Apple Tells Lawmakers iPhones Are Not Listening In On Consumers (reuters.com) 214
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: Apple told U.S. lawmakers on Tuesday that its iPhones do not listen to users without their consent and do not allow third-party apps to do so either, after lawmakers asked the company if its devices were invading users' privacy. Representatives Greg Walden, Marsha Blackburn, Gregg Harper and Robert Latta wrote to Apple's chief executive Tim Cook and Alphabet chief executive Larry Page in July, citing concerns about reports that smartphones could "collect 'non-triggered' audio data from users' conversations near a smartphone in order to hear a 'trigger' phrase, such as 'Okay Google' or 'Hey Siri.'"
In a letter to Walden, an Oregon Republican who chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Apple said iPhones do not record audio while listening for Siri wakeup commands and Siri does not share spoken words. Apple said it requires users to explicitly approve microphone access and that apps must display a clear signal that they are listening.
In a letter to Walden, an Oregon Republican who chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Apple said iPhones do not record audio while listening for Siri wakeup commands and Siri does not share spoken words. Apple said it requires users to explicitly approve microphone access and that apps must display a clear signal that they are listening.
Post the source code (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Post the source code (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would that prove anything?
If Apple is going to deceive you in front of lawmakers. Why not release source without the offending code, and compile and send a different branch with it.
Most of us even hard core open source Linux fans, will not install their applications by compiling the source. .deb or .rpm file which has the executable precompiled. Saving you the time and effort of the build.
make clean & make & make install
We would rather just run the apt-get, download the
Sure some of us will compile our code before we run it. But heck if you are in the business of spying, that could be considered a trade-off.
If you want to verify what is happening, then you should monitor all the wireless traffic your phone sends. Compare it in a quiet environment and one with talking. See if the data sent from the device is enough for conversations.
For the most part it is in Apples best interest in not getting caught betraying our trust in its security feature. The easiest way to not get caught is to not do the action.
Re:Post the source code (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
However the black box for the most part is sending and receiving open specification type of data.
If Apple is going to hide that they are sending your conversations to some mega server somewhere they are going to do it. Source Code will not stop that one person to question the code. If that code isn't there.
However the open specification will allow people to see the output from that black box.
Re: (Score:2)
However the black box for the most part is sending and receiving open specification type of data.
If Apple is going to hide that they are sending your conversations to some mega server somewhere they are going to do it. Source Code will not stop that one person to question the code. If that code isn't there.
However the open specification will allow people to see the output from that black box.
Again, Exactly.
Re: (Score:2)
Or in your case, perhaps blind and stupid antipathy for Apple? The evidence is in; Apple do not "listen". There is no traffic that suggests it does. Yet you are willing to believe that it does because someone tells you so. That is pretty blind and definitely stupid so your comment does nothing to show your quality.
Re: (Score:2)
Are there well known attacks on AES?
Sure, it's not perfect, but you can severely limit "who is listening" based on proper HTTPS. Use signed certificates, require them to be valid, and use HTTPS end-to-end, everywhere.
Re: (Score:3)
The point is the option should be there so that a person can look at it and say 'Holy shit, what the hell is this?'. It doesnt matter how many actually do it, what matters is that it represents a logical break. Without any way to look or alter the code, its a black box, forever. You dont trust a black box.
It is a black box with an internet-sized HOLE in it, you stupid FUCK.
Which is more betterer: Poring over Source code to try and find some obsfucated "snitching/spying" functions; or simply watch network traffic out of the fucking PHONE?
Idiots.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Idiots. Of course there is - scan the memory of the App on the phone, record the binary. Compile the App from the supplied source code, then load that on the phone. Scan the memory again. Same binary, there's your proof. Different binary, different source. What's so hard about that?
Re:Post the source code (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed.
First, even those that do will not audit the entire source. I bet you could insert a function send_personal_data_to_kgb_and_nsa(void) and only a small number of people running ./configure && make -j12 install would notice. If you obfuscated the functionality a bit better, no one would notice :-P
Anyway, even if you did audit the source, that is not sufficient to guarantee that the compiled binary faithfully represents the source files input. To do that, you have to audit the entire compiler/toolchain. And then you have to audit the compiler used to build the compiler [cmu.edu].
But the phone has storage. And it has speech-to-text, part of which happens locally. Both of those features mean that, in theory, the phone could record and process the audit and then dribble it out over the network later when you are doing some other legitimate network activity.
So if you REALLY want to be certain, you have to fill up the storage (wait, there could be a secret reserve of a few GB that are not user-accessible) and also monitor the supply lines from the battery to ensure there is no heavy speech processing that might be transcribing it to text :-D
I agree with the sentiment of your post, just like showing that there is no way around having some level of trust in the hardware/software that you use.
Re: (Score:2)
My charger has a light that shows when the battery is charging. When the battery is charged, the light turns off.
The charger light turns on when the TV or music is loud. It switches off not quite as fast as a scope would show activity, but soon enough to know that something draws more current when there is significant audio input.
I bet a phone with a dead battery could be used to track audio spying pretty easily.
I love your point about storage. Some apps queue their data for upload on reconnect.
Re: (Score:2)
My charger has a light that shows when the battery is charging. When the battery is charged, the light turns off.
The charger light turns on when the TV or music is loud. It switches off not quite as fast as a scope would show activity, but soon enough to know that something draws more current when there is significant audio input.
I bet a phone with a dead battery could be used to track audio spying pretty easily.
I love your point about storage. Some apps queue their data for upload on reconnect.
Since your charger has a light on it, I am assuming you DON'T have an iPhone.
Therefore, your entire post is moot.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My charger has a light that shows when the battery is charging. When the battery is charged, the light turns off.
The charger light turns on when the TV or music is loud. It switches off not quite as fast as a scope would show activity, but soon enough to know that something draws more current when there is significant audio input.
So does your charger also light up any time you actually ask Siri something? Or only when (presumably that`s what you are claiming) your iPhone sends audio recordings to Apple whenever your TV is on loud.
OH SHIT, I RTFA, I FAIL IT! (Score:2)
biomechanical creatures called Leapers that attach to people through a bio-tether proboscis and induce hallucinatory visions of an imaginary world
OMGWTFLOLBBQ
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently they're inspired by David Cronenberg eXistenZ [wikipedia.org]
biomechanical creatures called Leapers that attach to people through a bio-tether proboscis and induce hallucinatory visions of an imaginary world
OMGWTFLOLBBQ
Please tell me that tech will be available soon!
Re:Post the source code (Score:4, Informative)
That's why there's the Reproducible Builds project. Packages have .buildinfo files that save versions of dependencies, recompiling against the same deps should produce bit-to-bit identical results.
It's not yet complete, but 92.8% [isdebianre...bleyet.com] of packages build reproducibly.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would that prove anything?
If Apple is going to deceive you in front of lawmakers. Why not release source without the offending code, and compile and send a different branch with it.
Indeed. The source is valuable if a) somebody really digs through it and b) it is that basis of the installation you do. Otherwise, it is just a heap of code lines without much meaning.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Trusted third parties exist. No need to be mindlessly paranoid.
Re: (Score:2)
If Apple is going to deceive you in front of lawmakers. Why not release source without the offending code, and compile and send a different branch with it.
This is why clauses which require that the user be able to actually build and then furthermore actually install and use the code they compiled are necessary. What good is source code, Mister Anderson, if you are unable to compile and use it?
Most of us even hard core open source Linux fans, will not install their applications by compiling the source.
As long as someone is testing it, we have reasonable assurance that it works. Sure, individuals could be delivered different code than that, if Apple wanted. But it's still better than nothing, and it would offer the opportunity to compile your own.
If you want to verify what is happening, then you should monitor all the wireless traffic your phone sends.
Sorry, I left my Sting
Re: (Score:2)
This is why clauses which require that the user be able to actually build and then furthermore actually install and use the code they compiled are necessary. What good is source code, Mister Anderson, if you are unable to compile and use it?
You F/OSS fanbois really take the cake!
What you are proposing is that NOBODY can have Private IP anymore.
No thanks, Comrade!
Re: (Score:2)
"What you are proposing is that NOBODY can have Private IP anymore."
Total nonsense. What I'm stating is that non-Free software is harmful to users. You can have private IP and use it in house without doing harm. But closed source software is not trustworthy by definition.
Re: (Score:2)
"What you are proposing is that NOBODY can have Private IP anymore."
Total nonsense. What I'm stating is that non-Free software is harmful to users. You can have private IP and use it in house without doing harm. But closed source software is not trustworthy by definition.
And, considering the number of DECADES-long bugs found in F/OSS, the "many eyes" meme is just that. A meme.
OSS is only marginally more transparent than closed-source.
That's why I said: "Don't verify the Source. That's worthless. Verify the OPERATION."
Re: (Score:2)
"And, considering the number of DECADES-long bugs found in F/OSS, the "many eyes" meme is just that. A meme."
Okay, now tell me how closed source software is supposed to be more secure when you can't see the code and have no idea how many vulnerabilities are just waiting to be exploited.
"That's why I said: "Don't verify the Source. That's worthless. Verify the OPERATION."
That's worthless without the sources, because you can't expect it to behave the same way every time if you can't check the sources to look
Re: (Score:2)
"And, considering the number of DECADES-long bugs found in F/OSS, the "many eyes" meme is just that. A meme."
Okay, now tell me how closed source software is supposed to be more secure when you can't see the code and have no idea how many vulnerabilities are just waiting to be exploited.
"That's why I said: "Don't verify the Source. That's worthless. Verify the OPERATION."
That's worthless without the sources, because you can't expect it to behave the same way every time if you can't check the sources to look for special cases.
What "Special Case" would be practical for something that is supposed to be logging and repeating your every utterance?
And how is the phone supposed to know you aren't just watching some Spy movie, FFS?
You people make no sense.
Re: (Score:2)
What "Special Case" would be practical for something that is supposed to be logging and repeating your every utterance?
Obviously, looking for specific users, or subsets of users. Or for activity which will disguise the network traffic.
And how is the phone supposed to know you aren't just watching some Spy movie, FFS?
Obviously, voice printing.
Re: (Score:2)
What "Special Case" would be practical for something that is supposed to be logging and repeating your every utterance?
Obviously, looking for specific users, or subsets of users. Or for activity which will disguise the network traffic.
And how is the phone supposed to know you aren't just watching some Spy movie, FFS?
Obviously, voice printing.
You forgot the sarcasm tag; because you couldn't possibly be serious...
Re: (Score:2)
And how is the phone supposed to know you aren't just watching some Spy movie, FFS?
Obviously, voice printing.
And how would it do that, you stable genius? First download a "voice fingerprint" for all people on Earth, so it can report which people it can hear?
Just answer this: is the world flat or hollow?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't bother answering him. He's an Apple fanboy. No matter how many times you prove him wrong he will double down on stupid.
Log in and fight like a man; or STFU and FOAD.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok so you build and install the software from scratch Having done a full audit. Who is to say that it is the only software on the phone? What if the manufacturer has some hidden hardware or software that you can't detect?
Your only real protection is the knowledge that Apple's business model is to sell expensive smart phones and being caught stealing your data is going to hurt that model.
Re: (Score:2)
Your argument boils down to believing that only perfect solutions are helpful, but perfect is the enemy of good. One step at a time.
Re:Post the source code (Score:4, Insightful)
If you want to verify what is happening, then you should monitor all the wireless traffic your phone sends. Compare it in a quiet environment and one with talking. See if the data sent from the device is enough for conversations.
For the most part it is in Apples best interest in not getting caught betraying our trust in its security feature. The easiest way to not get caught is to not do the action.
Exactly.
And I just can't believe that Slashtards are THAT stupid to not think of that, instead of imagining all sorts of wheels-within-wheels and riddles wrapped in myteries inside of enigmas when it comes to ANYTHING Apple says, does or produces.
Stupid shits. The whole lot. (Not you, Jellomizer... YOU are among the few that "get it".).
Re: (Score:2)
It's already pretty well known that phones send tons of data. People have attached them to firewalls and can clearly see how much crap is going out every second. The problem is that there's so many packets going to so many different IPs for so many different purposes and it's all encrypted. It happens constantly even when the device is idle. My Win 7 PC does the same, despite all my attempts to shut off any telemetry and useless services. Is the device spying or is it just doing "normal maintenance"?
Mo
Re: (Score:2)
It's already pretty well known that phones send tons of data. People have attached them to firewalls and can clearly see how much crap is going out every second. The problem is that there's so many packets going to so many different IPs for so many different purposes and it's all encrypted. It happens constantly even when the device is idle. My Win 7 PC does the same, despite all my attempts to shut off any telemetry and useless services. Is the device spying or is it just doing "normal maintenance"?
More importantly is that data doesn't have to be sent in realtime. Any spying can simply be stored in a queue and uploaded on a schedule. You can't associate transmission of data with a specific action or command in that case.
I hate it with a passion, but massive amounts of traffic is just the norm these days, and it's here to stay. Judging a device based on the quantity of data sent, or even when data is sent, is not feasible.
Just because ONE Phone (or mobile Platform) does it, does NOT mean they ALL do it.
I have always wondered why a Windows computer will CONSTANTLY access the Hard Drive, even when it is ostensibly at Idle, with no Applications running (except Explorer.exe). THAT'S the kind of stuff that is super-creepy to me, and it has been going on for YEARS.
But you can only cache so much data for so long, and then it has GOT to be uploaded. And just like with ANY SIGINT, just because you can't read the actual DATA, doesn't
Re: (Score:2)
If they are lying about spying. What would be the test for it. You are making a bold claim about it so it is up to you to prove guilt.
I don’t have the time. I’ll need to take Apple at its word. Not from blind faith but because I haven’t receive evidence of such a conspiracy.
Have I been wrong before? Yes. Have I been right more then I have been wrong? So far yes.
Just because we can’t find proof, it doesn’t mean there is some devious secrets to hide it. Also lying to lawmakers
Re: (Score:2)
Why would that prove anything?
Because we could then compile and install the code ourselves without Apple having any further input; they could just update their gitLab repo every so often instead of releasing sealed and obfuscated binaries as they do now.
I'm not sure what your problem is with someone actually having to back up absolute claims of security.
For the most part it is in Apples best interest in not getting caught betraying our trust in its security feature. The easiest way to not get caught is to not do the action.
Brilliant! You've logically disproven the existence of crime! Think of how much money we can save on cops.
Re: (Score:2)
And knowing the publicity it would generate, it wouldn't surprise if me people have already done that. Since A
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you!
For your information and for the education of spire661, I point out that the traffic you speak of is non-existent. Since the traffic does not exist apple does not do this. Simple, except to anti-apple factoid fuctards.
Re: (Score:3)
Wtf? Apple lies all the time. Steve jobs claimed ogg vorbis was an illegal codec at one point of time and half of their advertising in the past Implied osx couldn't get viruses.
During antenna gate it took them almost to the point of getting sued to admit the issue.
Yes. Apple should prove themselves
Citation on the Ogg quote, cuz I'm not finding it?
Show me a true, self-replicating virus on macOS or iOS.
It's been over TWENTY years for OS X/macOS, and ELEVEN for iOS. Where are all the viruses? Trojans don't count.
Re: (Score:2)
Some Apple *users* claimed they couldn't get viruses. Zealots exists for any platform. Apple have always been quite honest with their marketing. Here is an advisory from Apple from the wayback machine:
Last Modified: July 30, 2008
Article: HT2550
Old Article: 4454
Summary
This article describes the antivirus utilities that are available for the Mac OS.
Products Affected
Consumer Software, Intego VirusBarrier X4, Virex, Norton An
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, because lying to Congress is a fantastic plan, and they would totally do that to... what end?
Posting the source code isn't going to happen. They would let government auditors in under NDA long before that happened. Get real.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because lying to Congress is a fantastic plan, and they would totally do that to... what end?
Posting the source code isn't going to happen. They would let government auditors in under NDA long before that happened. Get real.
Exactly. A Special Master would be appointed to review the Source and Report to Congress.
But so what? Just packet sniff the output for a day or two, and that will tell you FAR more than any stupid "review" of a million or so lines of code.
Idiots.
troll (Score:2)
Why stop with phones? This logic applies to literally any device. A designer's word is utterly meaningless so post complete documentation of every detail of design or conclude that it is unsafe and intends to harm you.
Do without a phone if you are so paranoid. Better yet, go live in the wilderness...or admit that this is nothing more than an open source troll.
The rest of us understand that some level of trust must always exist, that absolutist arguments like this are worthless, and that companies have go
Re: (Score:2)
The rest of us understand that some level of trust must always exist, that absolutist arguments like this are worthless, and that companies have good reasons to protect intellectual property.
Precisely.
Re:Post the source code (Score:4, Interesting)
Apple has released design/block diagrams on the silicon and how "Hey Siri" is implemented in hardware and doesn't require intervention from either the CPU or the OS. It can be verified by putting some scopes and circuit analyzers on the thing and seeing when and where the 'activity' actually happens.
It's fairly easy to test whether or not they're lying, if your CPU and SSD keeps waking up whenever there is audio, even if the trigger hasn't been used, you know they're lying.
Also, you can dump the contents of your iPhone as a developer. So it would also be pretty easy to verify there is no recording lurking somewhere on the drive waiting to be sent to Apple. You could also analyze the traffic that is sent to Apple and see whether it is feasible that audio recordings which would have to be a pretty continuous stream, even encrypted, are being sent without the trigger phrase.
Re:Post the source code (Score:4, Interesting)
Apple has released design/block diagrams on the silicon and how "Hey Siri" is implemented in hardware and doesn't require intervention from either the CPU or the OS. It can be verified by putting some scopes and circuit analyzers on the thing and seeing when and where the 'activity' actually happens.
It's fairly easy to test whether or not they're lying, if your CPU and SSD keeps waking up whenever there is audio, even if the trigger hasn't been used, you know they're lying.
Also, you can dump the contents of your iPhone as a developer. So it would also be pretty easy to verify there is no recording lurking somewhere on the drive waiting to be sent to Apple. You could also analyze the traffic that is sent to Apple and see whether it is feasible that audio recordings which would have to be a pretty continuous stream, even encrypted, are being sent without the trigger phrase.
Exactly.
Just make a looped recording that DOESN'T include the phrase "Hey, Siri" (or simply a radio station or TV would work fine), and put the iPhone in front of a speaker playing the sound. Now watch for WiFi traffic from the phone while sleeping.
So easy to verify without examining a single line of code, and yet all the FOSSies can think to do is pore over a bunch of code that may or may not be what is actually running in the device.
Idiots.
Re: (Score:2)
Encrypted traffic is still traffic. If you expect a phone to be radio-silent yet continues to stream (the minimum usable compressed audio is ~5kB/s which isn't trivial to hide).
Re: (Score:2)
Storage space on-die is going to be limited, you can simply wait it out, at some point the buffers will have to flush. If you want to surreptitiously record anything, you're always going to leave a digital fingerprint.
Re: (Score:2)
and we will believe you. Until such a time as the code can be verified by third-parties, your word is utterly meaningless. Trust, but verify.
It's called a Packet Inspector. Can't snitch on the User without causing network traffic. And an iPhone tries to avoid using Cellular data when WiFi it is allowed to connect-to is available. So, all someone has to do is packet-sniff iPhone traffic while it is connected to a WiFi network.
Simple. Idiots.
Boy, Slashtards are deliberately obtuse. Anything to impugn Apple, right?
Re: (Score:3)
You may be a bit too skeptical. Unlike Google, Apple does not derive funding directly from advertisers. (Indirectly, yes, but that *is* different.)
So there is much less motivation for Apple to wantonly infringe your privacy than there is for Google.
OTOH, Apple is much more likely to want to block you from exporting your data. They've often imposed roadblocks in the past (though admittedly the times I'm thinking of date back to the original Macintosh).
OTOH, I haven't studied their phones eco-system, so I
Re: (Score:2)
No. I will believe them because I know it to be true. I do not even need to check the code. Because technology is not magic. Where is this "listening" going? Where is the data? If you do not know where your traffic is going and what that traffic is you just are not even competent to manage your own bills.
If you want to make a liar and a fool out of yourself, all we'll and good. But you cannot be looking good to anyone with half a brain. Why didn't you check? Jesus, I hope you don't work in IT
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not by me or to my standards, and you have provided no links or other data to backup your statement.
Tough shit.
So (Score:3, Insightful)
PRISM was another approved third-party app?
Do governments get that explicitly approved microphone access?
Hey NSA?
Re: (Score:3)
PRISM was with the users consent?
PRISM was another approved third-party app?
Do governments get that explicitly approved microphone access?
Hey NSA?
Other than one highly-suspect PPT slide, there is ZERO proof that Apple ever participated in PRISM.
That's a very selective No (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Today I created a list of nouns from a physical dictionary to use as honey-pot terms. I think the right thing to do is mention the terms aloud and log the time/date. Capture the ads as the terms show up --as screenshots.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While you are correct, there's a sound evolutionary reason for doing so ... to successfully avoid predators.
FWIW, I think the above comment someone made about Facebook may provide sufficient answer without needing to invoke Apple lying. And I have no strong belief that Apple wasn't lying.
Re: (Score:2)
No. I suspect Apple are telling the truth, and that Facebook has tracked people who have interacted with them, and sold the information (or possibly just used it). This wouldn't require that Facebook record their conversations, just where they were when interacting and the same for the person they were interacting with. They've demonstrated the capability in the past. And Apple would, in that case, be a ... I can't really say non-participating party, as their phone is hosting the Facebook app, but the p
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with what your saying and I'm not saying it was Apple. I will say that when I've noticed it the topics were so unique there has to be something more to it then randomness. With the college example, it wasn't an ad, it ended up being a week of ads plastered everywhere.
As Tim Cook said recently, "It is really creepy when you look at something on the internet, and all of a sudden there are ads for it everywhere." And in fact, I seem to remember that Apple is putting something in Safari to try and stop that (I don't know how, though). So, I really don't think it is Apple.
But I agree: That is VERY odd...
Here's the Slashdot Article about what the real Tim Cook (;-) ) said:
https://apple.slashdot.org/sto... [slashdot.org]
https: [huffingtonpost.co.uk]
Megacorporation denies political impact of product (Score:3, Insightful)
We will also be discussing cigarette companies denial that cigarettes cause cancer and big oil companies denial that fossil fuels contribute to global warming, news at 11.
Seriously though, whether or not they actually are, do we expect Apple to say anything different if it can't be proven (or possibly even if it can)?
Re: (Score:2)
We will also be discussing cigarette companies denial that cigarettes cause cancer and big oil companies denial that fossil fuels contribute to global warming, news at 11.
Seriously though, whether or not they actually are, do we expect Apple to say anything different if it can't be proven (or possibly even if it can)?
Fucking just watch for network traffic out of the phone while it is ostensibly asleep.
Easily verified, moron.
Re: (Score:2)
We will also be discussing cigarette companies denial that cigarettes cause cancer and big oil companies denial that fossil fuels contribute to global warming, news at 11.
Seriously though, whether or not they actually are, do we expect Apple to say anything different if it can't be proven (or possibly even if it can)?
Fucking just watch for network traffic out of the phone while it is ostensibly asleep.
Easily verified, moron.
And when the phone prefers to limit network traffic by compressing the data stream and only piggybacking the transmissions on phone calls? Not going to convince a conspiracy theorist anyway.
Beside, I never said they were doing it. My original comment is more about, if they are doing it or not, is a denial of something that will get the company in hot water really news? To me the accusation is the news, the denials is more of a footnote. The news doesn't even need to wait for the denial and could just ab
How do we get in on this? (Score:2)
How do we tell the advertising companies that I want to target people who said certain words aloud?
I bet they will easily sell you "this person is interested in term X...." but not "this person said term X aloud."
Translation From Apple Speak (Score:2)
We are listening and recording.
Re: (Score:2)
We are listening and recording.
Translation from Slashtard-speak:
Everything is a Conspiracy.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
None of the opt-ins give permission to Apple to do this.
"without their consent" (Score:2, Informative)
Consent being written into the legalese of the EULA.
As "nobody" reads 100% of the "user agreement"... (Score:3, Informative)
The average person could be giving up their rights to their first born children every time they install a program/app.
Many installations want consent for collecting data to "improve the product" or "improve customer experience"... theoretically, giving all ones data to the NSA to help prevent terrorism is an improvement for the customer.
Not without consent... (Score:2, Informative)
... because everyone reads the ToS for every app they blindly install and never bother to remove or check if it's running in the background...
Just the other day ... (Score:4, Funny)
1st Option...opt out (Score:2)
Tim Cook didn't make it possible to protect yourself explicitly by " Opting Out" of any and all microphone usage.
Physical privacy switches (Score:3)
Apple should add privacy switches to iPhones - physical sliders that physically disable the camera and microphone. If I slide the camera or mic slider to "OFF", then the camera or mic can't work. Regardless of the user preferences, software, or what I say, the camera or mic is physically unable to work again, until I move the slider back to "ON".
With privacy switches, Apple can remove fears that their phones are listening or taking pictures when they shouldn't. Apple can take the cover off of an iPhone, letting you see the iPhone's camera and mic. Then they can make a movie of someone sliding the privacy switches back and forth, and show the movie to Congress - "Look, when you move the mic (or camera) privacy switch to "OFF", see how the mic (or camera) is physically disabled."
Privacy switches might be a good idea on all phones and computers, not just Apple's.
Re: (Score:2)
Or if you are that stupidly paranoid you can buy a case that obscures the camera and puts a pad over the microphone. I mean do you really thing the misandroids would believe the switches worked? To the misandroids it would be "just another lie.
As trustworthy as Pai (Score:2)
https://www.theguardian.com/te... [theguardian.com]
https://arstechnica.com/inform... [arstechnica.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Posted from your Android Phone, Made by a company who makes most of their money selling targeted ads based on your data views.
Vs.
Apple who makes its money from selling higher margin devices.
Re: Why believe them? (Score:2)
Don't forget cables and dongles. :) People seem to about business models. Without a doubt Apple will sell you the highest priced items that they can get away with selling; however, the vast majority of their business model is to sell hardware. Things like media is so that you will buy their hardware. For example, Apple took a stand against DRM in music because the public was against it and it benefited Apple not to have it. They have DRM in movies and shows because the public is fine with it.
Re: Why believe them? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, chill out man. If you don't think Apple doesn't sell the highest priced item they can, you haven't bought a $30 cable when you can pay much less.
And you haven't bought that same cable from another computer OEM, either.
Don't single-out Apple EVERY SINGLE TIME, when the entire INDUSTRY does the EXACT SAME FUCKING THING!!!
Now, FUCK OFF.
Seriously.
Re: Why believe them? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why does stating facts seem to piss you off?
Because these particular "Facts" are being SPUN to make them look like they are a behavior/policy/business-model that is EXCLUSIVE to Apple.
Every. Single. Time.
But even this SLIGHTEST effort will show them to be anything BUT Apple-Exclusive behaviors/policies/business-models.
For example: Since we were talking about Adapters (so-called "Dongles"), these were found in about 5 minutes of Googling, and I didn't even have to try hard AT ALL (my search term was [mfg] USB-C Adapter:
https://www.cdw.com/product/De. [cdw.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Posted from your Android Phone, Made by a company who makes most of their money selling targeted ads based on your data views.
Vs.
Apple who makes its money from selling higher margin devices.
;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Except they don't sell your info.
Re: (Score:2)
Jesus fucking wept, you people are stupid. Obviously, Apple doesn't pursue every possible avenue for profit, because some routes to profit offer minor short term benefit for lots of long term downside. For example, Apple doesn't sell access to consumers' data because it wants to sell devices to consumers, and consumers' trust for Apple is worth a shit load more than their data.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. This is like when someone says, "you're not listening to me", but you did hear everything they said.
I would like them to clearly state what is sent where, and what things get feeds of what data. I strongly suspect it is:
* The microphone is always on
* A local daemon is constantly watching that data stream for signals that appear to contain "Hey Siri" using a limited pattern recognition algorithm.
* The stream is buffered, so it can rewind a little (how far is TBD)
* When something that might contain "
Re: They pulled a Billy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
* A local daemon is constantly watching that data stream for signals that appear to contain "Hey Siri" using a limited pattern recognition algorithm.
It's dedicated hardware, not a daemon, stupid.
The rest of your paranoid Slashtard rant is just that: Paranoid.
Re: (Score:3)
This has actually been done. There is a separate IC/DSP/Controller (whatever you want to call it) that listens for the "Hey Siri." When it hears it, it wakes up the main CPU and the rest of the process starts running. It would be far too power intensive for the main CPU cores to stay awake to analyze a constant stream of noise. This is also why the iMac Pro, and similar computers contain some of the chipset from the iPhones.
Re: (Score:2)
Right. Of course we can trust Apple. Obviously [youtu.be].
A LOT more than we can trust an ANONYMOUS, COWARD, don'tcha think?
Re: (Score:2)
How would they recognise the "Ey, siri!" command if they are not listening? What they do with the audio that doesn't match the Ey siri command we don't know. As users we'll have to trust whatever they say, and however they implemented it... and I think trust is not enough.
Stupid fuck.
They have custom silicon that recognizes that "Trigger Phrase" LOCALLY. Nothing is recorded. Nothing is sent until that phrase is recognized.
Boy, you're stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Stop wanking yourself in public. Inserting the word "blindly" destroys your comment. You are asserting something you can have no knowledge of. I, for example, do not trust apple particularly as I think and I check for facts. Android? I have seen enough shit with Google and Android that I know they are trying to screw me. For Apple, there is nothing evidential (and I still check).
I still think running Facebook (et al.) on an iPhone needs to be examined (I don't use facebook etc) as I have not tested t
Re: (Score:2)
It probably hinges on the definition they are using for "record", as you're clearly right that you can't parse "OK Google" without recording to RAM. And given what I've heard about "state of the art" it probably even requires sending the stuff over the net to be analyzed elsewhere. Possibly what the actually mean is "there's no permanent record"...for some definition of permanent. How reasonable that definition is would be a good question. So would "What steps are taken to prevent it from being intercep
Re: (Score:2)
But they are not slowing down the phones and never have. When the battery has aged it cannot support an overload and will crash. Apple put software in to prevent this which dropped the CPU frequency (talking loosely here) momentarily to prevent the phone stopping and rebooting to allow it to continue running. It only drops that CPU frequency while in overload.. The phone in general is not slowed, only a single task for a brief moment.