BREAKING: Google is secretly recording millions of Android users!!!

File: 1503311715898.jpg (12KB, 170x190px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 170x190px

>The Sun

>>62038524
It's a good thing I don't speak

>>62038524
What if I'm using a Huawei?

Tell me something I don't know.

>>62038524
You can always turn it off, problem solved.

>Unlike Apple, who does not publicise any of the voice data it stores through Siri, Google is pretty transparent - giving you full access to your audio.

IOS USERS BTFO! SHILLS ON A SUICIDE WATCH! APPLEL IS GOING DOWN!

File: 1502160620261.png (479KB, 692x577px) Image search: [Google]

479KB, 692x577px

>>62038524
Not really. Most people here on /g/ don't use Google services. I use Lineage OS with no Google apps installed and I can pull out the battery, so I don't have this problem. iPhones and Android phones have the exact same level of insecurity anyways, since they all contain baseband processors made by Intel and Qualcomm that run closed source, proprietary firmware that can't be audited by Apple, Samsung, LG, Google, or Lineage OS software developers. Your OS doesn't matter because in older Samsung phones like the Galaxy S2 these baseband processors have been shown to be backdoored and accessible through the cellular network. Source: https://archive.fo/12xTK

The NSA laughs at you.

>>62038524
I knew about this for 10 years now. What took y'all so long?

The Apple iPhone 7 Plus doesn't have this problem.

>>62039044
I knew about it for around 15 years or so. God, you're slow.

>>62039081
20 years here, actually. My knowledge on the subject is old enough to vote, and old enough to drink in most countries

>>62039108
I knew about this back in the 80s. Y'all needa keep up

>>62039072
>Apple iPhone 7 Plus
Siri is also always listening for the, hey Siri. Google just doesn't hide it and gives you access to what it records.

>>62038524
probably does not work on android 4.1 without google apps

>>62038524
Joke's on them, I never have any incriminating "convos" or steamy gossip since I have no friends to talk to.

>>62038552
/thread

>>62038524
>Google Now uploads the snippets of audio immediately following you saying "OK Google", the hotword for telling your phone to start listening to what you say (assuming you have enabled Google Now)
>Google lets you see your voice snippet history and delete any or all of it whenever you want
>this is bad

>Siri uploads the snippets of audio immediately following you saying "Hey Siri", the hotword for telling your phone to start listening to what you say (on by default)
>Apple retains these audio snippets and does not allow you to delete them
>this is fine

File: 7678.png (55KB, 295x195px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 295x195px

>>62038561
I'm talking to myself...

>>62038963
this.
/thread

>>62039269
Apple doesn't collect "hey Siri" data, buttmad pajeet.

https://techcrunch.com/2015/09/11/apple-addresses-privacy-questions-about-hey-siri-and-live-photo-features/

Hey Siri is an optional feature that is enabled by an opt-in step in iOS 9’s setup. You can choose never to enable it. If you do enable it, nothing is ever recorded in any way before the feature is triggered.

“In no case is the device recording what the user says or sending that information to Apple before the feature is triggered,” says Apple.

Instead, audio from the microphone is continuously compared against the model, or pattern, of your personal way of saying ‘Hey Siri’ that you recorded during setup of the feature. Hey Siri requires a match to both the ‘general’ Hey Siri model (how your iPhone thinks the words sound) and the ‘personalized’ model of how you say it. This is to prevent other people’s voices from triggering your phone’s Hey Siri feature by accident.

Until that match happens, no audio is ever sent off of your iPhone. All of that listening and processing happens locally.

>>62039652
>Hey Siri is an optional feature that is enabled by an opt-in step

Same as "ok Google"

>>62039722
except that you send EVERYTHING BEFORE AND AFTER to Google.

can't you fucking read, retard?!

>>62038524
>secretly recording
they fucking tell you when you go on to agree the terms for google now what the fuck

>>62039843
Or you could just not use ok Google in the first place, problem solved.

>>62038524
>If you own an Android phone, it's likely that you've used Google's Assistant, which is similar to Apple's Siri.
>Google says it only turns on and begins recording when you utter the words "OK Google".
Wow, it's literally nothing. Who even uses Google's assistant, not to mention constantly?

File: 4sgqcNW.jpg (148KB, 392x495px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 392x495px

>>62038524
No gapps - no worries.

>>62038963
>Qualcomm
>Closed source
If there's one manufacturer who publishes SoC source codes, it's Qualcomm. Samsung's Exynos and Mediatek - that's another story.

File: 1479057897205.jpg (220KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 1080x1920px

>>62038524
>t. iToddler

>>62039900
Assistant and ok Google are 2 different things, you can use assistant with ok Google disabled.

>>62039937
Not for Adreno though.

>>62039954
Who cares? Just find out if the manufacturer of the phone you're trying to buy has published the source code.

>>62039983
Nobody has published mobile GPU drivers. Ever.

>>62038765
Yeah you just have to locate it somewhere just like all their settings that they hide and change where they are every 3 months, while their support documentation is 5 years old.

Not saying that finding your recordings are hidden like this but if there was an option to turn it off, good fucking luck.

>>62039949
apple devices are better for normies. i dont want to get recorded because some retard has an android phone with all possible spying features enabled and possibly malware too.

>>62039937
Baseband processors aren't open source, and there in all real phones.

>>62038524
>implying they aren't above the law now

>>62039993
>>62040038
Still better than what's offered on iPhones.

File: 1502918740053.jpg (38KB, 540x304px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 540x304px

>>62038524
>thinking this is news

>>62038524
>people are actually surprised about more data collection from Google
>people on /g/ now days seriously consider using smartphones running stock ROMs with GApps
>fucktards on /g/ are seriously posting archive links that could point to any site rather than just posting the actual article and aren't getting called out for it
Jesus christ, Hiroyuki should just delete this fucking board at this point.

>>62040147
You think /g/ is bad? If there's one board due to get purged, it's /mu/.

>>62040294
/mu/ is the worst

File: 1500976051078.jpg (412KB, 755x961px) Image search: [Google]

412KB, 755x961px

>>62039937
Qualcomm does not release the source for most of their baseband processors, nor the schematics. Anyways the problem is that it isn't properly isolated in anything other than a handful of phones. The baseband can bypass any preventative hardware on the main SoC, the kernel, the HAL, and any security management software. It's a hardware problem like the Intel ME, where you have a micro controller that operates below the main CPU and can access everything and be tapped into remotely. The only problem is that you have no way of knowing exactly what it sends in or out by the cell network like you can with the Intel ME, and even if you get special radio hardware you wouldn't be able to tell good and bad encrypted traffic apart because it all goes to the same cell towers, whereas with the ME you can tell if it access Intel addresses. And just like the ME, the device stops working if you remove it in most devices because the low level bootloaders (and sometimes the bootROM) do checks on the baseband firmware which is usually held in a special flash chip, sometimes in the main flash storage on read only system partition.

TLDR you're fucking fucked, cunt

>>62040097
Android devices are nice for the additional userland and kernel freedom that it provides and the top notch hardware that fits in your pocket. But please don't delude yourself into thinking that it's any more secure with or without a certain OS when it has hardware backdoors. The only secure smartphone is none at all.

>>62038524
Does this apply to opengapps?

>>62040473
Of course. Qualcomm belongs to the trusted computing group.

>>62040403
>/mu/ is the worst
You've never been to /n/

>>62040512
How the fuck is /n/ bad

>nobody mentioned /mlp/
Love you too, guys.

>>62040473
>But please don't delude yourself into thinking that it's any more secure with or without a certain OS when it has hardware backdoors.
>when it has hardware backdoors
Got any evidence of that claim? The existence of the baseband processor doesn't confirm the existence of hardware back doors, just additional attack surface. Furthermore, the presence of attack surface in one area doesn't mean its meaningless to lessen or remove attack surface in another area, especially when the attack surface in the other area is significantly more likely to be a problem.

>>62040859
See >>62038963

File: 1473904134042.jpg (11KB, 320x315px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 320x315px

>>62041337
>"source" has the URL obscured
Nope.

>Get rid of smartphone
>Get dumbphone
>Only people who make them are chinks
>Spies on me anyways
May as well get pocket wikipedia

>>62041361
here, cunt: https://www.replicant.us/freedom-privacy-security-issues.php

>>62039127
i've LITERALLY known about it since 1488

>>62041382
>ctrl+f Samsung
>ctrl+f Galaxy
>ctrl+f back door
>no relevant results of actual evidence of back doors, just a single sentence of brief speculation
Wow, it's fucking nothing. Again, it is an additional attack surface, but there is no evidence of actual back doors. Attack surface =/= a back door.

>>62041372
How are the chinks going to get the data they're collecting on you? Unless you have data service, your service provider is going to complain about the chinks sending the data by large amounts of text messages or other means.

>>62041694
https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/replicant-developers-find-and-close-samsung-galaxy-backdoor
now fuck all qcom shill

>>62041694
TINFOILS BTFO!!!

>>62038524
This isn't news

File: 1474963909298.jpg (58KB, 579x567px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 579x567px

>>62041735
>we discovered that the proprietary program running on the applications processor in charge of handling the communication protocol with the modem actually implements a backdoor that lets the modem perform remote file I/O operations on the file system.
>the proprietary program running on the applications processor
>Today's phones come with two separate processors: one is a general-purpose applications processor that runs the main operating system, e.g. Android
>the proprietary program running on the applications processor

>>62041814
You need proprietary code to communicate with the proprietary baseband, retard.

>>62041835
We're talking about the possibility of back doors in the baseband processor/baseband firmware, not on the application processor. The problem in this case would still exist even if the baseband processor didn't.

>>62039993
It's likely filled with licensing and patents that they can't release.

File: Screenshot_2017-08-22_21-27-17.png (107KB, 873x345px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 873x345px

>>62041361
It's archived. Learn to use a script blocker and you won't have to fear links like a little bitch.

>>62041694
>it's fucking nothing
Here, I pointed it out for you, fucking manbaby.
>inb4 post the page in links to
No. I wanted you to read everything else to understand baseband hardware isolation, which you obviously do not.

>>62041879
This. The baseband processor can be integrated into the main SoC or it can be off in a different area of the logic board as a module. It does the same things regardless.

>>62042168
>It's archived. Learn to use a script blocker and you won't have to fear links like a little bitch.
Noscript won't save you when someone uses one of those archive services to link CP or other illegal content.

>Here, I pointed it out for you, fucking manbaby.
From the link:
>Every piece of proprietary software running on the system is a risk for privacy/security as they can offer remote access back-doors and compromise the rest of the system.
As I said, just a single sentence of brief speculation with no actual evidence.

>No. I wanted you to read everything else to understand baseband hardware isolation, which you obviously do not.
I've known about the possibility of baseband exploits for a few years now, and made regular posts about the issue here and on other boards back in 2015-2016 to alert other poster of the issue. I would even post some options that actually did isolate the baseband processor (though the ones I remember off hand, such as the Neo900 and Dragonbox Pyra, still haven't reached production status). What I didn't do was post unsupported claims of hardware back doors, as all lying does is get intelligent people to ignore you.

>>62038963
/thread

File: 1501426421983.gif (786KB, 250x231px) Image search: [Google]

786KB, 250x231px

>>62042376
>link CP or other illegal content
Do you have your browser set to clear history and cookies? If not, you should. Are you actively searching for this illegal content? No? Well if you do come across it, you can prove your innocence by archiving this exact web page for context. Someone could send you CP in a text message and you might open it. You're such a fucking retard. Just unplug your router and hide under the covers.

>speculation with no actual evidence
>unsupported claims of hardware back doors
It's not "speculation" when the modem has read/write access to user files and can access your cameras, microphones, and any other hardware. That's the definition of a backdoor in tech terms. At best this is severe negligence on the part of Samsung and whatever company made the baseband and baseband firmware, and at worst it's a malicious backdoor. Do you think the people designing these things don't know what they're doing? Do you really think that the US government wouldn't pay huge amounts of money for it? Look up project Odin's Eye and tell me again about how the CIA niggers are just little saints that protect us.

I hope my posts do drive you away, because clearly you're not one of those intelligent people you mentioned.

>>62038524
>BREAKING
Except it's not breaking. This has been known for years.

>>62038524
Who cares. I'm not a faggot weeb who has something to hide

Wouldn't you niggers notice data being used on your phone when you haven't touched shit? I don't mean the Android data usage tracker, I mean your mobile provider's billing service. If your shit's getting uploaded, it's going over their network.

Or is this just autistic American screeching again and the rest of the world doesn't have this problem?

>>62038524
you know to know this was intentional - the phrase to include "OK" - considering what we know about (((them)))

Why is everyone on G so paranoid.
>ok google where do I hide my CP collection

>>62042555
>It's not "speculation" when the modem has read/write access to user files and can access your cameras, microphones, and any other hardware
I take it as you don't know how the expansion bus system in most computers work. Protip: the same can by said for any PCIe (along with PCI, ISA, and most other expansion buses including the 70s S-100 bus used in early 8 bit computers) device in your desktop. Whether your network controller itself has DMA depends entirely on whether the manufacturer actually considers attacks on it enough of a problem to actually pay the extra costs to isolate (which cell phone manufacturers for example tend not to).

>>62039722
wrong

>>62041694
stop shilling so hard, you're giving it away

I always turned this shit off

>>62042859
>you know to know this was intentional - the phrase to include "OK" - considering what we know about (((them)))
Wouldn't surprise me. To (((them))) data is everything.

>>62041814
>>62042376
>posts rustle, is afraid of being linked to CP
You're obviously not morally against it, and there's no way any law enforcement in the world would bother to go after you for viewing a single page with CP

Feels good to have nothing to hide.

>>62038524
>breaking
>secretly
wow that was totally secret and not something everyone with half a brain should have known, next you are going to post BREAKING: Water is wet!!!

>>62039269
how does it know someone said ok google if it isn't always listening?

>>62038524
wow, it's fucking nothing.

also, op is a fag.