10-08-16 08:00 AM
119 ... 345
tools
  1. Velocitymj's Avatar

    You're free to disagree, but that doesn't automatically make everyone who disagrees with you WRONG, or STUPID. It simply means they disagree.

    You're free to make whatever choices work best for you, and so am I. I choose to use Google services, knowing exactly how they work and how they're funded (and I also use Amazon quite a bit, and they aren't any less shy about collecting data!). You are free to live an all-cash lifestyle and use payphones if you choose, but that doesn't make me wrong for making the choices I have made.
    I never said anyone is wrong or stupid or wasn't entitled to their opinion. So don't put words in my mouth just because you're upset that I don't agree with you.
    This is just a discussion.
    And I will dispute your assertion that most people using Android phones know that Google is actually listening to their phone conversations.
    The end user agreement from companies can exceed 30,000 words and 73% of users admit to not reading them.
    At the end of the day, what you have stated here, is an opinion that implies that you agree with manipulating people to buy products, even though the data miners method is to invade their privacy in any way possible with anything connected to the internet, because in your opinion, (to paraphrase you) they're getting to see what they want to see as opposed to what they don't want to see, as though people want to see ads.
    What you've written reads like you're all for influencing their thinking and getting them to spend money by inundating them with advertisements for something that you call "excellent services", even if it means eavesdropping on their telephone calls (which is what this thread is about).
    I disagree with that.
    I think that manipulating people and invading their privacy to do so is wrong.

    Enjoy your day.

    Posted via CB10
    Last edited by Velocitymj; 10-06-16 at 09:45 PM.
    10-06-16 06:24 PM
  2. TgeekB's Avatar
    I never said anyone is wrong or stupid or wasn't entitled to their opinion.
    But I will dispute your assertion that most people using Android phones know that Google is actually listening to their phone conversations.


    Posted via CB10
    That's because Google's not listening to their phone conversations.
    JeepBB likes this.
    10-06-16 06:32 PM
  3. stevec66's Avatar
    If the Home Land security are monitoring these post s all I can say they must find them amusing. Long live freedom of expression, and Trump for president, HA HA

    Posted via CB10
    10-06-16 06:53 PM
  4. crackbrry fan's Avatar
    That's because Google's not listening to their phone conversations.
    Before you and your buddy continue with the misinformation. Here is a link and the subsequent copy is the actual text for those who can't access the link. This applies to handsets running GP as well.
    .
    https://privateinternetaccess.com/of...rnetaccess.com

    Yesterday, news broke that Google has been stealth downloading audio listeners onto every computer that runs Chrome, and transmits audio data back to Google. Effectively, this means that Google had taken itself the right to listen to every conversation in every room that runs Chrome somewhere, without any kind of consent from the people eavesdropped on. In official statements, Google shrugged off the practice with what amounts to “we can do that”.

    It looked like just another bug report. "When I start Chromium, it downloads something." Followed by strange status information that notably included the lines "Microphone: Yes" and "Audio Capture Allowed: Yes".



    Without consent, Google’s code had downloaded a black box of code that – according to itself – had turned on the microphone and was actively listening to your room.

    A brief explanation of the Open-source / Free-software philosophy is needed here. When you’re installing a version of GNU/Linux like Debian or Ubuntu onto a fresh computer, thousands of really smart people have analyzed every line of human-readable source code before that operating system was built into computer-executable binary code, to make it common and open knowledge what the machine actually does instead of trusting corporate statements on what it’s supposed to be doing. Therefore, you don’t install black boxes onto a Debian or Ubuntu system; you use software repositories that have gone through this source-code audit-then-build process. Maintainers of operating systems like Debian and Ubuntu use many so-called “upstreams” of source code to build the final product.

    Chromium, the open-source version of Google Chrome, had abused its position as trusted upstream to insert lines of source code that bypassed this audit-then-build process, and which downloaded and installed a black box of unverifiable executable code directly onto computers, essentially rendering them compromised. We don’t know and can’t know what this black box does. But we see reports that the microphone has been activated, and that Chromium considers audio capture permitted.

    This was supposedly to enable the “Ok, Google” behavior – that when you say certain words, a search function is activated. Certainly a useful feature. Certainly something that enables eavesdropping of every conversation in the entire room, too.

    Obviously, your own computer isn’t the one to analyze the actual search command. Google’s servers do. Which means that your computer had been stealth configured to send what was being said in your room to somebody else, to a private company in another country, without your consent or knowledge, an audio transmission triggered by… an unknown and unverifiable set of conditions.

    Google had two responses to this. The first was to introduce a practically-undocumented switch to opt out of this behavior, which is not a fix: the default install will still wiretap your room without your consent, unless you opt out, and more importantly, know that you need to opt out, which is nowhere a reasonable requirement. But the second was more of an official statement following technical discussions on Hacker News and other places. That official statement amounted to three parts (paraphrased, of course):

    1) Yes, we’re downloading and installing a wiretapping black-box to your computer. But we’re not actually activating it. We did take advantage of our position as trusted upstream to stealth-insert code into open-source software that installed this black box onto millions of computers, but we would never abuse the same trust in the same way to insert code that activates the eavesdropping-blackbox we already downloaded and installed onto your computer without your consent or knowledge. You can look at the code as it looks right now to see that the code doesn’t do this right now.

    2) Yes, Chromium is bypassing the entire source code auditing process by downloading a pre-built black box onto people’s computers. But that’s not something we care about, really. We’re concerned with building Google Chrome, the product from Google. As part of that, we provide the source code for others to package if they like. Anybody who uses our code for their own purpose takes responsibility for it. When this happens in a Debian installation, it is not Google Chrome’s behavior, this is Debian Chromium’s behavior. It’s Debian’s responsibility entirely.

    3) Yes, we deliberately hid this listening module from the users, but that’s because we consider this behavior to be part of the basic Google Chrome experience. We don’t want to show all modules that we install ourselves.

    If you think this is an excusable and responsible statement, raise your hand now.

    Now, it should be noted that this was Chromium, the open-source version of Chrome. If somebody downloads the Google product Google Chrome, as in the prepackaged binary, you don’t even get a theoretical choice. You’re already downloading a black box from a vendor. In Google Chrome, this is all included from the start.

    This episode highlights the need for hard, not soft, switches to all devices – webcams, microphones – that can be used for surveillance. A software on/off switch for a webcam is no longer enough, a hard shield in front of the lens is required. A software on/off switch for a microphone is no longer enough, a physical switch that breaks its electrical connection is required. That’s how you defend against this in depth.

    Of course, people were quick to downplay the alarm. “It only listens when you say ‘Ok, Google’.” (Ok, so how does it know to start listening just before I’m about to say ‘Ok, Google?’) “It’s no big deal.” (A company stealth installs an audio listener that listens to every room in the world it can, and transmits audio data to the mothership when it encounters an unknown, possibly individually tailored, list of keywords – and it’s no big deal!?) “You can opt out. It’s in the Terms of Service.” (No. Just no. This is not something that is the slightest amount of permissible just because it’s hidden in legalese.) “It’s opt-in. It won’t really listen unless you check that box.” (Perhaps. We don’t know, Google just downloaded a black box onto my computer. And it may not be the same black box as was downloaded onto yours. )

    Early last decade, privacy activists practically yelled and screamed that the NSA’s taps of various points of the Internet and telecom networks had the technical potential for enormous abuse against privacy. Everybody else dismissed those points as basically tinfoilhattery – until the Snowden files came out, and it was revealed that precisely everybody involved had abused their technical capability for invasion of privacy as far as was possible.

    Perhaps it would be wise to not repeat that exact mistake. Nobody, and I really mean nobody, is to be trusted with a technical capability to listen to every room in the world, with listening profiles customizable at the identified-individual level, on the mere basis of “trust us”.

    Privacy remains your own responsibility.

    Posted via CB10
    Last edited by crackbrry fan; 10-06-16 at 07:23 PM.
    Old_Mil likes this.
    10-06-16 07:07 PM
  5. TgeekB's Avatar
    https://exemplore.com/ufos-aliens

    And aliens exist according to this website.
    10-06-16 07:16 PM
  6. crackbrry fan's Avatar
    https://exemplore.com/ufos-aliens

    And aliens exist according to this website.
    Ignorance is bliss.

    Posted via CB10
    10-06-16 07:24 PM
  7. TgeekB's Avatar
    I'm trying to watch news about the hurricane and you keep interrupting me. When i need to be entertained again. I'll let you know.
    10-06-16 07:26 PM
  8. crackbrry fan's Avatar
    I'm trying to watch news about the hurricane and you keep interrupting me. When i need to be entertained again. I'll let you know.
    Hope you are not in harms way. If you are be safe. Tinfoil and aliens aside.

    Posted via CB10
    10-06-16 07:29 PM
  9. TgeekB's Avatar
    Hope you are not in harms way. If you are be safe. Tinfoil and aliens aside.

    Posted via CB10
    No, I live in the north but do have a niece living down there I'm keeping in contact with. Thanks for your concern and the same to you and everyone else out there. Please be safe.

    Thanks for having a little fun with me by the way.
    10-06-16 07:35 PM
  10. crackbrry fan's Avatar
    No, I live in the north but do have a niece living down there I'm keeping in contact with. Thanks for your concern and the same to you and everyone else out there. Please be safe.

    Thanks for having a little fun with me by the way.
    Got a condo down there, family and friends as well . So I know the worry. Thanks. No worries .

    Posted via CB10
    10-06-16 07:46 PM
  11. Velocitymj's Avatar
    That's because Google's not listening to their phone conversations.
    And google wasn't using their google mapping cars to connect to homes and business with open wifi and gather data either....
    Oh...wait! I'm sorry, they did do that, but according them it was just an accident... that happened all over the country..
    10-06-16 09:44 PM
  12. tre10's Avatar
    Before you and your buddy continue with the misinformation. Here is a link and the subsequent copy is the actual text for those who can't access the link. This applies to handsets running GP as well.
    .
    https://privateinternetaccess.com/of...rnetaccess.com

    Yesterday, news broke that Google has been stealth downloading audio listeners onto every computer that runs Chrome, and transmits audio data back to Google. Effectively, this means that Google had taken itself the right to listen to every conversation in every room that runs Chrome somewhere, without any kind of consent from the people eavesdropped on. In official statements, Google shrugged off the practice with what amounts to “we can do that”.

    It looked like just another bug report. "When I start Chromium, it downloads something." Followed by strange status information that notably included the lines "Microphone: Yes" and "Audio Capture Allowed: Yes".



    Without consent, Google’s code had downloaded a black box of code that – according to itself – had turned on the microphone and was actively listening to your room.

    A brief explanation of the Open-source / Free-software philosophy is needed here. When you’re installing a version of GNU/Linux like Debian or Ubuntu onto a fresh computer, thousands of really smart people have analyzed every line of human-readable source code before that operating system was built into computer-executable binary code, to make it common and open knowledge what the machine actually does instead of trusting corporate statements on what it’s supposed to be doing. Therefore, you don’t install black boxes onto a Debian or Ubuntu system; you use software repositories that have gone through this source-code audit-then-build process. Maintainers of operating systems like Debian and Ubuntu use many so-called “upstreams” of source code to build the final product.

    Chromium, the open-source version of Google Chrome, had abused its position as trusted upstream to insert lines of source code that bypassed this audit-then-build process, and which downloaded and installed a black box of unverifiable executable code directly onto computers, essentially rendering them compromised. We don’t know and can’t know what this black box does. But we see reports that the microphone has been activated, and that Chromium considers audio capture permitted.

    This was supposedly to enable the “Ok, Google” behavior – that when you say certain words, a search function is activated. Certainly a useful feature. Certainly something that enables eavesdropping of every conversation in the entire room, too.

    Obviously, your own computer isn’t the one to analyze the actual search command. Google’s servers do. Which means that your computer had been stealth configured to send what was being said in your room to somebody else, to a private company in another country, without your consent or knowledge, an audio transmission triggered by… an unknown and unverifiable set of conditions.

    Google had two responses to this. The first was to introduce a practically-undocumented switch to opt out of this behavior, which is not a fix: the default install will still wiretap your room without your consent, unless you opt out, and more importantly, know that you need to opt out, which is nowhere a reasonable requirement. But the second was more of an official statement following technical discussions on Hacker News and other places. That official statement amounted to three parts (paraphrased, of course):

    1) Yes, we’re downloading and installing a wiretapping black-box to your computer. But we’re not actually activating it. We did take advantage of our position as trusted upstream to stealth-insert code into open-source software that installed this black box onto millions of computers, but we would never abuse the same trust in the same way to insert code that activates the eavesdropping-blackbox we already downloaded and installed onto your computer without your consent or knowledge. You can look at the code as it looks right now to see that the code doesn’t do this right now.

    2) Yes, Chromium is bypassing the entire source code auditing process by downloading a pre-built black box onto people’s computers. But that’s not something we care about, really. We’re concerned with building Google Chrome, the product from Google. As part of that, we provide the source code for others to package if they like. Anybody who uses our code for their own purpose takes responsibility for it. When this happens in a Debian installation, it is not Google Chrome’s behavior, this is Debian Chromium’s behavior. It’s Debian’s responsibility entirely.

    3) Yes, we deliberately hid this listening module from the users, but that’s because we consider this behavior to be part of the basic Google Chrome experience. We don’t want to show all modules that we install ourselves.

    If you think this is an excusable and responsible statement, raise your hand now.

    Now, it should be noted that this was Chromium, the open-source version of Chrome. If somebody downloads the Google product Google Chrome, as in the prepackaged binary, you don’t even get a theoretical choice. You’re already downloading a black box from a vendor. In Google Chrome, this is all included from the start.

    This episode highlights the need for hard, not soft, switches to all devices – webcams, microphones – that can be used for surveillance. A software on/off switch for a webcam is no longer enough, a hard shield in front of the lens is required. A software on/off switch for a microphone is no longer enough, a physical switch that breaks its electrical connection is required. That’s how you defend against this in depth.

    Of course, people were quick to downplay the alarm. “It only listens when you say ‘Ok, Google’.” (Ok, so how does it know to start listening just before I’m about to say ‘Ok, Google?’) “It’s no big deal.” (A company stealth installs an audio listener that listens to every room in the world it can, and transmits audio data to the mothership when it encounters an unknown, possibly individually tailored, list of keywords – and it’s no big deal!?) “You can opt out. It’s in the Terms of Service.” (No. Just no. This is not something that is the slightest amount of permissible just because it’s hidden in legalese.) “It’s opt-in. It won’t really listen unless you check that box.” (Perhaps. We don’t know, Google just downloaded a black box onto my computer. And it may not be the same black box as was downloaded onto yours. )

    Early last decade, privacy activists practically yelled and screamed that the NSA’s taps of various points of the Internet and telecom networks had the technical potential for enormous abuse against privacy. Everybody else dismissed those points as basically tinfoilhattery – until the Snowden files came out, and it was revealed that precisely everybody involved had abused their technical capability for invasion of privacy as far as was possible.

    Perhaps it would be wise to not repeat that exact mistake. Nobody, and I really mean nobody, is to be trusted with a technical capability to listen to every room in the world, with listening profiles customizable at the identified-individual level, on the mere basis of “trust us”.

    Privacy remains your own responsibility.

    Posted via CB10
    Well based on that even if I opt out I'll still get recorded. On Android ok Google can be activated from anywhere in the interface. Based on your info we can assume the phone is always listening as long as it's on. Think of how many androids phones have that feature turned on. It'd take astronomical amounts of effort to avoid be recorded. Android phones are practically everywhere. BTW my "OK Google" from anywhere is on. So I'm technically part of the problem.
    10-07-16 01:45 PM
  13. TgeekB's Avatar
    Well based on that even if I opt out I'll still get recorded. On Android ok Google can be activated from anywhere in the interface. Based on your info we can assume the phone is always listening as long as it's on. Think of how many androids phones have that feature turned on. It'd take astronomical amounts of effort to avoid be recorded. Android phones are practically everywhere. BTW my "OK Google" from anywhere is on. So I'm technically part of the problem.
    Shhh! They're listening....
    10-07-16 03:33 PM
  14. sorinv's Avatar
    https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...-harari-review
    Recommended reading for this thread.
    10-07-16 05:28 PM
  15. spantch101's Avatar
    I understand the principle but I have nothing to hide, so I don't give a fak .

    Posted via the CrackBerry App for Android
    My thoughts as well. I dont feel I'm important enough for them to be wasting resources listening to me.. If they were to be listening to everyone's phones, they would be a great employer with tons of work. I alone have about 20-30 working phones and I randomly charge them up and use out of novelty. They probably think I'm crazy for being on so many streams hahsh

    Posted Via CB10 on my Bedliner sprayed Z30
    10-07-16 07:05 PM
  16. Prem WatsApp's Avatar
    Google is the evil of the world, as stated by Mr Snowden

    Posted via CB10
    Don't be evil ™ ... right..? ;-P


    •   "Chenterprise. We are the future. Resistance is futile. Prepare to BBe... "   •
    10-08-16 01:19 AM
  17. Tsepz_GP's Avatar
    If you're using an Android based phone... Google is listening in to your conversations.

    How to Find Out If Google Has Been Listening to You

    I'm sure that Google will find a work around to anything one does to try and defeat them.

    10/06 Update: I posted this elsewhere here, but I felt that it's really, imo, the reason for this thread:

    Think about it... we used to be able to talk on the phone (land lines) and only law enforcement could listen in and they had to have a judge issue them a warrant to do that.
    But people with Android phones don't have that right to privacy that is protected by law in the U.S..
    Why does Google have a right to do that and law enforcement doesn't?
    More sensationalist rubbish.

    You can turn it off (after having turned it On yourself when setting up the phone).

    I haven't had it On since I showed a mate early last year, and guess what? My recordings are up to that date in 2015.
    TgeekB likes this.
    10-08-16 03:51 AM
  18. TgeekB's Avatar
    More sensationalist rubbish.

    You can turn it off (after having turned it On yourself when setting up the phone).

    I haven't had it On since I showed a mate early last year, and guess what? My recordings are up to that date in 2015.
    It's more fun to elicit panic and sensationalize though.
    Tsepz_GP likes this.
    10-08-16 07:55 AM
  19. Tsepz_GP's Avatar
    It's more fun to elicit panic and sensationalize though.
    This is absolutely true!
    10-08-16 08:00 AM
119 ... 345

Similar Threads

  1. Configuring the Hub to archive emails for Gmail
    By okyoureabeast in forum BlackBerry Priv
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-09-17, 11:07 PM
  2. question about google play service patcher
    By CrackBerry Question in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-01-17, 05:14 AM
  3. Giving my Priv to my sister
    By osbourne one-nil in forum BlackBerry Priv
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 10-09-16, 06:43 AM
  4. Why is Hub+ not displaying notifications?
    By Belbarid in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-07-16, 07:32 AM
  5. Where to buy Passport in New York?
    By Alex Pato in forum BlackBerry Passport
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-05-16, 08:42 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD