/tech/ - Technology

Brought to you by archive.org

Posting mode: Reply

Check to confirm you're not a robot
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Password
Drawing x size canvas
File(s)

Remember to follow the rules

Max file size: 350.00 MB

Max files: 5

Max message length: 4096

Manage Board | Moderate Thread

Return | Catalog | Bottom

Expand All Images


Instagram is listening to you Anonymous 08/26/2017 (Sat) 21:44:37 [Preview] No. 10897
https://lobste.rs/s/smmjku/instagram_is_l
istening_you_scary

Interesting. I've noticed this too when I see a friend connect to his facebook while we are working. Sometimes I talk about a random subject and minutes later facebook shows an ad about this uncorrelated data.
I don't think they are actually using microphone, but I think it's almost certain that they correlate the data/metadata about the users with such precision, at the point to build a oracle sybil ad system.
Can anyone here understand how this is very dangerous? They can control everything using this.


Anonymous 08/26/2017 (Sat) 22:02:14 [Preview] No. 10898 del
>>10897
This isn't new to many of us.

Laptop microphones and cameras are major security risks, and I and presumably many others have physically disconnected the camera and microphone from the computer motherboard and removed them completely. Proper security goes far beyond ones hardware and software and includes how you act and what you say in real life activities, always act as if you are always being watched and listened to, because what you say CAN and WILL be used against you. I don't discuss important topics when I notice a phone or electronic device around, because the possibility that it is listening is VERY REAL. My friends do not refer to me by my real name, nicknames/codenames are a large step towards full anonymity.

Yet another eerie fact is sometimes my family members phone will randomly activate siri (An application that recognizes speech for those who are too lazy or occupied to type) and will send us to random google searches...


Anonymous 08/26/2017 (Sat) 23:37:24 [Preview] No. 10899 del
When the fuck will lobsters implement rss feeds where I can filter by number of upbotes.


Anonymous 08/27/2017 (Sun) 00:01:06 [Preview] No. 10900 del
>>10897

>oracle sybil ad system

kek. An "oracle sybil ad system", huh? Ooooooh! Scary!

>Can anyone here understand how this is very dangerous? They can control everything using this.

Uh huh. "They" can control "everything" using "this."


Anonymous 08/27/2017 (Sun) 01:15:48 [Preview] No. 10902 del
>>10897
>Can anyone here understand how this is very dangerous?
Oh, I can understand alright, even more dangerous than that homeless guy down the street. Sends chills down my skellington if you know what I mean.

>They can control everything using this.
I am afraid they are already controlling everything, only solution now is to go back to watching the television and eating doritos.


Anonymous 08/27/2017 (Sun) 01:20:25 [Preview] No. 10903 del
>>10902
Pro tip: don't try trolling here. It will not work with us.


Anonymous 08/27/2017 (Sun) 02:08:47 [Preview] No. 10906 del


Anonymous 08/27/2017 (Sun) 03:11:19 [Preview] No. 10907 del
>>10903
I was mocking the OP's failure to realize that many of us are aware of this method of spying and data-collection, and the vagueness and generalization of the second statement I responded to.


Anonymous 08/28/2017 (Mon) 17:05:43 [Preview] No. 10920 del
>>10897
The article proves nothing, though. Maybe some of his friends (with whom he is friends in social media) searched/talked for this product and that's enough for the (graph based) algorithm to link it to him. It uses approximate information from your friends. It knows who are your closest friends by ranking them based on how frequently you interact with them so even if you share nothing, it can still link some information about you. Solution is: get rid of you botnet media accounts and your friends


Anonymous 08/28/2017 (Mon) 19:00:08 [Preview] No. 10922 del
>>10920

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! The oracle sybil ad system is omnipotent! It's fucking your gf RIGHT NOW!

j/k We all know you don't have a gf.


Anonymous 08/28/2017 (Mon) 19:04:43 [Preview] No. 10923 del
>>10922
Oh, that's why my right hand was itching lately


Anonymous 08/31/2017 (Thu) 03:24:04 [Preview] No. 10945 del
>proprietary software could be doing <nefarious thing> all along!
no shiiiiiiiiiiit


Anonymous 09/02/2017 (Sat) 17:16:13 [Preview] No. 10994 del
>>10897
why does this guy give mic access to instagram? also why is the instragram "app" more than a few KLOC? it's literally an image browser with comments on a centralized server


Anonymous 09/02/2017 (Sat) 17:25:22 [Preview] No. 10995 del
>>10994
>why does this guy give mic access to instagram?
Because that's what 99% of the normies is doing.
>also why is the instragram "app" more than a few KLOC?
That's the point of the article.
Even if you get all the libs (libjpeg, libpng, libvpx, libsvg, etc), put tons of analytics and geolocation code, an interface for the devices, such as camera controls (with all the fancy filters), even with it all, the size of this instagram client is absolutely out of normal. And we are not even considering that facebook is heavily investing on loss data compression (ZStandard, for example).
Someone should do reverse engineering on this shit.


Anonymous 09/02/2017 (Sat) 23:57:50 [Preview] No. 11005 del
>>10994

>why does this guy give mic access to instagram?

He says he's on an iPhone 7. Does the version of iOS he's running even have fine-grained permission controls? Android does, starting with 7 (I think), but I don't know anything about iOS.

If it does, he presumably uses the feature(s) that require(s) the mic.

>also why is the instragram "app" more than a few KLOC?

We don't know how many lines of code it contains. It's closed source.

>it's literally an image browser with comments on a centralized server

It's literally not. You're only looking at it from a consumption standpoint.

sage because the fucking Frenchy who did the write-up has no fucking idea what he's talking about (as the comments at lobste.rs make clear), and this should never have been posted here in the first place.


Anonymous 09/03/2017 (Sun) 18:33:31 [Preview] No. 11014 del
>>10995
>>why does this guy give mic access to instagram?
>Because that's what 99% of the normies is doing.
nevermind, i forgot instagram has videos. i guess you can record yourself and upload a video. they could easily make it so programs only get mic/camera access when they need it, but who really cares? phone security is just completely broken in the first place
>Someone should do reverse engineering on this shit.
i doubt it's hard. dunno what hipsters use these days but back when apple crap used objective C it was especially easy because method names are put all over the source, similar to Java or C# but probably not as much info. AFAIK most phone crap doesn't use heavy obfuscation/protection stuff.
>>11005
>Does the version of iOS he's running even have fine-grained permission controls?
he has a screenshot showing that instagram has mic access granted
>>also why is the instragram "app" more than a few KLOC?
>We don't know how many lines of code it contains. It's closed source.
given from what they said it's obviously more than a few KLOC
>You're only looking at it from a consumption standpoint.
the client is only for "consumption". the server side shit is on the server. of course they probably use an embedded web browser instead of writing some real software, causing all sorts of complications. inb4 "hurr durr an instragram client is a non-trivial application"


Anonymous 09/03/2017 (Sun) 18:56:52 [Preview] No. 11016 del
>>11014

>the client is only for "consumption"

No, it's not, you insipid dildo. Repeating your incorrect statement isn't going to make it true.

The Instagram app allows users to manipulate and upload photos and videos. Therefore, it's not just an image viewer that reads comments from a central server, as you incorrectly stated. Editing and sharing content means the app is not solely for consumption, and the extra functionality requires extra code.

Whether you think that functionality is good or necessary has no bearing on whether it exists.


Anonymous 09/04/2017 (Mon) 02:41:16 [Preview] No. 11020 del
>>11016
i wasn't sure whether your "consumption" meant
1. "consumer", as in: the user
2. viewing images
in any case, image browsing, viewing, uploading, editing have all been done a thousand times and i doubt instagram does anything that requires a lot of code. they should probably just be using a library or calling another program for that shit anyway, and probably are. instagram's "app" should just be some simple CRUD, and same with the 500000 other stupid "apps" like it.


Anonymous 09/07/2017 (Thu) 22:52:23 [Preview] No. 11042 del
One of the comments points to Facebook's official response at https://newsroom.fb.com/news/h/facebook-does-not-use-your-phones-microphone-for-ads-or-news-feed-stories/
>Facebook does not use your phone’s microphone to inform ads or to change what you see in News Feed. Some recent articles have suggested that we must be listening to people’s conversations in order to show them relevant ads. This is not true. We show ads based on people’s interests and other profile information – not what you’re talking out loud about.
>
>We only access your microphone if you have given our app permission and if you are actively using a specific feature that requires audio. This might include recording a video or using an optional feature we introduced two years ago to include music or other audio in your status updates.

Typical lawyer dodge. They could've clearly stated that they don't record audio in the background without giving visual/audial or any sensible clues to the user. But they didn't.

The first paragraph:
They deny that they they directly inform ads or they change a News Feed according to the content of an ongoing conversation. They don't deny recording, informing themselves about the content of the conversation, and they don't deny Facebook giving you ads regarding the content of the information (which is phrased as "people's interest" in the third sentence).

The second paragraph:
>and if you are actively using a specific feature that requires audio
Like using the telemetry feature.
>This might include
My favorite phrase. Commonly used when you don't want to list all the features.

>>10920
>The article proves nothing, though.
True. But Facebook's responses don't exactly disprove the theory either. Their public responses are carefully written and revised many times, and we should treat them as such.


Anonymous 09/08/2017 (Fri) 14:34:00 [Preview] No. 11053 del
>>11042
i don't mean to defend goybook, but you are hugely speculating. it would be pretty stupid for a company to secretly record your microphone in code that is easy to reverse engineer
>>We only access your microphone if you have given our app permission and if you are actively using a specific feature that requires audio. This might include recording a video or using an optional feature we introduced two years ago to include music or other audio in your status updates.
this vaguness here is normal and always has been in software. companies don't understand security and privacy and don't consider them important. as such they will not carefully explain what their programs do and do not do


Anonymous 10/02/2017 (Mon) 18:48:06 [Preview] No. 11484 del
>>11053
How is it speculating, when a company's whole revenue is based on data collection? Anon you are really naive.


Anonymous 10/02/2017 (Mon) 18:49:36 [Preview] No. 11485 del
>>11053
dont assume the code would be *easy* to reverse engineer!


Anonymous 10/02/2017 (Mon) 22:29:14 [Preview] No. 11490 del
>>11484
is that anon naive, or is he a shill?


Anonymous 10/03/2017 (Tue) 21:54:05 [Preview] No. 11509 del
This seems more likely: https://www.wired.com/2017/05/hundreds-apps-can-listen-beacons-cant-hear/
Just like how it's easier to put a web beacon on a page instead of parsing it's content.



Top | Return | Catalog | Post a reply