Microphone Botnet

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.

You're retards. Google wants you dead.

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

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

Laser dazzler hats when?

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

How

This is an oversimplification on several fronts.

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.

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.
>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 Zig Forums :^)

Nice diffusion of responsibility there.

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.

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.

in reply to

Some people are like

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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."

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.

Let your own words sink in for a moment.

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!

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.

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.
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.

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

lol

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

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?

>>>Zig Forums and stay there

A denial followed by a counterclaim is not a refutation.

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

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.

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

That's not it. See above.

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

You're sure showing us that you know better.

Facebook should up its game and provide a free live webcam "service" for businesses under the guise of letting customers see how busy the stores are and how it looks inside, but it's actually for tracking everyone including people who think they're off the grid.

Attached: Ce8bFEb.jpg (2433x3048, 486.81K)

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.

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?

They own the companies which are spying on us.

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?

This is the worst attempt at exegesis I have seen in my life

Attached: smug pope.jpg (235x300, 20.89K)

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.

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.

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

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

So is this faggot's 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.

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.

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.

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

I think he's just pretending to be retarded

Come on, the video is obvious as fuck
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. Zig Forums is a terrible board tbh

No it isn't you dumb neckbeard fuck

...

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

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.
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.
wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/

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==

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.

Google is funded by the CIA/NSA

Normies.

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

Stop being such a faggots. It's a computer everything is possible.
Not necessarily if the data is encrypted we wouldn't know.

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.

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

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.

Because I'm not made of flesh and blood ?
Dam it's maybe not enforceable but technically these people are still getting rekt.

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

user, I've got something to tell you

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.

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

etc. problem solved

please leave
No it doesn't, there is no process running when you close it, you can check that. There is also nothing about it in the options. You can also 100% verify all of this by MitM-ing your own machine. Believe it or not there are people who know more about computers than you. This discussion is moot, the facts are there for everyone to verify. Get a packet sniffer faggot.

lmaoing at your life fam
You would still see the massive traffic, and it being constant, and even when the browser is closed.

You're retarded for believing the OP, not for any of that.
Where did i say that google is good, or that i even have an android phone?

Attached: 1f8e8ef1d9e0ba3206865fac86ad2bd73ce9638dae2a6d49e2652a1176c036b6.png (237x361, 66.15K)

not even browser addons are as lightweight ffs

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.

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 ?

WEW
omgchrome.com/stop-chrome-running-in-background-windows/
lifehacker.com/stop-chrome-from-running-in-the-background-after-you-c-1610071987
groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/chromium-dev/0rKJn87f8_0
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).
No shit.
Implying I don't know how to use whireshark or openWRT.

So you mean that voice transformed in clear txt need more than 5kpbs ?
For voice yes.
Google Chrome doesn't close.

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

Nice reaction image bro

lel

The guy is using Windows 10, which is known to do that.
Maybe there's a large-scale collaboration.

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

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.

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.

Thanks for admitting that you Jews aren't white.