Sonos app can turn a disabled Sonos One microphone back on - privacy issue?

As an aside, I can tell you this stuff is taken very seriously by the FTC. I was involved in a project that required drivers license verification for a point of sale terminal. There was a ton of questions from the legal department about processing and/or retention of the personal info. We had to document and provide proof that the bar code information not only wasn't retained/stored or sent to the central server, but also that there was a call to 'Arrays.fill(array, 0)' to zero out the data after each transaction. A little overkill, but it shut the naysayers up (as much as you can allay the fears of those worried about stuff like that).

[Apple and Google, not to mention hundreds of apps, have been proven to be spying on you. Sonos has not, aside from the very specific data gathering they have laid out in their very clear privacy policy.

But the voice stuff is not Sonos controlled, or at least I think it is not, they just pass the voice information along to the voice recognition provider, Amazon for Alexa and probably soon Apple and Google as their services get integrated.

If Sonos did the voice stuff in-house I'd feel a bit differently.

Well yea, I'd agree that privacy concerns can be looked at as a risk/reward decision.

. . .

So I get why people don't want voice assistants in their home. I just don't get why people claim I'm irrational for using them when their privacy is already compromised.

But I go back to my analogy of worrying about the locks on the attic windows when you are leaving the door wide open. Sure the front door being open may give you a fine cross breeze that is beneficial on a hot summer day, but that doesn't mean the robbers getting in through the attic are more of a worry just because the breeze is nice. This is where I can't understand the cherry picking of what is a worry and what is not; if your concern is actually privacy, and not merely an exercise of one's penchant for worry.

It is also akin to not allowing a trusted friend in your home, one who has never given any reason to be untrustworthy (and even signs an agreement to that end), while simultaneously letting in the local street gang for a party. Sure the street gang might throw great parties, but then why kick your friend out of the house? Apple and Google, not to mention hundreds of apps, have been proven to be spying on you. Sonos has not, aside from the very specific data gathering they have laid out in their very clear privacy policy.

So you aren't actually worried about privacy, only that the positives of losing that privacy outweigh the negatives?


Well yea, I'd agree that privacy concerns can be looked at as a risk/reward decision. People use smartphones because they find them very useful, even though they give up some privacy to do so. That does not mean they'll give up privacy for little or no benefit to themselves. Take GPS for example. People would not want a phone with GPS if it did not provide navigation benefits to them.

And this is not just tech, but life in general. Automobiles are dangerous, but people use them all the time since they see a massive benefit. Not as many people will ride a motorcycle as they do not see the added risk as worth the added benefit.

That said, people often miscalculate the risk based off appearances/perception. Most people would tell you that driving is more dangerous than flying, even though the opposite is true. Much of that has to do with how use they are to driving vs flying and they're comfortable level with what they know. I think voice assistance creep some people out because it actually responds to you, reminding you that's it's listening, while the mic on your phone does not (unless you tell it to)

So I get why people don't want voice assistants in their home. I just don't get why people claim I'm irrational for using them when their privacy is already compromised.

So you aren't actually worried about privacy, only that the positives of losing that privacy outweigh the negatives?

Color me confused. It seems like someone concerned about privacy would be more worried about the various and sundry data collection practices of dozens to hundreds of app manufacturers, not to mention billion dollar conglomerates whose very business is to hoard and exploit personal data, over a small audio company who at the very most is going to collect your musical tastes. A small company who, by the way, has actually told you what they collect of your data, how much of the voice data is stored (none), and has put in a legally binding privacy statement that they do not, nor ever will, sell your data. Try getting Google and Apple to do that.

I can understand those who eschew smart phones would have a problem with Sonos. I cannot fathom one accepting the proven to be guilty listening/spying actions of Apple/Google and the various apps they host, while simultaneously bringing the wrath down on Sonos for having a microphone. It's like worrying about the locks on the attic windows while leaving the front door wide open.

Soapbox dismounted. Regardless, unlike my fellow poster back a page, I give the chance of a microphone-less Sonos One to between slim and none, and slim ain't looking too healthy.

Sonos is not going to make a One without a microphone array.


I don't know about that.

-The Sonos One has been out for over a year, and yet, the Play:1 is still for sale. I don't know what the sales numbers are, but you'd think there would be significant interest, otherwise it would go away as did the Play:3.

- I wouldn't think it would be too difficult to create a version of the Sonos One without a mic. Marketing and choice a non-confusing name may actually be harder.

- A speaker with a built in mic is useless when bonded with the Beam. It's not hard to imagine that a future hypothetical playbar 2.0 would also have it's own mic and CEC controls, making the built in mic useless in that scenario as well.

- Voice control features are ever changing. Sonos seems to always be in catch-up mode with this, and will likely never be able to implement some feature like calling. As well, some users are going to want a screen as comes with the echo show or Google Home. In these cases, yours may prefer to have a separate voice assistant and speaker.

- Although privacy is currently only a concern for a relatively small group, it's entirely possible that privacy concerns could grow exponentially overnight, killing the sales of voice control smart speakers. It might make sense for Sonos to have a line of speakers without mics, so not all their eggs are in one basket.

Then again, maybe maintaining two separate products that are virtually identical is not worth it.

Because I don't need the microphone, I want to opt out.
So don't buy a ONE: it doesn't meet your criteria.

If you have the technical skills you might want to look at setting up AIrConnect [1] to provide direct AirPlay (v1) to all your existing Sonos devices. It works well.

[1] https://github.com/philippe44/AirConnect

Just a suggestion, but if you're getting a Sonos One for airplay support, you could simply skip the setup for Alexa and therefore the microphone is essentially disconnected always.

Exactly. If you never enable Alexa (or Google in the future), the microphone is always off.

I'm in a polyglot household – a combination of Apple, Android, Microsoft, Google, and Sonos – so I'm familiar with some of the competition. Our Google Home devices have physical mute switches in back which spend most of their time in the off position.

I want to buy the Sonos One to add AirPlay support to my existing speaker group, but I won't do that if I have to _look at the device_ to make sure the mic is still off. That doesn't inspire confidence that I'm in control of my privacy.

I quit reading about the new playbar when I got to the mikes, no physical disconnect switch no sale here.

In my opinion having a mic on a product like a Sonos One or Sonos Beam is no different to having a mic on your smart phone - apart from the fact that your smart phone mic is not hardwired and is entirely controlled by software and so could be activated remotely.

For you this could be true; however, there are millions of people that disable Siri, Hey Google, and Alexa. This should, according to most hardware and software agreements, keep the phone from listening in all of the time. So for me, it's apples and oranges.

Again, it's not a stretch to expect Sonos to provide a product that gives the user a reasonable expectation of privacy. For me, Alexa enabled devices breach my threshold for what I'm willing to put in my home. This doesn't have to be true for everyone, and hopefully the Alexa camp will allow for those of us that have been spurned by privacy violations, to keep the open mics out of our homes.

If there's mic on a device that is software controlled then it's technically possible to turn it on remotely, you don't need an AI enabled to do this.

Don't get me wrong, I understand your privacy concerns. All I'm saying is that you should have the same concern about laptops, tablets, smart phones etc. In my opinion, the Sonos One is slightly better than most devices in this regard.

How is it apples and oranges? Whether it's a phone, tablet, or Alexa device, the mic can be turned off via software configuration. Enabling a skill that is entirely about voice control makes sense to turn on the mic. If you enable siri, are you surprised that the mic is turned on?

Sonos one actually goes one step further giving you a visual que.

n my opinion having a mic on a product like a Sonos One or Sonos Beam is no different to having a mic on your smart phone - apart from the fact that your smart phone mic is not hardwired and is entirely controlled by software and so could be activated remotely.

I agree completely which is why we have no smart phones here either.

I suspect that there are very few Sonos customers that don't own a Tablet or Smartphone...