Acknowledged; I know it's a trade-off. However, TLAs just tap the backbone and take everything upstream anyway. If I were ever a true target, there wouldn't be much I could do. ---------- On June 21, 2015 6:28:20 PM Travis Biehn <tbiehn@gmail.com> wrote:

Hosts that dont behave like all the other swans end up looking like ugly ducklings ;)

On Sun, Jun 21, 2015, 9:13 PM Shelley <shelley@misanthropia.org> wrote:

...

On June 21, 2015 3:25:07 PM Travis Biehn <tbiehn@gmail.com> wrote:

...

*Cough* AFAIK if 'OK google' works anything like on Android (and it should) it locally processes for the trigger phrase, then provides both audio and visual queues its recording your voice. They aren't constantly recording everything you say and uploading it.

It's not exactly the 1984 two-way A/V system its made out to be. Inspect the source for yourself rather than relying on fantastical reporting.

Google's products and services are not free, I don't find it surprising that they datamine voice, they've been offering 'free' PBX systems for years in exchange for all voice traffic that transits through it - directly using this to train voice recognition along with YouTube videos and so on.

Anything on your machine can be tapping you. Your attackers don't need to bake it into the browser - doing so would be idiotic. Your attackers can piggy on updates, TAO in, use an exploit or simply bug you. It's way easier to pop a 10$ bug in the room rather than risking burning some 0day worth infinitely more on you.

That's why I root and gut my android devices of bloatware and everything google (as much as is technologically possible), and block access to google/failbook etc. tracking BS in my hosts file (all those idiotic 'like' and 'share' buttons too. Pages load much quicker.)

I side load everything and stick to FOSS. I've disabled voice search, and nothing uses data or accesses the net without my knowledge. It's certainly no blackphone, but it's about as secure as any civilian 24/7 tracking device can be and meets my needs.

Also, it's easy to run debian on most devices, but there's always CM if someone prefers.

-S

...

On Sun, Jun 21, 2015, 5:46 PM Kurt Buff <kurt.buff@gmail.com> wrote:

...

That's pretty easy. Fire up wireshark, look for packets heading to google-owned addresses.

Kill off processes one by one until you see those packets stop.

You have found your culprit.

Kurt

On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Tim Beelen <tim@diffalt.com> wrote:

...

How do I find out what program is listening to my microphone?

On 6/21/2015 4:55 PM, Shelley wrote:

...

---------- On June 21, 2015 1:14:32 PM Seth <list@sysfu.com> wrote:

> from > >

https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2015/06/google-chrome-listening-i...

...

...

...

...

...

> > > Posted on June 18, 2015 by Rick Falkvinge > > Google Chrome Listening In To Your Room Shows The Importance Of Privacy > Defense In Depth

Wow, this is exactly the kind of bullshit- and bullshit response- I'd expect from this duplicitous NSA asset.

I keep a seldom-used, older version of chromium on one of my debian laptops so I'll check for this. My webcam and microphone are physically disconnected anyway, but I still want to see if their spyware has infected my system. Fuckers.

Thanks for posting this; I've been out of the news loop for a couple of days.

-S

> > 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". > > chrome-voicesearch > > 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. > > Rick Falkvinge > ABOUT RICK FALKVINGE > Rick is the founder of the first Pirate Party and is a political > evangelist, traveling around Europe and the world to talk and write about > ideas of a sensible information policy. He has a tech entrepreneur > background and loves whisky. Read more of his articles on his website. > > Twitter |More Posts (91) >