Google is spying on you if you use Chrome

[VMI77]

https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/b ... -in-depth/

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”.

[cb1000rider]

My understanding is that this is part of the functionality in my phone that responds to "OK, Google". IE - voice activation.
It's not terribly surprising that it's common to Chrome, although I don't use it on the PC.

It's what they do or don't do with the data that matters... If the data flows through some NSA thing somewhere, that's a little more problematic.

My dodge has a microphone. It's also natively equipped with cellular. I suppose it's probably possible to activate the mic and broadcast if you had the back end engineering access.

I'm not *yet* throwing away the computers and cars...

Welcome to technology.

Personally, I'd be much more concerned about something like Stinrays, where their use is basically completely secret and law enforcement agencies agree to drop cases if that's what it takes to keep the secret.

[sugar land dave]

Sitting at home on the computer without defenses against tracking cookies and without covering the camera and microphone when not in use?

[video]http://www.youtube.com/embed/NzuXQCTycvg?rel=0[/video]

[mojo84]

While this presents a privacy concerns, the article doesn't explain a key component that needs to be mentioned and it seems to be trying to over exaggerate what is actually going on at this time.

In order for the computer to activate the microphone, one has to open a new tab in Chrome. Once a new tab is opened in Chrome, the user can say "ok Google" and the microphone will activate and the screen will tell the user the computer is listening. I have not heard of any instance that Google uses Chrome to activate the microphone and listen without the user taking definitive steps such as opening a new tab and then saying "ok google". If they do, then I will be more alarmed.

If a user doesn't want to use voice search, one can turn it off in the settings. Hyperbole and partial truths aren't exclusive tactics of the progressive liberals, even the overzealous conspiracy theorist avail themselves of the tactics.

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. )

[VMI77]

My understanding is that this is part of the functionality in my phone that responds to "OK, Google". IE - voice activation.
It's not terribly surprising that it's common to Chrome, although I don't use it on the PC.

It's what they do or don't do with the data that matters... If the data flows through some NSA thing somewhere, that's a little more problematic.

My dodge has a microphone. It's also natively equipped with cellular. I suppose it's probably possible to activate the mic and broadcast if you had the back end engineering access.

I'm not *yet* throwing away the computers and cars...

Welcome to technology.

Personally, I'd be much more concerned about something like Stinrays, where their use is basically completely secret and law enforcement agencies agree to drop cases if that's what it takes to keep the secret.

If it doesn't bother you then use away. But in the first place, everything you put on on the internet flows through an NSA node somewhere. Personally, I don't want Google ease dropping on me any more than I want the government to. I don't trust Google more than I trust the government. What makes you think that a government that subverts your anti-virus software and operates Stingrays won't exploit such an ease dropping feature so conveniently provided by Google? What makes you think any information Google might collect won't be handed over to the government when it asks or demands said information? What makes you think it will be impossible for some rogue employee to spy on people and blackmail them, or simply publish transcripts of conversations on the internet...just like hackers have published nude celebrity photos and NSA analysts have spied on wives and girlfriends? What makes you think hackers can't exploit a feature like this for their own nefarious purposes?

Google was apparently sneaky about doing this and didn't bother to inform the people using it or get their consent. What makes you think a company like that isn't doing or won't do other sneaky things that are worse?

[mojo84]

My understanding is that this is part of the functionality in my phone that responds to "OK, Google". IE - voice activation.
It's not terribly surprising that it's common to Chrome, although I don't use it on the PC.

It's what they do or don't do with the data that matters... If the data flows through some NSA thing somewhere, that's a little more problematic.

My dodge has a microphone. It's also natively equipped with cellular. I suppose it's probably possible to activate the mic and broadcast if you had the back end engineering access.

I'm not *yet* throwing away the computers and cars...

Welcome to technology.

Personally, I'd be much more concerned about something like Stinrays, where their use is basically completely secret and law enforcement agencies agree to drop cases if that's what it takes to keep the secret.

If it doesn't bother you then use away. But in the first place, everything you put on on the internet flows through an NSA node somewhere. Personally, I don't want Google ease dropping on me any more than I want the government to. I don't trust Google more than I trust the government. What makes you think that a government that subverts your anti-virus software and operates Stingrays won't exploit such an ease dropping feature so conveniently provided by Google? What makes you think any information Google might collect won't be handed over to the government when it asks or demands said information? What makes you think it will be impossible for some rogue employee to spy on people and blackmail them, or simply publish transcripts of conversations on the internet...just like hackers have published nude celebrity photos and NSA analysts have spied on wives and girlfriends? What makes you think hackers can't exploit a feature like this for their own nefarious purposes?

Google was apparently sneaky about doing this and didn't bother to inform the people using it or get their consent. What makes you think a company like that isn't doing or won't do other sneaky things that are worse?

What are you doing to keep all these bad things from happening to you? Do you trust Apple, Yahoo, Microsoft, Trend Micro, Kaspersky, any company more? If so, why?

[sugar land dave]

If you knew all the capabilities online and while you are out in public, it would just make your head spin. Some things you just have to accept with a little faith. Not everything can be controlled.

[VMI77]

I have not heard of any instance that Google uses Chrome to activate the microphone and listen without the user taking definitive steps such as opening a new tab and then saying "ok google". If they do, then I will be more alarmed.

And in fact, Google is saying they don't. However, even if they're telling the truth now that may not remain the truth. And even if Google never abuses the capability it doesn't mean it can't be exploited by someone else. The author may be somewhat chicken little in his assessment but the larger point is that we don't really know how the feature can be misused, abused, or exploited. I have an Amazon Fire device that uses voice recognition. I unplug it when not in use. More so out of concern that it will be downloading stuff that eats into my satellite internet DL limit...but still. Windows 8 background downloads hosed our DL limit for over two months before I figured out what was going on. I don't trust any of these companies to act in any interest but their own.

[mojo84]

Even going to church can subject you to privacy issues.

http://motherboard.vice.com/en_ca/read/ ... artup-says" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Dozens of churches in the United States and around the world are using facial recognition software to track their members, according to the company that’s selling them the software to do it.

Moshe Greenshpan is the founder and CEO of Skakash, an Israeli company that aims to provide churches with a program called Churchix to scan everyone who walks through their holy halls. The program was covered in a VentureBeat interview with Greenshpan back in February, and enjoyed a string of recent coverage in European outlets like Der Spiegel and The Times. It sounded wild, so I called Greenshpan to find out more.

But, when I asked Greenshpan in our interview if he could provide the names of some of his clients so that I could speak with them about their use of facial recognition, he was reticent—a theme that would develop throughout our conversation as he refused to confirm numerous details about his operation.

“I can tell you in general that churches also don’t like to be described as privacy invaders,” Greenshpan told me. “Most of them would like to keep this confidential. We try to encourage churches to make Churchix more visible, so it will become like a checkpoint for registration. Of course, so far we haven’t had great success in doing that.”

[mojo84]

I have not heard of any instance that Google uses Chrome to activate the microphone and listen without the user taking definitive steps such as opening a new tab and then saying "ok google". If they do, then I will be more alarmed.

And in fact, Google is saying they don't. However, even if they're telling the truth now that may not remain the truth. And even if Google never abuses the capability it doesn't mean it can't be exploited by someone else. The author may be somewhat chicken little in his assessment but the larger point is that we don't really know how the feature can be misused, abused, or exploited. I have an Amazon Fire device that uses voice recognition. I unplug it when not in use. More so out of concern that it will be downloading stuff that eats into my satellite internet DL limit...but still. Windows 8 background downloads hosed our DL limit for over two months before I figured out what was going on. I don't trust any of these companies to act in any interest but their own.

A good hacker doesn't need Google. As long as one is connected to the internet and has a microphone and or camera on their computer, they are at risk of being seen, heard and recorded.

[VMI77]

My understanding is that this is part of the functionality in my phone that responds to "OK, Google". IE - voice activation.
It's not terribly surprising that it's common to Chrome, although I don't use it on the PC.

It's what they do or don't do with the data that matters... If the data flows through some NSA thing somewhere, that's a little more problematic.

My dodge has a microphone. It's also natively equipped with cellular. I suppose it's probably possible to activate the mic and broadcast if you had the back end engineering access.

I'm not *yet* throwing away the computers and cars...

Welcome to technology.

Personally, I'd be much more concerned about something like Stinrays, where their use is basically completely secret and law enforcement agencies agree to drop cases if that's what it takes to keep the secret.

If it doesn't bother you then use away. But in the first place, everything you put on on the internet flows through an NSA node somewhere. Personally, I don't want Google ease dropping on me any more than I want the government to. I don't trust Google more than I trust the government. What makes you think that a government that subverts your anti-virus software and operates Stingrays won't exploit such an ease dropping feature so conveniently provided by Google? What makes you think any information Google might collect won't be handed over to the government when it asks or demands said information? What makes you think it will be impossible for some rogue employee to spy on people and blackmail them, or simply publish transcripts of conversations on the internet...just like hackers have published nude celebrity photos and NSA analysts have spied on wives and girlfriends? What makes you think hackers can't exploit a feature like this for their own nefarious purposes?

Google was apparently sneaky about doing this and didn't bother to inform the people using it or get their consent. What makes you think a company like that isn't doing or won't do other sneaky things that are worse?

What are you doing to keep all these bad things from happening to you? Do you trust Apple, Yahoo, Microsoft, Trend Micro, Kaspersky, any company more? If so, why?

As I said in my other response, I don't trust any company to act in any interest but their own. Don't really use Yahoo. Don't have any Apple products. I'm stuck with Microsoft and their poor operating system actually cost me money by background downloading that ate up my DL limit. My first step in keeping bad things from happening is to put out as little personal information as possible. I don't have smart phones or social networking accounts like Facebook. But yeah, at some point you have to do certain things to use the internet. The only thing I use Google for is Google Earth because I have to at work. Google records searches so I use Ixquick which says it does not (but yeah, they could be lying). I also sometimes use proxies (though yeah, some could be honey traps). Ixquick has a proxy feature for search results. I use FIrefox for browsing with a number of adds-ons like NoScript, Calomel SSL validation, and SSL proxy.

About all you can do it try to minimize your exposure. As far as government surveillance goes there isn't really much of anything you can do if you're targeted. If you're targeted they're going to get everything so the only recourse would be to stay off the internet.....but that's the least of my worries. For the more generalized surveillance all you can do is minimize exposure.

[VMI77]

I have not heard of any instance that Google uses Chrome to activate the microphone and listen without the user taking definitive steps such as opening a new tab and then saying "ok google". If they do, then I will be more alarmed.

And in fact, Google is saying they don't. However, even if they're telling the truth now that may not remain the truth. And even if Google never abuses the capability it doesn't mean it can't be exploited by someone else. The author may be somewhat chicken little in his assessment but the larger point is that we don't really know how the feature can be misused, abused, or exploited. I have an Amazon Fire device that uses voice recognition. I unplug it when not in use. More so out of concern that it will be downloading stuff that eats into my satellite internet DL limit...but still. Windows 8 background downloads hosed our DL limit for over two months before I figured out what was going on. I don't trust any of these companies to act in any interest but their own.

A good hacker doesn't need Google. As long as one is connected to the internet and has a microphone and or camera on their computer, they are at risk of being seen, heard and recorded.

Saw that Church thing.....but who said anything about a good hacker? There are bad ones out there too. And I don't have a microphone or a camera on my computer. If I have to someday buy a new laptop that does have a camera the first thing I'll do is tape it over with electrical tape and disable the mic. My work computer has a mic but there isn't much I can do about that except try to ensure it's off when it shouldn't be on.

[ScooterSissy]

...
If a user doesn't want to use voice search, one can turn it off in the settings. Hyperbole and partial truths aren't exclusive tactics of the progressive liberals, even the overzealous conspiracy theorist avail themselves of the tactics.

Thank You!

There are lots of privacy concerns when it comes to Google (and just about any other service or service provider that is "free"); but this one is being exaggerated.

Google doesn't care about your conversations - they do care about your searches, and what you're using your computer for (including the handheld computers we all like to call "smart phones"). They sell that aggregated information to businesses. If you don't want that information tracked (and again, it's aggregate, they don't care about you individually), then don't use it the "free" service.

If you want to ensure no one ever uses that information on you personally, go off grid.

[baldeagle]

This is an incredibly biased article. A more reasonably written article portrays a completely different picture. The capability the article is discussing is called speech recognition, and the default setting is that the user must be asked to enable it by the website that wants to utilize it. There is not even an option to automatically enable it or leave it in the enabled position. In order to turn it on without the user's knowledge, an exploit has to be built that fools the user into granting permission without realizing they are doing it. Even then it's only for that website. That's quite a bit different from what the article referenced by the OP claims.

This is Google's response to the claims.

Furthermore, it's possible to completely disable the capability by going to Preferences/Privacy Settings/Content/Media and selecting "Do not allow sites to access your camera and microphone".

This brings up an important point. If you're going to be on the internet, it's important that you familiarize yourself with the tools used to protect your privacy and affirmatively set them the way that makes you the most comfortable. As more and more capability is built in to the web (capabilities that consumers are demanding, BTW), it behooves one to periodically check their settings. A blind person might greatly appreciate the ability to interact with a website using voice recognition. Others might want to disable it completely.

I worked in the security business for 16 years before retiring recently. I can assure you that any time a new capability is introduced into some product, a subset of "journalists" will breathlessly report that the sky is falling. "Researchers" are constantly finding "bugs" in code that are really intended features and then blowing the capability to exploit it completely out of proportion to the threat in an effort to make a name for themselves.

[cb1000rider]

ntly sneaky about doing this and didn't bother to inform the people using it or get their consent. What makes you think a company like that isn't doing or won't do other sneaky things that are worse?

I promise you that what Google does has impacted me quite a bit more than the average person, but I'm getting off topic.

I'm not terribly offended by it because I know how it works. If my phone can't reach Google, then my voice-commands don't work. I knew that the data from my microphone was going to the mothership. My guess is that google could have called this out somewhere - or maybe it was buried in all the pages of legal acceptance when I activated the phone or installed Chrome. I'm not alarmed by an alarmist article that's essentially saying that Google has to process your voice commands to know what to do.

I'm not saying it's good. I'm saying that I'm aware it's there and it's the price I pay for having that type of technology.

Look, I've got a bunch of wireless cameras up at home. Technically those are quite hackable and would invade my privacy a lot more. So I do what I can to secure the network and secure the cameras, but the threat of someone getting access is still there. It's a trade off.

You're right, I CAN chose not to use them.. And I can choose not to use any technology.... Our privacy has certainly gone down as technology advances, but we get things in return. None of this proves that Google is inherently evil. If I was a company that provided free voice-recognition services, I'd architect it exactly the same way. Voice travels to the server instead of staying on the client, that way I can update the voice processing algorithms whenever I want instead of trying to push updates on millions of clients that may not be available...