs that, when it sent messages to, the OS would translate back to the real MACs. Like BT “file handles”, almost.
Due to the bad layering of the BLE model it’s next to impossible to actually hide from the app the data of what peers are around the device, while still allowing the app to communicate over BLE. This isn’t true of regular Bluetooth, but BLE is solving a harder problem, sort of like how WebRTC is solving a harder problem than HTTP.
Still, you’d hope they’d come up with some way to obscure the peer BT MAC addresses or something. Maybe an approach like Apple used with device IDs, where each app sees the device ID hashed with a per-app salt—each app would see a separate list of virtual BT MACs that, when it sent messages to, the OS would translate back to the real MACs. Like BT “file handles”, almost.
My info was from the iOS version of the app which does not need Location Services for BLE.
How do the two compare, which do you like better?
This itself should be a red flag. If they heavily push something for a task that clearly has no reason to require that something then it’s probably fishy.
Same scenario about PayPal offering that I receive receipts in Messenger or Deliveroo offering WhatsApp notifications.
Same scenario about PayPal offering that I receive receipts in Messenger or Deliveroo offering WhatsApp notifications.
Instagram does this in several ways. You can't post 'stories' unless you give camera and microphone permission - even for existing videos and photos, when you have no desire to use their app to record. At first you could, now it's more restrictive.
Same for adding location to photos. On iOS you can deny the permission and still enter location manually. On Android, you can't enter a location manually unless you give the app location permission. Totally not useful, either - location info is already embedded in the photo and I really don't need the help of GPS to determine my current location.
Same for adding location to photos. On iOS you can deny the permission and still enter location manually. On Android, you can't enter a location manually unless you give the app location permission. Totally not useful, either - location info is already embedded in the photo and I really don't need the help of GPS to determine my current location.
Instagram is owned by Facebook and is thus cancer so not surprising. It’s like installing malware and then being surprised it’s doing something malicious.
On a similar note though, I just tried sending a tracking link for my Uber trip to my friend, and it tried to get contacts access permission (which I obviously denied) before giving me the link. I guess it preys on the fact that most people wouldn’t risk denying it thinking it won’t allow them to use the feature otherwise. Uber doesn’t seem to have anything to do with ads/stalking but it seems like nothing is safe in this day and age.
On a similar note though, I just tried sending a tracking link for my Uber trip to my friend, and it tried to get contacts access permission (which I obviously denied) before giving me the link. I guess it preys on the fact that most people wouldn’t risk denying it thinking it won’t allow them to use the feature otherwise. Uber doesn’t seem to have anything to do with ads/stalking but it seems like nothing is safe in this day and age.
On iOS, it is purposefully a separate permission to allow photo access and to allow the app to access the location metadata of the photo. There have been too many incidents of accidental location leakage.
> If they heavily push something for a task that clearly has no reason to require that something then it's probably fishy.
See also ninety-plus percent of existing javascript, and literally the entire existence of intel management engine.
See also ninety-plus percent of existing javascript, and literally the entire existence of intel management engine.
If you want to use the Alexa/Google button on the QC 35 II, you’d need the app. Also to configure Bluetooth settings and update the headphones’ firmware. I use it daily to connect or disconnect named devices from the headphones to either improve connectivity (fewer devices connected, better bandwidth) or save battery (fewer devices connected, battery lasts a bit longer).
I’m happy to report there’a a toggle in the app’s settings and that it now clearly indicates it sends the song data for diagnostic purposes if checked. (And yes, I disabled it.)
I’m happy to report there’a a toggle in the app’s settings and that it now clearly indicates it sends the song data for diagnostic purposes if checked. (And yes, I disabled it.)
I assume that is checked by default, so the instant you installed everything they can swoop up from any and all caches is transmitted. Then any random update they can forget to preserve that setting and redo it. It breaks my heart that it isn't even hyperbole.
The future sucks.
It seems the goal of most companies is to create a seemingly legitimate need for apps/permissions, no matter how convoluted, just so they can get access to data.
The future sucks.
It seems the goal of most companies is to create a seemingly legitimate need for apps/permissions, no matter how convoluted, just so they can get access to data.
If you're not averse to downloading and running their update application on OS X or Windows instead - you can update your headphone's firmware much more quickly from their website, through that application (http://btu.bose.com/ )
Yeah, but if you download the app again today you will see a new prompt that forces you to agree to waive your right to class action and agree to arbitration over privacy policy violations. No option to cancel or opt out of course. Nice timing Bose.
I bought the QC35 just before the new edition came out. I never downloaded the app because "yeah fuck that..." and all I wanted was some nose-cancelling headphones. I'm still very much in the fence about voice recognition.
The only reason I use the app is also the most useful: switching between paired devices. I have them paired to 4 different products (laptop, phone, tablet, and tv) so switching the active ones is much easier with a visual menu.
I just use the switch on the side to change devices. It reads out the name of each device as you switch so it’s still clear what you’re changing to.
I never installed the app purely because I’ve never had a reason. Then the spying stuff just reinforced my hatred of every single device these days needing one. I now specifically look for hardware devices that don’t need an app or cloud service account.
I never installed the app purely because I’ve never had a reason. Then the spying stuff just reinforced my hatred of every single device these days needing one. I now specifically look for hardware devices that don’t need an app or cloud service account.
Unfortunately the switch only allows you to connect to one device at a time - if you want to use the dual source feature (which is a huge bonus for me when i’m at my desk) you gotta use the app to manage it.
You mean audio from from two sources at once? I didn't realize that was a feature. That's wild but I'm not going to install and use an app for just that feature.
My headphones will sometimes automatically switch between sources when it recognizes I'm using another device. Like when I'm listening to music on my PC, if I start browsing my phone I'll start heading audio from it instead.
My headphones will sometimes automatically switch between sources when it recognizes I'm using another device. Like when I'm listening to music on my PC, if I start browsing my phone I'll start heading audio from it instead.
[deleted]
That’s odd because I swear mine does. I don’t use that feature but I’ve definitely had it connect to multiple at once as I rotate through then I change again to get the single device I want.
I'm not so sure. Mine will automatically connect to both my MacBook (even when closed) and phone, usually selecting as primary the one I didn't care for (the second source has a perceptible delay) making me cycle over all the combinations. I've never installed the app not changed any configuration.
It is made worse by the fact that Bluetooth Low energy requires location access on Android.
Not only that, on 9.0 it demands you enable GPS and waits for GPS lock before pairing.
Google now has the data and technology to spy on everyone using their wearables. Including people who never owned or used a Google product.
Google now has the data and technology to spy on everyone using their wearables. Including people who never owned or used a Google product.
I noticed this a while ago. I can't see any reason besides Google finding a nice submarine for getting everybody to leave location services enabled constantly. As Bluetooth slowly becomes ubiquitous, eventually everyone will need location turned on 24/7.
Google clearly wants this, but can't do anything overt about it without attracting bad press. So they attached location permissions to a new technology they know everybody will use eventually.
Google clearly wants this, but can't do anything overt about it without attracting bad press. So they attached location permissions to a new technology they know everybody will use eventually.
This is a guess: if an app can do a Bluetooth scan it can then look up the device IDs online and figure out where you are. So it needs location permission. Perhaps Android should give apps anonymized Bluetooth IDs.
That is a really silly excuse.
Basically what they say is that this information can theoretically be calculated so we demand you just give it (and some more) to us.
Basically what they say is that this information can theoretically be calculated so we demand you just give it (and some more) to us.
I mean, it's not just a theory -- Tile uses BLE to track devices around a city:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tile_(company)
> The application can locate Tiles beyond the 100-foot Bluetooth range, using "crowd GPS": if an item with an attached Tile device is reported lost and comes within range of another user's Tile application, the nearby user's application will send the item's owner an anonymous update of that item's location.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tile_(company)
> The application can locate Tiles beyond the 100-foot Bluetooth range, using "crowd GPS": if an item with an attached Tile device is reported lost and comes within range of another user's Tile application, the nearby user's application will send the item's owner an anonymous update of that item's location.
It's reasonable if you look at it from user's point of view: this application can calculate your location through BLE[0], giving BLE access is essentially giving coarse location access, so we should let the user know.
Permissions ideally shouldn't overlap, but in this case, they somewhat do.
--
[0] - and given the disastrous lack of ethics in the tech sector, it's very likely it will do that, or one of 30 adtech libraries it includes will.
Permissions ideally shouldn't overlap, but in this case, they somewhat do.
--
[0] - and given the disastrous lack of ethics in the tech sector, it's very likely it will do that, or one of 30 adtech libraries it includes will.
This is not an "informational" use of a permission, Google has actually started to record your location.
See my other comments.
See my other comments.
Bluetooth can also be used to track location with those beacon things shops us. I believe this is the reason they changed it (Bluetooth didn't used to need Location perm).
I build software systems which integrate a software front-end app with hardware, and I don't think I agree with the supposition that using an app to set up hardware is a negative.
Its just that I think that an app/hardware integration ethic definitely has a place in the world. For example, hardware which works with Apple, without allowing third-party (not even Apple) involvement, is a battle being fought.
Hardware vendors should be encouraged to ensure their hardware remains useful for generations, in my opinion. Apps always go stale while the hardware remains operational.
Of course: none of this forgives the vendors using it to spy on its customers.
Hardware like this, anyway imho at this market, is a platform battleground. In all honesty, we have more computer vendors battling it out now, than ever before.
More than likely, putting "compatible with iOS" on the box of an expensive speaker means more shelf-shopping customers. Alas, Bose and Apple probably have, at least, MFI-level involvement...
Its just that I think that an app/hardware integration ethic definitely has a place in the world. For example, hardware which works with Apple, without allowing third-party (not even Apple) involvement, is a battle being fought.
Hardware vendors should be encouraged to ensure their hardware remains useful for generations, in my opinion. Apps always go stale while the hardware remains operational.
Of course: none of this forgives the vendors using it to spy on its customers.
Hardware like this, anyway imho at this market, is a platform battleground. In all honesty, we have more computer vendors battling it out now, than ever before.
More than likely, putting "compatible with iOS" on the box of an expensive speaker means more shelf-shopping customers. Alas, Bose and Apple probably have, at least, MFI-level involvement...
How do you feel about a 30 page TOS and privacy policy being necessary to use said app? Something of that length tells me that the company likely wants to get a lot of data from me. Reading it is hardly necessary with the way these are typically written to be as friendly to whatever the company wants to do as possible.
This is why I have never used the Bluetooth features on my QC35s. They're mostly dumb headphones to me since I won't accept their user agreement. This seems counterproductive for the company, unless they simply don't care about user privacy and expect users to roll over.
This is why I have never used the Bluetooth features on my QC35s. They're mostly dumb headphones to me since I won't accept their user agreement. This seems counterproductive for the company, unless they simply don't care about user privacy and expect users to roll over.
This is why I never work in a technical capacity where I am being 'managed' by lawyers and other non-technically competent means of business org.
I truly do believe, as do you, that the TOS and Warranty world is another desperate subject from where the execs/lawyers/owners of the company desire to eek every penny.
There are many other realms where the TOS is simply: use the thing, have fun with it, if you want to tell us about yourself, press this button/fill in this card. For sure, consumers 'never read the TOS', because - hopefully - the device is now set up, everything works, it is time to rock ..
For sure, tech can be used against the user. But it can also work for the user, too.
I truly do believe, as do you, that the TOS and Warranty world is another desperate subject from where the execs/lawyers/owners of the company desire to eek every penny.
There are many other realms where the TOS is simply: use the thing, have fun with it, if you want to tell us about yourself, press this button/fill in this card. For sure, consumers 'never read the TOS', because - hopefully - the device is now set up, everything works, it is time to rock ..
For sure, tech can be used against the user. But it can also work for the user, too.
I think the shame of it is that 95% of most TOS's are as you said, essentially harmless or nearly harmless boilerplate. My concern is more about privacy policies which could in many cases be very short if user privacy is being respected.
In either case, if I'm presented with pages upon pages of small font #888888 text, I defensively assume these is something nefarious hidden there (e.g. "we don't share any of your data with anyone except our 3rd party affiliates, marketing partners, your nosy relatives, people who claim to be law enforcement, anyone who wants to connect to our open s3 buckets, etc.")
I would hope there could at least be standardized agreements developed so that I could decide which I'm okay with or not and have enough companies using them to make it worth the effort to read once. I'm thinking of various flavors of FOSS or CC licenses as an idea template.
In either case, if I'm presented with pages upon pages of small font #888888 text, I defensively assume these is something nefarious hidden there (e.g. "we don't share any of your data with anyone except our 3rd party affiliates, marketing partners, your nosy relatives, people who claim to be law enforcement, anyone who wants to connect to our open s3 buckets, etc.")
I would hope there could at least be standardized agreements developed so that I could decide which I'm okay with or not and have enough companies using them to make it worth the effort to read once. I'm thinking of various flavors of FOSS or CC licenses as an idea template.
This is why I firewall my phone, so when Bose (that e.g. as the app to fine tune the frequencies etc) is installed, I immediately "block all" on mobile data and Wifi, so even if the app does want to 'speak' to someone, ET won't phone-home.
On android devices one (at least on my Huawai)(to the degree that I trust the Settings) can regulate whether an app has connectivity. I block 90% of my apps completely (e.g. workout apps, or an offline Chess app)
On android devices one (at least on my Huawai)(to the degree that I trust the Settings) can regulate whether an app has connectivity. I block 90% of my apps completely (e.g. workout apps, or an offline Chess app)
> This is why I firewall my phone
> my Huawai
Hmmm.
> my Huawai
Hmmm.
The joke is the app does nothing, other than upgrade the firmware of the headphones. No settings to change or alter the behavior of buttons, initial volume, etc. Nada. Nothing.
If you start the app (Bose Connect, iOS), there's a setting called "Privacy Policy & Settings". There's one option there, which disables "Share data with Bose". I'm not saying that everyone will find it, but at least it's a solution for people that read Hacker News and wants to keep using the app.
A better solution might be to get the Sony WH1000XM3 headphones, which do not attempt to spy on you, and are in general better.
I am getting increasingly annoyed by the fact that buying anything is becoming a minefield: you have to actively scan for attempts to screw you over, and every company out there will actively try to screw you over. This goes on all over the place: think airplane ticket pricing (with all the "fees" added later), buying rental car insurance, extended warranties, security systems that suddenly enable a secret microphone, and headphones that report everything you do. There seems to be no penalty: if a company is caught doing that, they don't suffer much. They should.
I am getting increasingly annoyed by the fact that buying anything is becoming a minefield: you have to actively scan for attempts to screw you over, and every company out there will actively try to screw you over. This goes on all over the place: think airplane ticket pricing (with all the "fees" added later), buying rental car insurance, extended warranties, security systems that suddenly enable a secret microphone, and headphones that report everything you do. There seems to be no penalty: if a company is caught doing that, they don't suffer much. They should.
> I am getting increasingly annoyed by the fact that buying anything is becoming a minefield
Not only that, but they keep repopulating the minefield with new mines after you've spent considerable time clearing them. (Google, I really don't want you to use wifi to "improve" location precision and silently re-enabling the setting after a system update isn't going to change my mind.)
One way or another, this has to stop.
Not only that, but they keep repopulating the minefield with new mines after you've spent considerable time clearing them. (Google, I really don't want you to use wifi to "improve" location precision and silently re-enabling the setting after a system update isn't going to change my mind.)
One way or another, this has to stop.
You then have to trust that the app respects your settings. Years later when it's discovered that it doesn't, they can claim that it was a bug. Woops. Sorry.
I believe this was only later added after it became public that Bose was data collecting.
(I own the QC35 ver. 1)
(I own the QC35 ver. 1)
It was added in version 4.1.0 according to this post [1], after the lawsuit was filed.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/bose/comments/690592/bose_connect_a...
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/bose/comments/690592/bose_connect_a...
Why do you need a special app to use headphones? Is this really what the future looks like?
They have some actual features in there like find my buds, music sharing and noise cancellation controls. Also there’s some settings adjustments like standby times, connections and voice prompts. It’s actual pretty useful.
You don’t. The last pair of Bose headphones I had came with instructions to download the app which I just ignored. The headphones worked perfectly fine without the app.
You need it if you want to turn off or change the noise cancellation mode.
There is a button that cycles through high-low-no noise cancellation on mine
When you buy a new pair these days, pressing that button causes the headphones to say "Configure the action button in the Bose Connect App"
Not on the first gen, however, I had no use for the app and deleted it after the first time I played with it. My plan was to download the app whenever I wanted to do something, then immediately delete.
By default the button is set to use voice controls with your phone. The app let's you make it do anc controls
Updating the firmware.
Why do people build great companies then do unnecessary things to destroy them just for a few more dollars
It is worth pointing out that MIT owns Bose. 100%. Omar Bose left it to MIT in his will. He would be rolling in his grave if he saw what MIT was doing with it.
MIT doesn’t own 100% of Bose; he didn’t leave it all to them.
From Wikipedia:
In 2011, Bose donated a majority of the company's non-voting shares to MIT on the condition that the shares never be sold. Because these shares are non-voting, MIT does not participate in operations or governance of Bose Corporation.
What the heck is the point of owning shares if you can't sell them and you can't influence the direction of the company? That sounds like an accountant's joke.
(Presumably the benefit comes from the fact that Bose Corporation pays dividends, but nothing stops the other shareholders from deciding to cut or stop dividend payments. MIT certainly has no way to stop them.)
In 2011, Bose donated a majority of the company's non-voting shares to MIT on the condition that the shares never be sold. Because these shares are non-voting, MIT does not participate in operations or governance of Bose Corporation.
What the heck is the point of owning shares if you can't sell them and you can't influence the direction of the company? That sounds like an accountant's joke.
(Presumably the benefit comes from the fact that Bose Corporation pays dividends, but nothing stops the other shareholders from deciding to cut or stop dividend payments. MIT certainly has no way to stop them.)
Dividends, in order to provide funding to the school, I imagine.
I wonder how many problems in the world are ultimately caused from shares not being seen primarily as a source of divident, but as an asset to gamble with.
Considering that it generally pays (far more) to gamble with them than to sit on them and collect meager dividends slowly over time, it's not a surprise really.
Yeah, it's not a surprise that this happens. I'm just wondering why the system is designed to allow and encourage that, instead of blocking it. I can't see anything good coming out of it.
Long-term tax treatment for dividends on stock held for more than N years wouldn’t be a bad idea.
We already have that, qualified earnings.
Because the system is largely designed by the people who want to do that.
Plenty of stocks don't pay dividends. The point of owning stock is because you think it is a good financial move, and that includes direction of stock, holding it as an asset, and in some cases dividends.
The reason to sell a stock is because you believe the assets you have tied up in the stock would be better elsewhere.
If you view stock ownership as gambling, and dislike gambling, then don't own them. Others view them as owning shares in productive companies and a worthwhile asset for that reason.
The reason to sell a stock is because you believe the assets you have tied up in the stock would be better elsewhere.
If you view stock ownership as gambling, and dislike gambling, then don't own them. Others view them as owning shares in productive companies and a worthwhile asset for that reason.
[deleted]
MIT does not have any say in the running of the company, all their shares are non-voting
So they have 100% of the shares, which are all nonvoting?
No, they have a majority of the shares, and "will not participate in the management or governance of the company" under the terms of the gift [0]
[0] http://news.mit.edu/2011/bose-gift
[0] http://news.mit.edu/2011/bose-gift
This must have been happening while he was alive
Why should one need an app to control their headphones?
Give me hardware interface to control the functions.
Give me hardware interface to control the functions.
You couldn't physically fit those controls onto a pair of headphones. There's simple stuff like the level of noise cancellation, but also language settings for the voice prompts and saved profiles for different paired devices.
The Bose app is relatively simple as headphone apps go. Nuro and Even offer headphones with custom DSP profiles to match your hearing and the Audeze Mobius has spatial audio with motion tracking. It's simply not possible to implement features like that without some kind of companion app.
The Bose app is relatively simple as headphone apps go. Nuro and Even offer headphones with custom DSP profiles to match your hearing and the Audeze Mobius has spatial audio with motion tracking. It's simply not possible to implement features like that without some kind of companion app.
But then you need to bring the conversation back around to "why ruin it with hidden data collection"
When I set up my QC35 II, I couldn't get it to pair, so I reluctantly downloaded the app. I got my headphones set up and noticed the other features, which I thought could be useful, but uninstalled the app anyway, because the amount of times I would change these settings didn't outweigh having another app on my phone that could be collecting data.
I hate that I was correct in uninstalling the software due to privacy concerns, and only reinforces my distrust of hardware and software vendors.
When I set up my QC35 II, I couldn't get it to pair, so I reluctantly downloaded the app. I got my headphones set up and noticed the other features, which I thought could be useful, but uninstalled the app anyway, because the amount of times I would change these settings didn't outweigh having another app on my phone that could be collecting data.
I hate that I was correct in uninstalling the software due to privacy concerns, and only reinforces my distrust of hardware and software vendors.
Or publish the APIs for at least allowing a third-party implementation?
Now you have APIs that people depend on and will get pissed if they change. If you do it all internally then major API changes are not a problem.
Assuming you are talking about lock-step updates of firmware and app, how would an app work with firmware lagging hardware, or updated firmware but old app?
People have multiple devices (eg tablet and phone) which means they'd easily get into such a state.
I imagine they have to keep the most of backwards compatibility for their internal purposes as well (or at least their developers' sanity :)).
I am pretty sure having open APIs (that evolve) would still be more appreciated than not.
People have multiple devices (eg tablet and phone) which means they'd easily get into such a state.
I imagine they have to keep the most of backwards compatibility for their internal purposes as well (or at least their developers' sanity :)).
I am pretty sure having open APIs (that evolve) would still be more appreciated than not.
An embedded web server would take care of that. And you'd not need an App, besides it would also work for people without smartphones.
There's over-engineering, and then there's putting a web server in a pair of headphones. There are obvious disadvantages in terms of cost, complexity, security and battery life.
Absolutely but those are still much less bad than having an app that leaks your data back to the manufacturer.
The real problem is that most consumers just don't care about privacy at all.
Losing the 0.01% of people who care about their privacy is no incentive for manufacturers to change their shady practices.
It would be nice to have some kind of privacy certification, then consumers could have an easy way of knowing the product they're buying respects their privacy.
It's a sad state of affairs that this would be needed to buy a set of headphones.
Losing the 0.01% of people who care about their privacy is no incentive for manufacturers to change their shady practices.
It would be nice to have some kind of privacy certification, then consumers could have an easy way of knowing the product they're buying respects their privacy.
It's a sad state of affairs that this would be needed to buy a set of headphones.
id argue that the bose app was only really useful for updating firmware, noise cancellation level could be adjusted on the device and it didnt really do much of anything else last time i used it
the mobius is different though but only slightly, all the sound modes etc are switchable on the device its only the head tracking setup that really needs the app
(by the way im not complaining, anyone with my spotify username can know what ive been listening to and it doesnt bother me one bit)
the mobius is different though but only slightly, all the sound modes etc are switchable on the device its only the head tracking setup that really needs the app
(by the way im not complaining, anyone with my spotify username can know what ive been listening to and it doesnt bother me one bit)
In the instance of these headphones, the app allows you to adjust the level of active noise cancellation as well as choose which sources can send audio to the headphones. Neither of which are set up to be done directly via the device.
The source choosing can be done (with the power slider) without the app. Just FYI.
I used the app breifly when setting mine up before deleting it. The 2 things I used it for was updating the firmware and remapping the voice control button to instead change the noise canceling amount.
The one thing I use the app for is system updates.
I too have these headphones. I don't really know what the frequent firmware updates do, or if they are necessary.
I can understand why the mechanism for firmware updates exists, but this constant updating of every single thing is insane. Bluetooth headphones aren't even exposed/connected to the internet.
I can understand why the mechanism for firmware updates exists, but this constant updating of every single thing is insane. Bluetooth headphones aren't even exposed/connected to the internet.
You can update the headphones through a PC application: https://btu.bose.com/
My $35 pair of Phaiser BHS-760 bluetooth headphones connect far, far better than my $350 Bose QCII headphones and the BHS-760s don't require an app.
Your $35'rs aren't a good comparison when they don't provide noise cancelation.
[deleted]
I've used QuietComfort (25) in past, I've never heard of any app that was available to configure it.
It’s very common to have an app for Bluetooth QC 35 headphones, as these headphones play back digital audio (they basically have built-in iPods minus the on-board storage), and in their newest variants, ship with Google or Alexa via the app. But primarily you’d get the app to customize EQ, customize which devices are connected, troubleshoot the Bluetooth connection or perform software upgrades (an essential task these days...)
There isn't. The app is for the 35s.
I'd be fascinated to see whether a similar degree of monitoring is going on in a post-GDPR context. A data request should return everything as Bose is an EU based firm with some customers within the EU surely?
The GDPR haters need to realise this is exactly the sort of thing it is meant to prevent. The EU legal landscape is very different from the US, in that regulations protect consumers vs the threat of class action lawsuits. What would happen here if Bose were a solely EU company with no US presense, who would you sue then?
The GDPR haters on the tech side usually work for companies (or are founders of) that do stuff that they really shouldn't be doing.
The "GDPR haters" realize that this is the sort of thing it is meant to prevent. They probably want to see this kind of thing prevented too.
But they also realize that intention is hard to codify in law, and when their concerns about an overly non-specific and broad legislation are dismissed with "well obviously the GDPR intends this and not that, it's such a straightforward legislation to read, anyone can understand it," it's easy to become a "hater" - because they realize that there is a lot of latitude in interpreting the law.
It would be more constructive to try to understand the position of people you disagree with, instead of labeling them as "haters" - just because someone is critical of the GDPR doesn't mean they don't value privacy.
But they also realize that intention is hard to codify in law, and when their concerns about an overly non-specific and broad legislation are dismissed with "well obviously the GDPR intends this and not that, it's such a straightforward legislation to read, anyone can understand it," it's easy to become a "hater" - because they realize that there is a lot of latitude in interpreting the law.
It would be more constructive to try to understand the position of people you disagree with, instead of labeling them as "haters" - just because someone is critical of the GDPR doesn't mean they don't value privacy.
I have Bose QC35 and personally I think that app is great because:
1) you can select the level of noise cancellation, and I found that I appreciate more having a low level NC a part from when I am on a flight where I use high NC
2) you can select 2 devices to pair at the same time, having 2 laptops and my iPhone at work is great to be able to switch with an app
That said, these two actions do not require to collect users data..so they should stop doing that without users’ consent
That said, these two actions do not require to collect users data..so they should stop doing that without users’ consent
You can configure the left button to switch between noise cancelling levels (yeah, using the app once) and switch between Bluetooth devices using the right button -- so the app isn't needed for daily operation.
QC35 doesn’t have a left button, that’s the QC35-2. Which sucks because i now need the app multiple times a day.
Switching between paired devices can be done with the power slider, without the Bose app. I don’t know how to do #1 without the app though.
The court’s opinion and order:
https://f.datasrvr.com/fr1/319/48563/Bose_Memo_and_Order.pdf.
It looks as if there are quite a few Bose-made apps available for download in in the EU. Feels like a clears GDPR violation without active consent
New marketing strategy: Bose // We Listen to our Customers
Will there be similar consequences for Bose, as for Huawei? Like companies stopping dealing with them, Google revoking software licenses? Or if it is an American manufacturer, then it's ok to spy?
This is from 2017. IIRC it was quite widely reported then as well.
https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2019/04/02/bose-spying-clai... This is the latest update I found, about this decision: https://www.kelleydrye.com/getmedia/e72feb27-aba4-4229-9062-...
First I heard of it.
Mind you, I would never, ever buy a Bose product, or install their app if I got one, so this is kind of academic for me.
Mind you, I would never, ever buy a Bose product, or install their app if I got one, so this is kind of academic for me.
And why not? They seem to have the best noise cancellation system on the market, even when compared to headsets twice the price.
My gun range headphones have physical noise elimination by nature of their construction. Better than anything Bose can do digitally.
Needs a (2017)
I agree that this is quite shady, but they require your explicit permission when you enable music sharing.
My QC35s are great btw.
Clearly this man is seeking a fat settlement but this kind of behavior by Bose is indeed sleazy, even if it is mentioned in the small print most people wouldn’t expect that and read it.
Isn’t hitting corps with settlements an effective mechanism in the consumer protection toolkit?
it shouldn't be necessary.
I’m curious what you suggest... how things ought to work in your mind.
The EU seems to work fine without the sort of litigation culture the US has. Punitive damages aren’t a thing here either, and not all menber countries even have class action lawsuits in their legislation.
idk maybe robust consumer privacy protection laws with career ending penalties for running afoul of them?
Who would not expect a music streaming app to collect data on the music customers listen to? I completely expect spotify, youtube, and any other streaming app to do the same? How else could you provide discovery to customers?
It’s not a music streaming app. It’s a Bluetooth headphone management app.
"The court dismissed Zak’s novel wiretap and eavesdropping claims, writing that the complaint failed to adequately allege that Bose is not a party to communication, as is necessary for violations of these statutes. “ … [T]he relevant inquiry,” the court wrote, “is whether the defendant is a participant in the conversation, as opposed to a nonparticipant that uses other means to gain access to – i.e., intercept – the communication.” Bose wasn’t an intruding third party, so this line of attack was shut down.
Nonetheless, the unjust enrichment and Illinois state consumer fraud charges survived. And, to make things a little more interesting for the defendant, the court left the door open for Zak to file again under the Wiretap Act if he could prove “that Bose is in fact not a party to the communication or that Bose, while a party, nevertheless intercepted a communication with the purpose of committing a crime or tort independent from the alleged interception.”"
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5499bec3-8a87...