Many reports have appeared regarding abuse of your computer's audio / video hardware capability to capture information which is then harvested somewhere else. The latest report is because Google has installed code in its Chrome browser which performs that function. Their defense is the user has the ability to opt in or out of the function. (The Guardian: Google eavesdropping tool installed on computers without permission)
Google's claims are specious as authorization is irrelevant when someone is trying to use software on your computer for a nefarious purpose. When someone has hacked into your computer already, that hacker is hardly likely to ask permission of various utilities before it uses their services.
It's a medium to high probability that NSA, GCHQ, etc have their own hacks for exploiting the hardware in your computer but doesn't open a season on anyone embedding this type of software in your computer. Software to monitor the audio / video of your computer is just about as invasive as your computer can get.
I hear too often 'well, I have nothing to hide' when people are queried about monitoring. That acceptance is almost as disturbing to me as the intrusions. Any reader of sci-fi knows how often this theme comes up in future visions and there hasn't been one yet which came out well from it. This is the same type of passivity which led to the rise of NAZI Germany as people did not realize what was happening until it was too late to stop it.
My offense is they take something without asking. There's nothing to hide here either but that doesn't make it ok for anyone to look any time they feel like it. Fundamental to America from the very earliest days was protection against illegal search but now any Tom, Dick, or Google can do it. NO!
Google admits the software is there and does what privacy advocates say it does. Google does not admit the software can be activated without user consent and apparently they expect people to believe that.
My assessment is the same. Unfortunately, doing anything online without Google getting its paws on you in some fashion is near impossible, these days. They are by far the most intrusive anti-privacy organization that is publicly known. I remember when we were all upset about companies installing root kits when you installed their software. That's child's play compared to what Google manages to accomplish. The consent issue is laughable since virtually all users rubber stamp the acceptance of all terms. The only way to maintain any level of privacy is to simply not have a computer, a phone, a tablet, or any other device that connects to the outside world. Not even current TV models are immune thanks to the popularity of "smart TVs." I don't know where all of this will lead, but I'm quite certain it's not a destination most people will like when we get there.
Google's claims are specious as authorization is irrelevant when someone is trying to use software on your computer for a nefarious purpose. When someone has hacked into your computer already, that hacker is hardly likely to ask permission of various utilities before it uses their services.
It's a medium to high probability that NSA, GCHQ, etc have their own hacks for exploiting the hardware in your computer but doesn't open a season on anyone embedding this type of software in your computer. Software to monitor the audio / video of your computer is just about as invasive as your computer can get.
I hear too often 'well, I have nothing to hide' when people are queried about monitoring. That acceptance is almost as disturbing to me as the intrusions. Any reader of sci-fi knows how often this theme comes up in future visions and there hasn't been one yet which came out well from it. This is the same type of passivity which led to the rise of NAZI Germany as people did not realize what was happening until it was too late to stop it.
One question not at all uncommon in German art, particularly music, of the last thirty years at least is 'why did they let it happen?' There's a perception elsewhere in the world that modern Germans just blew it off but that's not at all true and they ask that question more than anyone else anywhere. That lesson from them generally and Cat in particular is a large part of why I ask it so relentlessly now.
When insidious monitoring software of this nature is embedded in your computer's software, the agent to put it there becomes the tool of those who seek to implant such code for their own nefarious purposes.
That it may require user authorization is irrelevant when no hack will pay any attention to authorization and the hack is made all the easier by the presence of what has, in effect, become hacker code in or near the system kernel. In other words, the hacker's hardest job is already done.
Ronald, apologies if you consider the tag inappropriate but I'm curious if your estimation of this code is the same. (The link will go to Ronald's Facebook profile)
That it may require user authorization is irrelevant when no hack will pay any attention to authorization and the hack is made all the easier by the presence of what has, in effect, become hacker code in or near the system kernel. In other words, the hacker's hardest job is already done.
Ronald, apologies if you consider the tag inappropriate but I'm curious if your estimation of this code is the same. (The link will go to Ronald's Facebook profile)
In the above, you have views from the Left and the Right and neither side is liking the vision. On that basis, this would not be such a bad time for y'all yellowhammers out there to get to doin' some hammering.
(Ed: yellowhammer?)
Don't get insulted too quickly. A yellowhammer is a small yellow bird and its song is possibly part of what inspired Beethoven's Fifth Symphony. There's no joke in it but I find a supreme irony that a tiny little bird can inspire what may well be the greatest piece of music ever written.
So, yah, y'all yellowhammers ... let's hear a bit (i.e. a lot) more hammering. The Fifth is also known as the Victory Symphony so let's see some real victories and Elvis Costello knew best what gives those.
No comments:
Post a Comment