/tech/ - Technology★

>>901384 (OP)

Stop using google services.

Install GNU/Linux

Use uMatrix

They put so much effort into showing me ads...ads I either block or just don't look at.

Does an ad exist if I don't see it?

>>901384 (OP)

>How?

Are you retarded ?

The software he installed simply listens to the microphone.

And legally it's all described in the EULA that people agree too.

https://trisquel.info/en/forum/chromium-unconditionally-downloads-binary-blob

>chrome has been known to do this for a couple years now, and even proved to be listening when its supposedly shut of

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5D578JmHdU

I trust Google not to do anything with my data that would harm me. Why can't other people see it this way too?

>>901385

Okay anon I know that its second blood for you to mention that but I don't think thread OP doesn't know that.

>>901398

fake news and conspiracy theories tbh

I fucking hate the botnet and I hate every normalfag that carries it around with them. I can't even interact with anybody now without watching what I say because the kikes are listening 24/7.

>>901417

Same. I used to like technology, now I just want to set all my devices on fire.

>>901386

I guess at this point it's wallstreet style.

Nobody sees ads or clicks them, but ads and data are just sold and purchased to make money.

>>901398

>>901402

You're retards. Google wants you dead.

>>901384 (OP)

>chrome

>windows

>google

There are so many botnets, it's hard to tell which one causes it.

>>901425

>2018

>not growing a bushy beard, wearing a baseball cap, and wearing sunglasses

>letting faggots take pictures of you

>being friends with faggots who use facebook

How could you let your life go so wrong, buddy?

>>901446

Laser dazzler hats when?

>>901384 (OP)

>install adware app and give it permission to access microphone

>app recognizes keywords and send your ID to ad networks

>open browser and access site X which is connected to same ad network

>voila

there's also the possibility someone else in his network (mother on smartphone or sister on laptop) searched for dog related stuff before. Also when he clicked on the ads it sent the ad networks a confirmation he was indeed interested on it, which makes more dog related ads to show up

>recording a private conversation without the parties' consent is illegal

>buy phone or install app

>vendor is allowed to record all private conversations that happen near you even if no one involved ever accepted the EULA you accepted and that's not illegal

How

>>901540

>recording a private conversation without the parties' consent is illegal

This is an oversimplification on several fronts.

>vendor is allowed to record all private conversations

Mmm mmm no no no. The vendor isn't recording anything, just like if you used a Sony microcassette recorder, it wouldn't be Sony making the recording. The phone owner is making the recording. He owns the device. He installed the app. He agreed to the EULA, which makes clear that the app records conversations. And he's the one who carries this portable recording device around everywhere, recording people's conversations.

>>901384 (OP)

It's fucking fake you braindead tinfoil heads. You just want it to be real because it matches your bias and affirms your point of view.

>https://hooktube.com/watch?v=SmM9ch_oXA4

Most likely while he was talking about dog toys, someone was searching for them from his phone which was signed into the same google account. I do believe google is a botnet, but this is just ridiculous fear mongering with no proof. Running wireshark would prove that. But I guess that's too hard for /tech/ :^)

>>901558

>And he's the one who carries this portable recording device around everywhere, recording people's conversations.

Nice diffusion of responsibility there.

>>901417

>>901423

Don't you think it is cute when the majority of Mac users has taped over the webcam? It's like spraying a dog turd with deodorant.

>The phone owner is making the recording

Ehm no. The "phone with the Google software" is making the recordings "without the knowledge or explicit consent of the people being recorded".

Your analogy fails when you consider that when you use a taperecorder the recording starts with an action required by a user. In our example the software decides what gets recorded and used, therefor Google is making the recordings.

Also in countries that still respect your freedoms, an EULA isn't above the law and privacy laws would protect a user even when it is a mindless botnet using drone.

>>901580

in reply to >>901558

>>901580

>by clicking "I accept", you allow the device to 1) record anything anywhere 2) spontaneously explode upon detecting a target of interest in the vicinity

Some people are like

>Lel not illegal because user clicked "I accept"

>>901580

>Your analogy fails when you consider that when you use a taperecorder the recording starts with an action required by a user.

It doesn't fail at all. The user took an action: installing the app, agreeing to the EULA, and carrying the recording device (i.e. phone) around people who are having private conversations.

It's no different than setting the aforementioned Sony microcassette recorder to start recording in "voice activated" mode. No further button presses are required, merely people talking. And yet you can't blame Sony for building in the feature: the owner of the device is the one responsible.

>EULA isn't above the law

Nobody is suggesting that it is. The point is that by agreeing to the EULA, the phone owner is indicating his understanding that his phone is being converted into a recording device. It's not the company's fault if he doesn't read the EULA, any more than I can get out of paying my auto loan by saying "I didn't actually read the loan papers before I signed them, so I don't have to pay." It's also not the company's fault if the phone owner takes his recording device, which he has acknowledged he understands is a recording device, and records people's conversations with it, and sends those conversations via his data plan or a WiFi connection he has chosen to connect to, to the company. The phone owner chooses to turn his phone into a recording device and to send recordings to the company. The company has no control over what the phone owner does with his phone after that. He may leave it in his house. Or, he may choose to take it to where it will record other people's conversations. If those recordings are illegal, it is the phone owner who should be held responsible: he knowingly converted his phone into a listening device and knowingly took it to where other people were having private conversations.

>>901601

Nice strawman. A better example would be this: a guy buys a knife. He stabs someone to death with the knife. He argues that the knife manufacturer should be held responsible for the murder because they knew their product could have been used for a murder.

>>901628

Are you retarded? The lemmings don't know about the botnet and will only say "duh, we knew" when what we're saying for years becomes mainstream. While they know a knife can be used to kill someone.

At this point, you're just being disingenuous.

>>901628

Daily reminder that ancapistan's ground state is one corporation owning everything and ruling over all

>>901632

>The lemmings don't know about the botnet

Correct. But they signed a legal document saying they did. And that answers the original question about why companies get away with the illegal recordings made with their apps or devices. The user signed--courts have found that "shrinkwrap" licenses are valid and agreeing to them is the equivalent of signing--an agreement stating that he was choosing to turn his device into a recorder. The user then took his recorder into places where it would record private conversations. It really is that simple. If you disagree, feel free to bring suit against the relevant app or device makers the next time someone is in your vicinity with a botnet phone. Then enjoy being ground into a fine dust by a legion of Jew lawyers.

>>901628

>"Nice strawman"

>provides an actual strawman

It's more like buying a spoon, putting it in a drawer and then finding out later that the spoon spontaneously stabbed someone to death.

A telephone's main purpose is to allow you to talk to other people, yet we keep allowing all sorts of perversion of its purpose because companies aren't satisfied that you paid hundreds to get a communication device, the manufacturer still has to coerce it into a surveillance device and ad space.

Companies will fork loads of cash to put adds on TV, radio, outdoors, yet when it comes to putting it on your phone somehow you don't get any of that money.

Any judge who ever gets asked to rule over an EULA should just glance at it and say "that's retarded, the user obviously just wants a chat app, no reasonable user would install this app had it been correctly named ACME Widespread Surveillance Privacy Rapist, ACME's business is thus ruled 'fake and gay' and they're therefore expected to pay a fine, as well as DELET THIS data they collected."

>>901637

>A telephone's main purpose is to allow you to talk to other people,

Indeed. But we're not talking about telephones, we're talking about smartphones. And using their smartphones like a telephone is a tiny fraction of the device's usage for almost all smartphone owners.

>yet we keep allowing all sorts of perversion of its purpose

>yet we keep allowing

>we

Let your own words sink in for a moment.

>Any judge who ever gets asked to rule over an EULA should just glance at it and say "that's retarded, the user obviously just wants a chat app, no reasonable user would install this app had it been correctly named ACME Widespread Surveillance Privacy Rapist, ACME's business is thus ruled 'fake and gay' and they're therefore expected to pay a fine, as well as DELET THIS data they collected."

Yes, a judge should do that. But there are a lot of things that should happen, but don't, and which should be, but aren't. Unfortunately, we don't live in the Land of Should. We live in reality.

Welcome!

>>901646

Let me get this right: you concede that:

* Companies are lying to the customer.

* They're inserting functionality for their own benefit that, if deliberately activated by the user in a device he fully controlled, would in some of the contexts the product does it on its own would have constituted illegal behavior.

* The law should put a stop to this shit.

BUT

* you didn't like my choice of words

I admit, it's really tough arguing with such a refined mind

Isn't that Windows 10 doing that, not Google?

He had the browser closed when talking about the topic, and the adverts were on non-Google pages.

>>901628

OK you are grasping for straws here just for the sake of keeping the discussion going here.

But I will still dignify your response with an answer.

>The user took an action: installing the app, agreeing to the EULA, and carrying the recording device (i.e. phone) around people who are having private conversations

According to law in civilized countries, any consequence of an action taken where people can not know the consequences or risks of those actions beforehand makes them not liable for those consequences. For example if you are speeding with a car and kill someone, you will be held responsible for the killing of that person because you know beforehand that speeding is a risk with possible deadly accidents as a consequence.

If you like gardening and plant pretty flowers and your neighbors dog ate a flower and died because it was poisonous but there wasn't any warning the flowers are poisonous on the packet of the seeds you bought, you are not liable.

Now here comes the EULA.

This is deliberately made unreadable for 99 percent of the normal human beings. Because the companies hope this will discourage people of taking the companies to court when legal issues arise.

When you install an app to make conversations with your friends, you do not have the will to record all your private conversations to be used for commercial activities (in the most positive of scenarios, we are going to keep this simple for the sake of the argument). Therefor any judge will rule the use of private recordings made without the consent of the users but covered under the EULA unlawful for this reason and I repeat ""IN CIVILIZED COUNTRIES WHERE COMPANIES DONT MANIPULATE JUSTICE"". This last bit rules out the America of course.

So to come back to your analogy. When you use a recorder with automated functions to record with "voice activated mode" you have the explicit will to record conversations. When you use Google apps and aren't a Google employee, you don't.

So, in civilized countries Google has the lawful obligation to inform users beforehand of all the consequences of using their apps ""IN NORMAL HUMAN SPEAK"". Deliberately misleading users with jargon or an EULA that takes hours to read are considered inadequate to inform people of the consequences of the use of the product in this context.

Now please give me more money than you earn with your shilling for the big bad botnet.

>>901384 (OP)

OH no it's something that's been going on for years. Scary.

>>901384 (OP)

>he has a mic plugged into his proprietary OS

lol

>>901385

>>901763

>>901729

>>901685

>>901438

>>901386

>>901387

>all of these retards swallowing the obvious fake

The only thing this is conclusive proof of is that /tech/ is full of tech-illiterate libretards with no concept of the real world.

>>901636

>but they signed a legal document

If you sign a legal document which says you have to give up your firstborn in exchange for cable service, such a contract would be shot down faster than a tumblr lard whale rolls down the stairs.

Just because some shit is written on a document does not make it valid. Why the fuck do you think severability clauses are a thing?

>>901696

>civilized countries

>civilized countries

>civilized countries

>civilized countries

>civilized countries

>>>/leftypol/ and stay there

>>901567

A denial followed by a counterclaim is not a refutation.

>>901668

>Let me get this right: you concede that:

>Companies are lying to the customer.

No. They don't handhold brainlets and painstakingly connect all the dots for them, but they don't lie, either.

>They're inserting functionality for their own benefit that, if deliberately activated by the user in a device he fully controlled, would in some of the contexts the product does it on its own would have constituted illegal behavior.

I'm not even sure what this sentence means. But, like a company that sells gasoline, even though gasoline can be used for arson, or a company that sells guns, even though guns can be used for murder, phone/app makers sell something that can be used for illegal activity. That doesn't make them responsible for that illegal activity that the phone owner chooses to engage in, any more than Texaco is responsible if somebody decides to burn down a building or Remington is responsible if some guy ventilates his cheating wife.

>The law should put a stop to this shit.

Yes, Congress should pass laws to prevent companies from including this kind of functionality in their devices. But they probably won't.

>BUT

>you didn't like my choice of words

That's not it. See above.

>>901784

>If you sign a legal document which says you have to give up your firstborn in exchange for cable service,

That's a bad analogy. There's nothing so egregious or unenforceable in any EULA I'm familiar with.

>>901776

You're sure showing us that you know better.

>>901828

That's a good one, remember that starbucks picture of the facial recognition software bugging out? Facebooks main problem with this idea would be getting merchants to give up ownership of the data, they would need to be (((compensated))) for valuable goyim statistics.

Capped because it's going to happen.

>>901840

>That's a good one, remember that starbucks picture of the facial recognition software bugging out?

Rember that pizzeria in sweden (or some country like that) who's software made analytic out of people's face ?

Why all the jewish references ITT?

>>901846

They own the companies which are spying on us.

>>901858

Well to be fair, I don't think it's right to blame the Jewish people who own the companies. What the employees decide to do does not reflect on the owners of that company.

"ADONAI said to Kayin, "Where is Hevel your brother?" And he replied, "I don't know; am I my brother's keeper?" 4:9 בְּרֵאשִׁית

Are they their brothers' keepers?

>>901846

I just use them (jew references) because it fits this crap so well, you don't have to be a jew to act like one.

>>901863

I am not familiar with this religious text, but what employees do on behalf of their company should absolutely reflect on their leadership. But if by owners you mean shareholders then I guess you are right.

>>901869

That's what Cain said to the Lord after killing Abel

>>901787

I am a real national socialist and I stay away from all /pol/ boards because I don't enjoy shitposting like yours.

>>901875

So is this faggot's >>901863 quote supposed to be some sort of irony? Because after Cain used that excuse God cursed him to be a vegabond who would be avenged sevenfold if someone killed him.

>>901863

>Well to be fair, I don't think it's right to blame the Jewish people who own the companies. What the employees decide to do does not reflect on the owners of that company.

If you are going to use a jewish interpretation of authority, actually yes it would reflect on the leadership because who you serve is who you worship and by extension glorify. As the jews serve and worship God that is who they are supposed to be glorifying. But instead (((they))) serve and worship the devil both in reality and in their minds ala pizzagate/epestien island type shit.

>>901384 (OP)

OP yes that is real. Another way jewgle botnets you is based off your mood. Did you just send a angry email and some kike at jewgle wants you to feel happy? You get a better browsing experience ala jewgle capcha and better AD's for things like drugs. Did you just use linux and piss off the kikes at jewgel by writing something truthful about them? Now you get 10 minute long ads which you should be blocking anyways and have to enter jewgle recapcha three times correctly in a row.

>>901858

So it would be okay if a white men owned the companies fucking over the people, got it /pol/

>>901889

>So is this faggot's >>901863 quote supposed to be some sort of irony?

I think he's just pretending to be retarded

>>901818

Come on, the video is obvious as fuck

>chrome is closed while he talks about dog toys

>speech recognition being this elaborate and sensible, all the while filtering all of the non-relevant keywords on an unknown basis

>the ads are all full on 100% dog toys

>implying an algorithm like this wouldn't have a fuckton of false positives

>his fake reaction

>something on this scale wouldn't have been noticed elsewhere and earlier

I have no doubt about google doing fucked up shit, but how would this even work? As other anons have said the fact that this is false is also easily verifiable with a packet sniffer.

I assume that most anons who i replied to didn't even watch the video and just blindly went along with it because it fits their worldview. /tech/ is a terrible board tbh

>>901889

>OP yes that is real.

No it isn't you dumb neckbeard fuck

>>901846

>please don't be racist on my Discord :(

>>901425

>>901446

it's the faggot boomer family you have to worry about

<hey anon i think you look cute in this chinese produced hat i bought for you (snaps and loads to facebook) i shared with all my friends! you look so handsome! :/\) :/\) :/\) :/\) :/\) :/\) :/\) :/\) :/\)

>>901567

>rigor

>not showing is os

>not showing is browser

>not showing the source code of is scripts

>not sharing the data he accumulated

Lol what a faggot if he showed rigor he would be moire transparent this nigger is a biased as he says the other is.

FAKE NEWS.

>but this is just ridiculous fear mongering with no proof

Proof as been dog pilling against google. I don't care if it's true or not anymore I already made my mind years ago.

https://www.wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/

>>901939

>>chrome is closed while he talks about dog toys

YOU ILLITERATE NIGGER

Go in the options of chrome and you'll discover that chrome doesn't close when you close it ==IT RUNS IN BACKGROUND==

>the ads are all full on 100% dog toys

Dam the browser just got installed for test purpose and it's literally a virgin I wonder why it shows only a single targeted ad.

>speech recognition being this elaborate and sensible, all the while filtering all of the non-relevant keywords on an unknown basis

>implying an algorithm like this wouldn't have a fuckton of false positives

Google is funded by the CIA/NSA

>something on this scale wouldn't have been noticed elsewhere and earlier

Normies.

Please fuck off cia nigger and go throw yourself under a bus.

>>901939

>but how would this even work

Stop being such a faggots. It's a computer everything is possible.

>As other anons have said the fact that this is false is also easily verifiable with a packet sniffer.

Not necessarily if the data is encrypted we wouldn't know.

>>901776

Why am I retarded for not buying a machine with Windows 10 on it, paying for internet, plugging it in, and plugging a mic in it? I don't even know or care what this thread's about, I just came here to laugh at people who plug microphones into the internet for no reason.

>>901776

And it sounds as if you are some wageslave pleb who thinks it's impossible to get a job without carrying a personal botnet device on you at all times, and that this is the "real word". jej

>>901628

>Nobody is suggesting that it is. The point is that by agreeing to the EULA, the phone owner is indicating his understanding that his phone is being converted into a recording device

Stopped reading there. No normal human reads EULAs, nor will they ever, not to mention EULA isn't even enforcable in lots of places. The idea that someone should have to read a huge contract every time they install some 5KB of software, is dumb fucktarded. That said I just simply don't use botnet software because it's trash in the first place.

>>902055

>No normal human reads EULAs

Because I'm not made of flesh and blood ?

>not to mention EULA isn't even enforcable in lots of places

Dam it's maybe not enforceable but technically these people are still getting rekt.

>The idea that someone should have to read a huge contract every time they install some 5KB of software

Did you read the constitution ?

Do you know your legal rights in your state ?

Did you buy a house or a car recently ?

Do you have lands with trees near a road ?

Maybe you should read/know your state laws.

> is dumb fucktarded

>it's dumb to read

Yes people have to read to know what they are doing.

>>902055

>the average piece of software in $CURRENT_YEAR is 5KB

anon, I've got something to tell you

>>902055

That's your own problem if you agree to use the software then complain that it's doing something that you don't like. If you actually read the EULA properly, then you should have erased the software because you don't like what it's doing.

>>902194

oh no i was just saying EULA can't force you legally to do something. maybe i'm off topic

>>902067

>law does some retarded bullshit that no normal person would expect

>shoot police when they come to your door

>or

>go make story to the news

etc. problem solved

>>902174

not even browser addons are as lightweight ffs

>>902040

>Google is funded by the CIA/NSA

Not that OP isn't possible, but I really wish people would stop conflating "receiving government funding" with "being owned by the government." That kind of shit muddies the waters.

>>904517

You so smart

tell me where google got their from money then ?

because they where not a stock company and selling ads for a long time

You think building data centers across the globe is cheap ?

>>902642

> there is no process running when you close it

> There is also nothing about it in the options

WEW

>Click on the Chrome menu (or press Alt+E)

>Select Settings

>Click on the link titled ‘Show advanced settings‘

>Under the section headed ‘System‘ untick the box next to “Continue running background apps when Google Chrome is closed”

http://www.omgchrome.com/stop-chrome-running-in-background-windows/

https://lifehacker.com/stop-chrome-from-running-in-the-background-after-you-c-1610071987

https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/chromium-dev/0rKJn87f8_0

> You can also 100% verify all of this by MitM-ing your own machine

No not everything, when you allow a software to execute itself it can do anything, this was proven after people tried to understand how windows 10 worked on the network they tried everything possible to block on the OS the router they used indicated that packets were going trough while on the OS nothing appeared.

Best way to detect if there's activity on the network when you use non-free software is to sniff packets externally via a router (or maybe VM sandbox).

>Believe it or not there are people who know more about computers than you

No shit.

>Get a packet sniffer faggot.

Implying I don't know how to use whireshark or openWRT.

>>902642

>You would still see the massive traffic

So you mean that voice transformed in clear txt need more than 5kpbs ?

> and it being constant

For voice yes.

>and even when the browser is closed

Google Chrome doesn't close.

>>901384 (OP)

pls somefag gas the BO for not allowing embeds on this board

>>901866

Nice reaction image bro

>>901384 (OP)

>OP makes thread

>No effort in it

lel

>>901384 (OP)

The guy is using Windows 10, which is known to do that.

Maybe there's a large-scale collaboration.

>>904538

I'm looking at Sysinternals TCPView now, there's no port that Chrome opened that remained open after I closed it. To cite the source you provided

>Whether this happens or not depends on the sort of applications and extensions you have installed in Chrome. Some of these will “ask” the browser to stay awake so that they can continue to function; e.g., to deliver notifications of new e-mail messages or keep an active IRC chat alive.

>when you allow a software to execute itself it can do anything

You are right in some ways, but that's malware you're talking about. Microsoft made their own OS, and they can do whatever they want. If they want to sneak packets by you, they can. But it's not really a feature an operating system gives to programmers, you would have to modify the kernel if you were to do the same.

Now imagine if Google really did resort to malware tactics. Not just any malware, a fucking kernel rootkit. Do you know how harmful this would be for them? There is no way in hell they're hiding their traffic. Why would they even do this when they can stalk you on the go over the phone? They might do this in Fuchsia, but not in someone else's operating system. They won't modify your kernel, there's lines you just don't cross, lines over which things get amoral even for a company who's sole purpose is collecting your private data.

>>901398

Google is IQT=CIA. Forget them listening for machine learning and advertising, they censor the internet and lie about it. Once you're busted lying you can't be trusted.

>>901892

Thanks for admitting that you Jews aren't white.