Any hackers in here? Hack a Google Home?...

[Commander Kinsey]

On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 08:39:15 +0100, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

On 10/17/2022 9:20 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:


Google Home refuses to talk politics. I asked mine who would win the Russia Ukraine war and it either says it doesn\'t understand, ignores me completely, or gives me irrelevant information. Same if I ask it if god exists. Somebody is bribing google, I want facts not bias.

https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/google-assistant-tips-commands-pixel-google-home-allo/

\"Tell me a joke.\"

I\'ve done loads of those, and every single one is a groaner. It\'s like they deliberately filled it with the worst jokes they could find.

The way that Assistants start, is with all the features
turned on. But when the company discovers how many Amazon
instances they have to run, to do the computing for natural
language interaction, they rapidly shut stuff off.

This is one of the reasons that Google search results
vary with time of day. The load on Google, determines
the depth of search.

Surely the voice to text is done by the CPU inside the device?

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 12:08:43 +0100, Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote:

mandag den 17. oktober 2022 kl. 12.02.18 UTC+2 skrev Commander Kinsey:
On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 10:52:36 +0100, Lasse Langwadt Christensen <lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:

mandag den 17. oktober 2022 kl. 11.20.16 UTC+2 skrev Commander Kinsey:
On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 10:04:28 +0100, Lasse Langwadt Christensen <lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:

mandag den 17. oktober 2022 kl. 10.52.09 UTC+2 skrev Don Y:
On 10/17/2022 1:17 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
Windows 10 + 11 \"S mode\" is an attempt by Microsoft to close down the
opportunity to run non-MS code on PC\'s running that variant. In S-mode you can
only run apps that are from the MS walled garden app store.
So, pretty useless for anyone other than generic \"office workers\".

and schools, I believe it is basically intended as an alternative for Chrome OS in schools
I worked in a school, we used many many non-MS products. That\'s exactly the kind of place you install unusual apps only used in education. To limit that to MS approved ones would be fucking absurd.

can just get those apps approved,
By who?

Microsoft of course

Haven\'t you noticed how many large companies don\'t have their stuff checked by MS, yet you want the little ones to do it?

 

[Paul]

On 10/18/2022 3:48 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:

Surely the voice to text is done by the CPU inside the device?

Not normally. It\'s my understanding, the audio is shipped out
for processing.

Doing it that way, ensures really cheap devices don\'t need
a lot of performance to work.

If the device had to do it, maybe no device could be made
for less than $200. If the processing is done on Amazon AWS,
then maybe I could make a $5 device some day.

But when you do it that way, you may look at the net profit
and discover you\'ve got too much functionality and need to
trim some of it.

As for the bad jokes, they probably hired a guy with a PhD
in Bad Jokes. A specialist who combs Readers Digest for jokes.

Paul

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 16:05:31 +0100, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

On 10/18/2022 3:48 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:

Surely the voice to text is done by the CPU inside the device?

Not normally. It\'s my understanding, the audio is shipped out
for processing.

I\'m finding it difficult to find this out. I turned my wireless off on my router, then said \"hey google, what\'s 2+2?\". It said 4. Then I asked for a weather forecast, and it said it can\'t find the wifi network. At this point I thought it was only using the internet to get info like weather, but not for voice recognition. But then I asked it 2+2 again but as soon as I said \"hey google\" it complained about the wifi network. So I repeated the whole exercise again and this time the maths didn\'t work the first time, so perhaps my wifi takes a while to turn off. All I can say for certain is it understands \"hey google\" itself. But then I looked up https://www.lifewire.com/what-is-google-home-and-how-does-it-work-4801919 which says \"Without being connected to the internet, Google Home can\'t do a whole lot. You can use it as a wireless speaker for local media, but most of the useful functionality relies on an internet connection.\" - so if I can use it for local media, it must
understand my requests to play certain tracks? And how is that going to work if mine is refusing to get past hey google with no wireless?

Tried it with my phone, and as soon as I said hey google it said \"offline voice interactions unavailable\".

Doing it that way, ensures really cheap devices don\'t need
a lot of performance to work.

Surely the performance required to interpret a voice is fuck all, something like 1 core of a smartphone? If it\'s more than that, there must be colossal computing power at google being used, costing them loads of money. After they\'ve sold me the google home, I don\'t pay them a penny. So where are they getting the money from?

Looks like it\'s a new thing just coming out to interpret your voice locally. Apple is going to process on the phone for example:
https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/7/22522993/apple-siri-on-device-speech-recognition-no-internet-wwdc
But then that\'s a phone you already own, making a home assistant with the processing power of your phone could make them cost too much.

If the device had to do it, maybe no device could be made
for less than $200. If the processing is done on Amazon AWS,
then maybe I could make a $5 device some day.

But when you do it that way, you may look at the net profit
and discover you\'ve got too much functionality and need to
trim some of it.

As for the bad jokes, they probably hired a guy with a PhD
in Bad Jokes. A specialist who combs Readers Digest for jokes.

I see no advantage in them only using bad jokes.

 

[Paul]

On 10/18/2022 6:55 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:

On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 16:05:31 +0100, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

On 10/18/2022 3:48 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:

Surely the voice to text is done by the CPU inside the device?

Not normally. It\'s my understanding, the audio is shipped out
for processing.

I\'m finding it difficult to find this out.  I turned my wireless off on my router, then said \"hey google, what\'s 2+2?\".  It said 4.  Then I asked for a weather forecast, and it said it can\'t find the wifi network.  At this point I thought it was only using the internet to get info like weather, but not for voice recognition.  But then I asked it 2+2 again but as soon as I said \"hey google\" it complained about the wifi network.  So I repeated the whole exercise again and this time the maths didn\'t work the first time, so perhaps my wifi takes a while to turn off.  All I can say for certain is it understands \"hey google\" itself.  But then I looked up https://www.lifewire.com/what-is-google-home-and-how-does-it-work-4801919 which says \"Without being connected to the internet, Google Home can\'t do a whole lot. You can use it as a wireless speaker for local media, but most of the useful functionality relies on an internet connection.\" - so if I can use it for local media, it must
understand my requests to play certain tracks?  And how is that going to work if mine is refusing to get past hey google with no wireless?

Tried it with my phone, and as soon as I said hey google it said \"offline voice interactions unavailable\".

Doing it that way, ensures really cheap devices don\'t need
a lot of performance to work.

Surely the performance required to interpret a voice is fuck all, something like 1 core of a smartphone?  If it\'s more than that, there must be colossal computing power at google being used, costing them loads of money.  After they\'ve sold me the google home, I don\'t pay them a penny.  So where are they getting the money from?

Looks like it\'s a new thing just coming out to interpret your voice locally.  Apple is going to process on the phone for example:
https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/7/22522993/apple-siri-on-device-speech-recognition-no-internet-wwdc
But then that\'s a phone you already own, making a home assistant with the processing power of your phone could make them cost too much.

If the device had to do it, maybe no device could be made
for less than $200. If the processing is done on Amazon AWS,
then maybe I could make a $5 device some day.

But when you do it that way, you may look at the net profit
and discover you\'ve got too much functionality and need to
trim some of it.

As for the bad jokes, they probably hired a guy with a PhD
in Bad Jokes. A specialist who combs Readers Digest for jokes.

I see no advantage in them only using bad jokes.

You remember my comment about needing computing resources
to tell you jokes...

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/10/report-google-doubles-down-on-pixel-hardware-cuts-google-assistant-support/

\"Is the Google Assistant in trouble? It\'s true that it doesn\'t make any money...
Ron Amadeo - 10/18/2022, 1:39 PM\"

That suggests they are a bit sensitive, on the subject.

It doesn\'t mean the feature is going away, but just about
anything is possible, including a subscription.

And it\'s not like it has to be that way. As they could store
a large quantity of bad jokes, on a flash chip inside the speaker

Paul

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 00:54:56 +0100, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

On 10/18/2022 6:55 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 16:05:31 +0100, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

On 10/18/2022 3:48 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:

Surely the voice to text is done by the CPU inside the device?

Not normally. It\'s my understanding, the audio is shipped out
for processing.

I\'m finding it difficult to find this out. I turned my wireless off on my router, then said \"hey google, what\'s 2+2?\". It said 4. Then I asked for a weather forecast, and it said it can\'t find the wifi network. At this point I thought it was only using the internet to get info like weather, but not for voice recognition. But then I asked it 2+2 again but as soon as I said \"hey google\" it complained about the wifi network. So I repeated the whole exercise again and this time the maths didn\'t work the first time, so perhaps my wifi takes a while to turn off. All I can say for certain is it understands \"hey google\" itself. But then I looked up https://www.lifewire.com/what-is-google-home-and-how-does-it-work-4801919 which says \"Without being connected to the internet, Google Home can\'t do a whole lot. You can use it as a wireless speaker for local media, but most of the useful functionality relies on an internet connection.\" - so if I can use it for local media, it must
understand my requests to play certain tracks? And how is that going to work if mine is refusing to get past hey google with no wireless?

Tried it with my phone, and as soon as I said hey google it said \"offline voice interactions unavailable\".

Doing it that way, ensures really cheap devices don\'t need
a lot of performance to work.

Surely the performance required to interpret a voice is fuck all, something like 1 core of a smartphone? If it\'s more than that, there must be colossal computing power at google being used, costing them loads of money. After they\'ve sold me the google home, I don\'t pay them a penny. So where are they getting the money from?

Looks like it\'s a new thing just coming out to interpret your voice locally. Apple is going to process on the phone for example:
https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/7/22522993/apple-siri-on-device-speech-recognition-no-internet-wwdc
But then that\'s a phone you already own, making a home assistant with the processing power of your phone could make them cost too much.

If the device had to do it, maybe no device could be made
for less than $200. If the processing is done on Amazon AWS,
then maybe I could make a $5 device some day.

But when you do it that way, you may look at the net profit
and discover you\'ve got too much functionality and need to
trim some of it.

As for the bad jokes, they probably hired a guy with a PhD
in Bad Jokes. A specialist who combs Readers Digest for jokes.

I see no advantage in them only using bad jokes.

You remember my comment about needing computing resources
to tell you jokes...

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/10/report-google-doubles-down-on-pixel-hardware-cuts-google-assistant-support/

\"Is the Google Assistant in trouble? It\'s true that it doesn\'t make any money...
Ron Amadeo - 10/18/2022, 1:39 PM\"

That suggests they are a bit sensitive, on the subject.

It also suggests the author doesn\'t know what \"double down\" means. To be fair it is an illogical phrase, but he could have used a simpler term.

It doesn\'t mean the feature is going away, but just about
anything is possible, including a subscription.

And it\'s not like it has to be that way. As they could store
a large quantity of bad jokes, on a flash chip inside the speaker

Surely you don\'t need much (in today\'s standards) processing power to take your voice and make it into words. I can\'t find anything on it though. I keep just finding super low power voice DETECTION chips, but that\'s just the bit that decides you\'re saying \"hey google\".

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 00:54:56 +0100, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

You remember my comment about needing computing resources
to tell you jokes...

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/10/report-google-doubles-down-on-pixel-hardware-cuts-google-assistant-support/

\"Is the Google Assistant in trouble? It\'s true that it doesn\'t make any money...
Ron Amadeo - 10/18/2022, 1:39 PM\"

That suggests they are a bit sensitive, on the subject.

It doesn\'t mean the feature is going away, but just about
anything is possible, including a subscription.

Google is making 80 billion dollars a year, why on earth would they need to cut back on anything?
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/feb/01/google-alphabet-profits-revenues-earnings

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 17-Oct-22 7:12 am, Joe Gwinn wrote:

On Sun, 16 Oct 2022 18:17:18 +1100, Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid
wrote:

On 16-Oct-22 4:38 pm, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2022 06:26:49 +0100, Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid
wrote:

On 16-Oct-22 4:15 pm, Commander Kinsey wrote:
Just wondering if I can change the main program in a Google Home, or is
it hard coded?  It must allow updates to the software, so can I fool it
this way and give it an altered version?

I\'d be very surprised if the updates did not have to be
cryptographically signed by Google. Since you would have no way to sign
a substitute program, it is unlikely that you\'ll be able to replace the
software via the usual update process.

Depriving people of control of things they own is perhaps the most
egregious use of cryptographic signing that exists, but until
legislators get involved (don\'t hold your breath), that\'s where we stand.

This is not to say it\'s impossible to do, but will probably require
considerable technical knowledge, and time, if it can be done at all.

I have virtually no knowledge of hacking, but isn\'t the program in there
kinda like an OS?  Or the only program running under the OS?  No matter
what Microsoft put in Windows, they cannot stop me deleting it and
inserting Linux onto my desktop.  Why can\'t I do the same with the
Google Home?

It really comes down to what code the system runs when it starts,
whether that\'s called a BIOS, a boot loader, or whatever (hereinafter
boot loader). If the boot loader is not willing to load and run code
that\'s not been signed with a signature that it will accept, then that\'s
a significant obstacle. You\'d have to replace the boot loader, which
could involve physically removing a ROM and supplying a different one
(whose code you got from....?), or re-flashing it (ditto), if it allows
itself to be re-flashed, and again you have the issue of whether the
replacement needs to be signed.

Your Google Home may well not even have a separate boot ROM - everything
could be on a single chip.

As for PCs so far, the likes of Microsoft have not been able to
persuade/cajole/threaten/bribe the manufacturers of CPUs, laptops and
motherboards to allow only programs signed by said likes to run, and
this is why you can install other software.

It is tried from time to time. Usually the US Justice Department
brings an anti-trust case, which stops this train. But this only
happens if the then President allows the Justice Dept to bring such a
case.

A big fight in the US is John Deere not allowing farmers to repair
their million-dollar harvesters and combines. Multiple states have
enacted right-to-repair laws (often by referendum) to prevent this
kind of abuse.

I voted for just such in Massachusetts. Not that I am a farmer, but
we do need competition to maintain discipline in the vendor ranks.

Joe Gwinn

As long as Apple can get away with locking things down so that even
swapping parts from identical new iPhones doesn\'t work[*], we have a
long way to go on right to repair.

Sylvia.

[*] So that downstream, we can\'t even use broken iPhones as a source of
parts.

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 01:56:53 +0100, Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:

On 17-Oct-22 7:12 am, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2022 18:17:18 +1100, Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid
wrote:

On 16-Oct-22 4:38 pm, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2022 06:26:49 +0100, Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid
wrote:

On 16-Oct-22 4:15 pm, Commander Kinsey wrote:
Just wondering if I can change the main program in a Google Home, or is
it hard coded? It must allow updates to the software, so can I fool it
this way and give it an altered version?

I\'d be very surprised if the updates did not have to be
cryptographically signed by Google. Since you would have no way to sign
a substitute program, it is unlikely that you\'ll be able to replace the
software via the usual update process.

Depriving people of control of things they own is perhaps the most
egregious use of cryptographic signing that exists, but until
legislators get involved (don\'t hold your breath), that\'s where we stand.

This is not to say it\'s impossible to do, but will probably require
considerable technical knowledge, and time, if it can be done at all.

I have virtually no knowledge of hacking, but isn\'t the program in there
kinda like an OS? Or the only program running under the OS? No matter
what Microsoft put in Windows, they cannot stop me deleting it and
inserting Linux onto my desktop. Why can\'t I do the same with the
Google Home?

It really comes down to what code the system runs when it starts,
whether that\'s called a BIOS, a boot loader, or whatever (hereinafter
boot loader). If the boot loader is not willing to load and run code
that\'s not been signed with a signature that it will accept, then that\'s
a significant obstacle. You\'d have to replace the boot loader, which
could involve physically removing a ROM and supplying a different one
(whose code you got from....?), or re-flashing it (ditto), if it allows
itself to be re-flashed, and again you have the issue of whether the
replacement needs to be signed.

Your Google Home may well not even have a separate boot ROM - everything
could be on a single chip.

As for PCs so far, the likes of Microsoft have not been able to
persuade/cajole/threaten/bribe the manufacturers of CPUs, laptops and
motherboards to allow only programs signed by said likes to run, and
this is why you can install other software.

It is tried from time to time. Usually the US Justice Department
brings an anti-trust case, which stops this train. But this only
happens if the then President allows the Justice Dept to bring such a
case.

A big fight in the US is John Deere not allowing farmers to repair
their million-dollar harvesters and combines. Multiple states have
enacted right-to-repair laws (often by referendum) to prevent this
kind of abuse.

I voted for just such in Massachusetts. Not that I am a farmer, but
we do need competition to maintain discipline in the vendor ranks.

Joe Gwinn

As long as Apple can get away with locking things down so that even
swapping parts from identical new iPhones doesn\'t work[*], we have a
long way to go on right to repair.

Sylvia.

[*] So that downstream, we can\'t even use broken iPhones as a source of
parts.

Apple get away with it because people buy Apple. Stop buying them and buy one you can use for spare parts. Vote with your feet and hit them in the wallet.

[Newsgroups restored since someone vandalised the list]

 

[Paul]

On 10/18/2022 8:38 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:

Google is making 80 billion dollars a year, why on earth would they need to cut back on anything?
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/feb/01/google-alphabet-profits-revenues-earnings

Google is a publicly traded company.

It is supposed to protect shareholders interests.

Wasting money (\"cost centers\") is not in the shareholder
interest.

In companies with proven product development, product shipment
pipelines, the shareholders understand a certain amount of
R&D budget is necessary to sustain profits from sales of things.

*******

In the history of tech companies, tech companies do not last
very long.

What you do not want, in your new tech company, is \"one-trick pony\".

Google is only Advertising. It\'s a one-trick pony.

Sure, it makes Pixel phones, but... could it cancel
them at any moment ? Google has quite a cancel-culture
when it comes to things other than Advertising.

Your supply of bad jokes, could dry up.

Paul

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 11:40:14 PM UTC+11, Paul wrote:

On 10/18/2022 8:38 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:


Google is making 80 billion dollars a year, why on earth would they need to cut back on anything?
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/feb/01/google-alphabet-profits-revenues-earnings
Google is a publicly traded company.

It is supposed to protect shareholders interests.

Wasting money (\"cost centers\") is not in the shareholder interest.

In companies with proven product development, product shipment pipelines, the shareholders understand a certain amount of R&D budget is necessary to sustain profits from sales of things.

*******

In the history of tech companies, tech companies do not last very long.

It all depends what you understand by technology.

What you do not want, in your new tech company, is \"one-trick pony\".

Google is only Advertising. It\'s a one-trick pony.

It\'s a search engine company. It gets a lot of queries and has built an advertising business on top of that

> Sure, it makes Pixel phones, but... could it cancel them at any moment ?

It makes the Android operating system to run those phones. That represents a significant capital investment.

Your idea that it is a one trick pony isn\'t all that useful or correct.

Google has quite a cancel-culture when it comes to things other than advertising.

Your supply of bad jokes, could dry up.

People who imagine that they are experts can be pretty funny. There are enough of them to provide a lot of bad jokes.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Joe Gwinn]

On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 11:56:53 +1100, Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid>
wrote:

On 17-Oct-22 7:12 am, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2022 18:17:18 +1100, Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid
wrote:

On 16-Oct-22 4:38 pm, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2022 06:26:49 +0100, Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid
wrote:

On 16-Oct-22 4:15 pm, Commander Kinsey wrote:
Just wondering if I can change the main program in a Google Home, or is
it hard coded?  It must allow updates to the software, so can I fool it
this way and give it an altered version?

I\'d be very surprised if the updates did not have to be
cryptographically signed by Google. Since you would have no way to sign
a substitute program, it is unlikely that you\'ll be able to replace the
software via the usual update process.

Depriving people of control of things they own is perhaps the most
egregious use of cryptographic signing that exists, but until
legislators get involved (don\'t hold your breath), that\'s where we stand.

This is not to say it\'s impossible to do, but will probably require
considerable technical knowledge, and time, if it can be done at all.

I have virtually no knowledge of hacking, but isn\'t the program in there
kinda like an OS?  Or the only program running under the OS?  No matter
what Microsoft put in Windows, they cannot stop me deleting it and
inserting Linux onto my desktop.  Why can\'t I do the same with the
Google Home?

It really comes down to what code the system runs when it starts,
whether that\'s called a BIOS, a boot loader, or whatever (hereinafter
boot loader). If the boot loader is not willing to load and run code
that\'s not been signed with a signature that it will accept, then that\'s
a significant obstacle. You\'d have to replace the boot loader, which
could involve physically removing a ROM and supplying a different one
(whose code you got from....?), or re-flashing it (ditto), if it allows
itself to be re-flashed, and again you have the issue of whether the
replacement needs to be signed.

Your Google Home may well not even have a separate boot ROM - everything
could be on a single chip.

As for PCs so far, the likes of Microsoft have not been able to
persuade/cajole/threaten/bribe the manufacturers of CPUs, laptops and
motherboards to allow only programs signed by said likes to run, and
this is why you can install other software.

It is tried from time to time. Usually the US Justice Department
brings an anti-trust case, which stops this train. But this only
happens if the then President allows the Justice Dept to bring such a
case.

A big fight in the US is John Deere not allowing farmers to repair
their million-dollar harvesters and combines. Multiple states have
enacted right-to-repair laws (often by referendum) to prevent this
kind of abuse.

I voted for just such in Massachusetts. Not that I am a farmer, but
we do need competition to maintain discipline in the vendor ranks.

Joe Gwinn

As long as Apple can get away with locking things down so that even
swapping parts from identical new iPhones doesn\'t work[*], we have a
long way to go on right to repair.

Sylvia.

[*] So that downstream, we can\'t even use broken iPhones as a source of
parts.

I\'m pretty sure that right to repair applies to Apple as well. It has
been loosening. We\'ll see,

Joe Gwinn

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 00:54:57 +0100, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote:

On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 11:56:53 +1100, Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid
wrote:

On 17-Oct-22 7:12 am, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2022 18:17:18 +1100, Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid
wrote:

On 16-Oct-22 4:38 pm, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2022 06:26:49 +0100, Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid
wrote:

On 16-Oct-22 4:15 pm, Commander Kinsey wrote:
Just wondering if I can change the main program in a Google Home, or is
it hard coded? It must allow updates to the software, so can I fool it
this way and give it an altered version?

I\'d be very surprised if the updates did not have to be
cryptographically signed by Google. Since you would have no way to sign
a substitute program, it is unlikely that you\'ll be able to replace the
software via the usual update process.

Depriving people of control of things they own is perhaps the most
egregious use of cryptographic signing that exists, but until
legislators get involved (don\'t hold your breath), that\'s where we stand.

This is not to say it\'s impossible to do, but will probably require
considerable technical knowledge, and time, if it can be done at all.

I have virtually no knowledge of hacking, but isn\'t the program in there
kinda like an OS? Or the only program running under the OS? No matter
what Microsoft put in Windows, they cannot stop me deleting it and
inserting Linux onto my desktop. Why can\'t I do the same with the
Google Home?

It really comes down to what code the system runs when it starts,
whether that\'s called a BIOS, a boot loader, or whatever (hereinafter
boot loader). If the boot loader is not willing to load and run code
that\'s not been signed with a signature that it will accept, then that\'s
a significant obstacle. You\'d have to replace the boot loader, which
could involve physically removing a ROM and supplying a different one
(whose code you got from....?), or re-flashing it (ditto), if it allows
itself to be re-flashed, and again you have the issue of whether the
replacement needs to be signed.

Your Google Home may well not even have a separate boot ROM - everything
could be on a single chip.

As for PCs so far, the likes of Microsoft have not been able to
persuade/cajole/threaten/bribe the manufacturers of CPUs, laptops and
motherboards to allow only programs signed by said likes to run, and
this is why you can install other software.

It is tried from time to time. Usually the US Justice Department
brings an anti-trust case, which stops this train. But this only
happens if the then President allows the Justice Dept to bring such a
case.

A big fight in the US is John Deere not allowing farmers to repair
their million-dollar harvesters and combines. Multiple states have
enacted right-to-repair laws (often by referendum) to prevent this
kind of abuse.

I voted for just such in Massachusetts. Not that I am a farmer, but
we do need competition to maintain discipline in the vendor ranks.

Joe Gwinn

As long as Apple can get away with locking things down so that even
swapping parts from identical new iPhones doesn\'t work[*], we have a
long way to go on right to repair.

Sylvia.

[*] So that downstream, we can\'t even use broken iPhones as a source of
parts.

I\'m pretty sure that right to repair applies to Apple as well. It has
been loosening. We\'ll see,

Pah! Apple can even get round FBI requests. As much as I hate Apple, I hate the FBI even more.

Learn to use a newsreader, this goes to alt.computer.workshop,alt.comp.os.windows-11,sci.electronics.design
You\'re removing people from the discussion.

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 13:39:59 +0100, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

On 10/18/2022 8:38 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:


Google is making 80 billion dollars a year, why on earth would they need to cut back on anything?
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/feb/01/google-alphabet-profits-revenues-earnings

Google is a publicly traded company.

It is supposed to protect shareholders interests.

Wasting money (\"cost centers\") is not in the shareholder
interest.

In companies with proven product development, product shipment
pipelines, the shareholders understand a certain amount of
R&D budget is necessary to sustain profits from sales of things.

*******

In the history of tech companies, tech companies do not last
very long.

What you do not want, in your new tech company, is \"one-trick pony\".

Google is only Advertising. It\'s a one-trick pony.

Sure, it makes Pixel phones, but... could it cancel
them at any moment ? Google has quite a cancel-culture
when it comes to things other than Advertising.

Your supply of bad jokes, could dry up.

I hardly believe the jokes put much pressure on their server.

I wouldn\'t care if they went, I want better ones!

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 20-Oct-22 10:54 am, Joe Gwinn wrote:

On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 11:56:53 +1100, Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid
wrote:

On 17-Oct-22 7:12 am, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2022 18:17:18 +1100, Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid
wrote:

On 16-Oct-22 4:38 pm, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2022 06:26:49 +0100, Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid
wrote:

On 16-Oct-22 4:15 pm, Commander Kinsey wrote:
Just wondering if I can change the main program in a Google Home, or is
it hard coded?  It must allow updates to the software, so can I fool it
this way and give it an altered version?

I\'d be very surprised if the updates did not have to be
cryptographically signed by Google. Since you would have no way to sign
a substitute program, it is unlikely that you\'ll be able to replace the
software via the usual update process.

Depriving people of control of things they own is perhaps the most
egregious use of cryptographic signing that exists, but until
legislators get involved (don\'t hold your breath), that\'s where we stand.

This is not to say it\'s impossible to do, but will probably require
considerable technical knowledge, and time, if it can be done at all.

I have virtually no knowledge of hacking, but isn\'t the program in there
kinda like an OS?  Or the only program running under the OS?  No matter
what Microsoft put in Windows, they cannot stop me deleting it and
inserting Linux onto my desktop.  Why can\'t I do the same with the
Google Home?

It really comes down to what code the system runs when it starts,
whether that\'s called a BIOS, a boot loader, or whatever (hereinafter
boot loader). If the boot loader is not willing to load and run code
that\'s not been signed with a signature that it will accept, then that\'s
a significant obstacle. You\'d have to replace the boot loader, which
could involve physically removing a ROM and supplying a different one
(whose code you got from....?), or re-flashing it (ditto), if it allows
itself to be re-flashed, and again you have the issue of whether the
replacement needs to be signed.

Your Google Home may well not even have a separate boot ROM - everything
could be on a single chip.

As for PCs so far, the likes of Microsoft have not been able to
persuade/cajole/threaten/bribe the manufacturers of CPUs, laptops and
motherboards to allow only programs signed by said likes to run, and
this is why you can install other software.

It is tried from time to time. Usually the US Justice Department
brings an anti-trust case, which stops this train. But this only
happens if the then President allows the Justice Dept to bring such a
case.

A big fight in the US is John Deere not allowing farmers to repair
their million-dollar harvesters and combines. Multiple states have
enacted right-to-repair laws (often by referendum) to prevent this
kind of abuse.

I voted for just such in Massachusetts. Not that I am a farmer, but
we do need competition to maintain discipline in the vendor ranks.

Joe Gwinn

As long as Apple can get away with locking things down so that even
swapping parts from identical new iPhones doesn\'t work[*], we have a
long way to go on right to repair.

Sylvia.

[*] So that downstream, we can\'t even use broken iPhones as a source of
parts.

I\'m pretty sure that right to repair applies to Apple as well. It has
been loosening. We\'ll see,

Joe Gwinn

I live in Australia, where there have long been provisions in the
consumer law relating to the availability of spare parts and repair
facilities on reasonable terms.

In all that time, you\'d think someone would have baulked at Apple\'s
excessive repair costs, and sought a remedy before a consumer tribunal.
The costs of doing so are not high, and a lawyer is generally not required.

Yet I can find nothing. I can\'t help suspecting that Apple always folds
as soon as someone goes down this path in Australia, so as to avoid
having a published judgement that would set some kind of precedent.

Sylvia.

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 03:02:44 +0100, Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:

On 20-Oct-22 10:54 am, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 11:56:53 +1100, Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid
wrote:

On 17-Oct-22 7:12 am, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2022 18:17:18 +1100, Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid
wrote:

On 16-Oct-22 4:38 pm, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2022 06:26:49 +0100, Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid
wrote:

On 16-Oct-22 4:15 pm, Commander Kinsey wrote:
Just wondering if I can change the main program in a Google Home, or is
it hard coded? It must allow updates to the software, so can I fool it
this way and give it an altered version?

I\'d be very surprised if the updates did not have to be
cryptographically signed by Google. Since you would have no way to sign
a substitute program, it is unlikely that you\'ll be able to replace the
software via the usual update process.

Depriving people of control of things they own is perhaps the most
egregious use of cryptographic signing that exists, but until
legislators get involved (don\'t hold your breath), that\'s where we stand.

This is not to say it\'s impossible to do, but will probably require
considerable technical knowledge, and time, if it can be done at all.

I have virtually no knowledge of hacking, but isn\'t the program in there
kinda like an OS? Or the only program running under the OS? No matter
what Microsoft put in Windows, they cannot stop me deleting it and
inserting Linux onto my desktop. Why can\'t I do the same with the
Google Home?

It really comes down to what code the system runs when it starts,
whether that\'s called a BIOS, a boot loader, or whatever (hereinafter
boot loader). If the boot loader is not willing to load and run code
that\'s not been signed with a signature that it will accept, then that\'s
a significant obstacle. You\'d have to replace the boot loader, which
could involve physically removing a ROM and supplying a different one
(whose code you got from....?), or re-flashing it (ditto), if it allows
itself to be re-flashed, and again you have the issue of whether the
replacement needs to be signed.

Your Google Home may well not even have a separate boot ROM - everything
could be on a single chip.

As for PCs so far, the likes of Microsoft have not been able to
persuade/cajole/threaten/bribe the manufacturers of CPUs, laptops and
motherboards to allow only programs signed by said likes to run, and
this is why you can install other software.

It is tried from time to time. Usually the US Justice Department
brings an anti-trust case, which stops this train. But this only
happens if the then President allows the Justice Dept to bring such a
case.

A big fight in the US is John Deere not allowing farmers to repair
their million-dollar harvesters and combines. Multiple states have
enacted right-to-repair laws (often by referendum) to prevent this
kind of abuse.

I voted for just such in Massachusetts. Not that I am a farmer, but
we do need competition to maintain discipline in the vendor ranks.

Joe Gwinn

As long as Apple can get away with locking things down so that even
swapping parts from identical new iPhones doesn\'t work[*], we have a
long way to go on right to repair.

Sylvia.

[*] So that downstream, we can\'t even use broken iPhones as a source of
parts.

I\'m pretty sure that right to repair applies to Apple as well. It has
been loosening. We\'ll see,

Joe Gwinn

I live in Australia, where there have long been provisions in the
consumer law relating to the availability of spare parts and repair
facilities on reasonable terms.

In all that time, you\'d think someone would have baulked at Apple\'s
excessive repair costs, and sought a remedy before a consumer tribunal.
The costs of doing so are not high, and a lawyer is generally not required.

Yet I can find nothing. I can\'t help suspecting that Apple always folds
as soon as someone goes down this path in Australia, so as to avoid
having a published judgement that would set some kind of precedent.

I\'m surprised Americans don\'t sue, I mean they can get paid for their own stupidity of spilling some hot coffee....

Newsgroup line corrected to alt.computer.workshop,alt.comp.os.windows-11,sci.electronics.design

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 20-Oct-22 1:05 pm, Commander Kinsey wrote:

On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 03:02:44 +0100, Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid
wrote:

On 20-Oct-22 10:54 am, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 11:56:53 +1100, Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid
wrote:

On 17-Oct-22 7:12 am, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2022 18:17:18 +1100, Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid
wrote:

On 16-Oct-22 4:38 pm, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2022 06:26:49 +0100, Sylvia Else
sylvia@email.invalid
wrote:

On 16-Oct-22 4:15 pm, Commander Kinsey wrote:
Just wondering if I can change the main program in a Google
Home, or is
it hard coded?  It must allow updates to the software, so can I
fool it
this way and give it an altered version?

I\'d be very surprised if the updates did not have to be
cryptographically signed by Google. Since you would have no way
to sign
a substitute program, it is unlikely that you\'ll be able to
replace the
software via the usual update process.

Depriving people of control of things they own is perhaps the most
egregious use of cryptographic signing that exists, but until
legislators get involved (don\'t hold your breath), that\'s where
we stand.

This is not to say it\'s impossible to do, but will probably require
considerable technical knowledge, and time, if it can be done at
all.

I have virtually no knowledge of hacking, but isn\'t the program
in there
kinda like an OS?  Or the only program running under the OS?  No
matter
what Microsoft put in Windows, they cannot stop me deleting it and
inserting Linux onto my desktop.  Why can\'t I do the same with the
Google Home?

It really comes down to what code the system runs when it starts,
whether that\'s called a BIOS, a boot loader, or whatever (hereinafter
boot loader). If the boot loader is not willing to load and run code
that\'s not been signed with a signature that it will accept, then
that\'s
a significant obstacle. You\'d have to replace the boot loader, which
could involve physically removing a ROM and supplying a different one
(whose code you got from....?), or re-flashing it (ditto), if it
allows
itself to be re-flashed, and again you have the issue of whether the
replacement needs to be signed.

Your Google Home may well not even have a separate boot ROM -
everything
could be on a single chip.

As for PCs so far, the likes of Microsoft have not been able to
persuade/cajole/threaten/bribe the manufacturers of CPUs, laptops and
motherboards to allow only programs signed by said likes to run, and
this is why you can install other software.

It is tried from time to time.  Usually the US Justice Department
brings an anti-trust case, which stops this train.  But this only
happens if the then President allows the Justice Dept to bring such a
case.

A big fight in the US is John Deere not allowing farmers to repair
their million-dollar harvesters and combines.  Multiple states have
enacted right-to-repair laws (often by referendum) to prevent this
kind of abuse.

I voted for just such in Massachusetts.  Not that I am a farmer, but
we do need competition to maintain discipline in the vendor ranks.

Joe Gwinn

As long as Apple can get away with locking things down so that even
swapping parts from identical new iPhones doesn\'t work[*], we have a
long way to go on right to repair.

Sylvia.

[*] So that downstream, we can\'t even use broken iPhones as a source of
parts.

I\'m pretty sure that right to repair applies to Apple as well.  It has
been loosening.  We\'ll see,

Joe Gwinn

I live in Australia, where there have long been provisions in the
consumer law relating to the availability of spare parts and repair
facilities on reasonable terms.

In all that time, you\'d think someone would have baulked at Apple\'s
excessive repair costs, and sought a remedy before a consumer tribunal.
The costs of doing so are not high, and a lawyer is generally not
required.

Yet I can find nothing. I can\'t help suspecting that Apple always folds
as soon as someone goes down this path in Australia, so as to avoid
having a published judgement that would set some kind of precedent.

I\'m surprised Americans don\'t sue, I mean they can get paid for their
own stupidity of spilling some hot coffee....

Newsgroup line corrected to
alt.computer.workshop,alt.comp.os.windows-11,sci.electronics.design

Before one can successfully sue, one has to have a cause of action.
Absent legislation, the fact that a product develops a fault and costs
and arm and a leg to repair, does not provide a cause of action.

US consumer law seems very lacking (some individual states may be
better) by comparison with Australia.

Sylvia.

 

[Don Y]

On 10/19/2022 7:02 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:

I live in Australia, where there have long been provisions in the consumer law
relating to the availability of spare parts and repair facilities on reasonable
terms.

In all that time, you\'d think someone would have baulked at Apple\'s excessive
repair costs, and sought a remedy before a consumer tribunal. The costs of
doing so are not high, and a lawyer is generally not required.

Yet I can find nothing. I can\'t help suspecting that Apple always folds as soon
as someone goes down this path in Australia, so as to avoid having a published
judgement that would set some kind of precedent.

That would only make sense if there was a \"settlement\" in which neither
party allows the terms of the settlement to be disclosed.

If it\'s \"inexpensive\" to make such a claim, then there\'s likely little
at stake. Can \"classes\" file claims? Or, just *individuals*? If the
latter, then \"Hey, here\'s a free phone! Let\'s call it even!\"

[One would still expect this sort of thing to \"leak\", even if only to
immediate friends/colleagues... and, then to THEIR friends/colleagues...]

It could, also, be that folks don\'t bother to repair their phones
opting, instead, to replace with newest model.

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 03:56:18 +0100, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

On 10/19/2022 7:02 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
I live in Australia, where there have long been provisions in the consumer law
relating to the availability of spare parts and repair facilities on reasonable
terms.

In all that time, you\'d think someone would have baulked at Apple\'s excessive
repair costs, and sought a remedy before a consumer tribunal. The costs of
doing so are not high, and a lawyer is generally not required.

Yet I can find nothing. I can\'t help suspecting that Apple always folds as soon
as someone goes down this path in Australia, so as to avoid having a published
judgement that would set some kind of precedent.

That would only make sense if there was a \"settlement\" in which neither
party allows the terms of the settlement to be disclosed.

If it\'s \"inexpensive\" to make such a claim, then there\'s likely little
at stake. Can \"classes\" file claims? Or, just *individuals*? If the
latter, then \"Hey, here\'s a free phone! Let\'s call it even!\"

[One would still expect this sort of thing to \"leak\", even if only to
immediate friends/colleagues... and, then to THEIR friends/colleagues....]

It could, also, be that folks don\'t bother to repair their phones
opting, instead, to replace with newest model.

People who buy Apple products have more money than sense, so yes, they throw them away. I paid £30 for a phone which almost competes with my Aunt\'s £300 iPhone. All she has that I don\'t is a second x5 camera.

 

[Snit]

On Oct 19, 2022 at 8:02:33 PM MST, \"\"Commander Kinsey\"\" wrote
<op.1ubhej1gmvhs6z@ryzen.home>:

On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 03:56:18 +0100, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

On 10/19/2022 7:02 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
I live in Australia, where there have long been provisions in the consumer law
relating to the availability of spare parts and repair facilities on reasonable
terms.

In all that time, you\'d think someone would have baulked at Apple\'s excessive
repair costs, and sought a remedy before a consumer tribunal. The costs of
doing so are not high, and a lawyer is generally not required.

Yet I can find nothing. I can\'t help suspecting that Apple always folds as soon
as someone goes down this path in Australia, so as to avoid having a published
judgement that would set some kind of precedent.

That would only make sense if there was a \"settlement\" in which neither
party allows the terms of the settlement to be disclosed.

If it\'s \"inexpensive\" to make such a claim, then there\'s likely little
at stake. Can \"classes\" file claims? Or, just *individuals*? If the
latter, then \"Hey, here\'s a free phone! Let\'s call it even!\"

[One would still expect this sort of thing to \"leak\", even if only to
immediate friends/colleagues... and, then to THEIR friends/colleagues...]

It could, also, be that folks don\'t bother to repair their phones
opting, instead, to replace with newest model.

People who buy Apple products have more money than sense, so yes, they throw
them away. I paid =A330 for a phone which almost competes with my Aunt\'s
=A3300 iPhone. All she has that I don\'t is a second x5 camera.

If you can find a tool that serves me as well for less money let me know.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.