Malware Experts: Google Invaded Privacy and Harmed Trust with Home Security ‘Fiasco’

Break this company up using anti-trust laws.

But it isn’t going to happen.

This is now a joint venture of Big Business along with Big Government. (Which is part of the reason WHY it is not going to occur.)

Malware Experts: Google Invaded Privacy and Harmed Trust with Home Security ‘Fiasco’

Lucas Nolan 18 Mar 2019 Breitbart News

Antivirus manufacturer Malwarebytes published a blog post recently outlining why Google’s latest privacy scandal is so damaging to user trust.

Popular anti-malware product manufacturer Malwarebytes published a blog post recently which outlines the issues with Silicon Valley Tech companies failing to disclose the full privacy implications of their products. Malwarebytes writer David Ruiz wrote:

A smart-home speaker shouldn’t be secretly hiding a video camera. A secure messaging platform shouldn’t have a government-operated backdoor. . . .

(Bold mine)

Never trusted anyway.

But I never thought I would have to read schematic diagrams to know exactly what it is I am bringing into my house.

I wonder how many of these constitute a threat to national security. After all, it is an open mic secretly installed in homes.
Do you think perhaps the president, or staff, or Congress may have one of these installed?

1 Like

vz71 . . .

I wonder how many of these constitute a threat to national security. After all, it is an open mic secretly installed in homes.

I think it IS a threat to national security.

When it will be all said and done, we will find out that Google was secretly in part financed by our Government to obtain information projects against it’s own citizens.

That is the only plausable reason I can think of, WHY the Government would allow Google to obtain this much POWER without breaking them up. (They are working together).

Now we see items in the news where Google is
“attempting to influence elections”
in the name of “fighting against influencing elections”.

And remember. Assuming these charges are true, Google IS an outsider. So it is outside (of the USA) forces attempting to influence US elections (if such charges are true)!

Google is not exclusively an American company anymore.

This all being said, people in Government politics use Google as do people in military and crime investigation.

Just because Google IS a quasi-Government outfit, does not mean it is not a national security threat.

If half of the charges I’ve seen leveled against Google are true, it is a MAJOR security threat.

If Google can be hacked (or reviewed internally), and it can, Google IS a security threat in that sphere too.

It is waaay too big and should have be broken up long ago.

The Government COULD take steps to minimize the national security risks, but due to their size, Google can put up a fight of proportions where it will hurt politicians.

This makes it even less likely this kind of reigning in of Google, is going to occur.

There are other ways the Big Corporations and the Government data mines the US citizens too.

And I talked to the head of a computer consulting firm, who told me that America isn’t the only country drag-netting information about American citizens. He said all the larger players do this but gave no details (it may have been his speculation but he’s probably correct).

Huawei has had espionage and security concerns over their hardware allowing the Chinese Government to spy on US citizens. Even our Government has raised such concerns openly.

But even with exclusively US technology hidden in our electronics, you are only one “hack” away from US citizen information being taken by foreign governments, corporations, crime cartels, etc.

But we learn via crisis it seems.

We will have to have a high-profile very public exposure at this point to get politicians (and the various justice departments) to do their job and help minimize these risks.

Wikileaks didn’t even help. It is going to have to be worse than that.

For now (breaking up and reigning in Google)?

It isn’t happening any time soon.

There is no way I am ever getting one of those smart home device things. They are just creepy. I don’t even trust the smart TV. I’ve watched way too many sci-fi movies to know how that turns out thank you very much!

1 Like

I think most large companies are multi-national. I’m working for one right now!

That kind of doesn’t address the problem at hand. Smaller companies also make products that are security problems. Ex: Here are a couple of toys that are threats.

Since there is a security concern it might be good to encourage or enforce more secure practices.

I think it would be nice if higher levels of computer literacy were parts of the basic education. Did you know that China is making Artificial Intelligence knowledge a part of their basic education system?

That’s assuming you would even have access to an accurate schematic!

Most every security product on the market that includes video cameras comes with an internet-based tie-in such as data back to the vendor’s server, video data in the “cloud”, etc. None of which is necessary. Disk drives are cheap for video storage at home with some cycling. But there are no products out there that do it without some form of data collection. Seems every outfit out there wants a piece of the data collection action.

I’m contemplating a new TV and much to my horror, there are few models that don’t have “smart” functionality and these are getting harder to find. Ugh! So I’m thinking of getting a computer monitor and figuring out how to hook up something to it for OTA reception. In the meantime, I’m hanging on to my old and serviceable but definitely not smart TV.

Delicious irony.

When I was younger i often thought poorly of my grandparents for making do without the latest technology.
They rejected much of the newer tech, and I was too young and stupid to understand why.

Now I am in the same position. I reject the newer tech. I view every advance with suspicion.

Apologies grampa. You were right.

1 Like

You’ll probably want to go to a place that sales older models. Ex: BrandSmart tends to sell much older (but never opened) models of TVs. As of a few years ago Samsung had said that their TVs larger than a certain size would all be smart TVs and run their Tizen operating system. While there were no known instances of security exploits occurring a security researcher was able to find some vulnerabilities in their earlier versions of their operating system.

I’m a bit on the fence. I’m considering a car with driver assist functionality for my mother as she gets older. It wouldn’t be self driving, but it would have some accident avoidance features such as maintaining lanes, detecting when someone goes to sleep, automatically braking if it detects the car in front has stopped. There’s not been any events that suggest my parents cannot safely drive, but I’m still considering the extra protection that it could provide.

Once mom’s car died and she couldn’t tell me where she was. I added a tracking device to her car after that (with her permission). Another time she had a medical scare and was rushed to the hospital. The tracking was convenient in finding her car and getting it back home. I have them in both of my parent’s cars now.

What smart speaker has one of those? I’m guessing this line is hypothetical and not literal.

ThinkingSapien (in response to my saying these companies, especially Google, needs to be broken up via anti-trust means) . . . .

That kind of doesn’t address the problem at hand.

But I never said it addresses the “problem at hand”.

I said it makes it easier (not infallible but easier) to come up with solutions for the “problem at hand” (and thank you for tacitly affirming their IS a “PROBLEM at hand”–there IS a “problem” here).

And this spying on innocent citizens IS a problem.

I think it is creepy and many of those Corporate giant elephants and those in Massively Oversized Government pushing for this and supporting this are creeps (my opinion).

peeping%20tom%20creep%20picture

(See Peeping Tom prop here)

And this routine of some (not you ThinkingSapien. Just a generalization here all around) saying
. . . . “If you have nothing to hide, what is the big deal?” . . .
is just another form of statism.

In the case of political enemies with enough personal information,
a condemning case against ANYONE can be made.

“Peeping tomism” by Big Corporation along with Big Government is anti-thetical to freedom. At least in my opinion.

ThinkingSapien . .

I’m a bit on the fence. I’m considering a car with driver assist functionality for my mother as she gets older. It wouldn’t be self driving, but it would have some accident avoidance features such as maintaining lanes, detecting when someone goes to sleep, automatically braking if it detects the car in front has stopped. There’s not been any events that suggest my parents cannot safely drive, but I’m still considering the extra protection that it could provide.

Once mom’s car died and she couldn’t tell me where she was. I added a tracking device to her car after that (with her permission). Another time she had a medical scare and was rushed to the hospital. The tracking was convenient in finding her car and getting it back home. I have them in both of my parent’s cars now.

And I have no issue for those people who privately want to do this with themselves (and personally accept hacking risks etc.).

My issue lies with Big Government and Big Corporation to CLANDESTINELY OR FORCEFULLY (“It is in the user agreement. You can have it or you can NOT use the product!”) push “peepingtomware” upon the citizens.

ThinkingSapien . . . .

What smart speaker has one of those? I’m guessing this line is hypothetical and not literal.

Even back in 2012 we had this technology.
.

Your%20TV%20is%20spying%20on%20you%20peepingtomware

https://www.nbcnews.com/technolog/your-tv-watching-you-latest-models-raise-concerns-483619

This doesn’t mean you can conclude it is being used (or some other close facsimile) right now.

But more importantly . . . .

That is almost an irrelevant point these days (you or others being unaware of certain spy technology being used against you).

All that does is illustrate the level of ignorance out there in the general public (not necc. from you TS).

Virtually everyone was “unaware” of a lot of things before the Snowden revelations.
Or before Clapper and Brennan
and even Robert Mueller were allegedly exposed as (unaccountably) lying to Congress under “oath”.

The real question is:
"In principle, why WOULDN’T these people do that?"

After all, with all the other things that are now obvious,
why WOULDN’T Big Government AND Big Corporation do this?

We don’t want to be conspiracy theorists,
but we do not want to be caught being gullible again either.

.

I know the technologies exists and has existed for years. I was asking if the comment about a speaker with a built in hidden camera was literal. It sounds like it is not literal, but about a hypothetical device.

I think that is a bit of a leap, but okay.

I don’t think it necessarily does.

ThinkingSapien . . . .

It sounds like it is not literal, but about a hypothetical device.

Could be.

The fact that we don’t know for sure says something in and of itself.

.

Cathoholic . . .

I said it makes it easier (not infallible but easier) to come up with solutions for the “problem at hand”

ThinkingSapien . .

I don’t think it necessarily does.

I disagree. (The system now is not working though. Something has to change.)

Do you believe the Alexa is not going to come equiped with such an “Easter egg”?

If someone want’s an Echo with a camera an option is the Echo Show. But to answer of do I think that Amazon would release an Echo with a hidden camera, no, I don’t think so. If I see that a device comes “with Alexa” then I’m pretty sure that it has a built in microphone (such as a thermostat with Alexa ).

The problem at hand here is that the device had a non-disclosed sensing capability. If Nest were severed from Google (or if Google were fractured in some other way) the problem of the non-disclosed sensing capability hasn’t been addressed.

Even some of the new lightbulbs . . .

(Some commercial parkinglots have commercial “lights” that double as cameras now too)

ThinkingSapien . . .

If Nest were severed from Google (or if Google were fractured in some other way) the problem of the non-disclosed sensing capability hasn’t been addressed.

But it still got a little bit easier TO address it.

You sap the political push-back strength of these coroprations for the purpose of preventing too much influence in Washington and elsewhere.

That is part of what anti-trust measures are all about.

No it doesn’t. It doesn’t touch the issue at all. It hasn’t been shown that association with Google was the cause of the problem. It hasn’t been shown that having no association with Google would have prevented the problem. It doesn’t prevent the problem from happening in the future.

Why not suggest an assessment for real or potential damages, get insight to how this happened, and establish guidelines or rules to lower the chances of it happening? Not just at Nest, but for any place that is selling home automation or other devices to consumers.

ThinkingSapien . . .

No it doesn’t. It doesn’t touch the issue at all.

As I said. It doesn’t have to. (And I stated why.)

.

Why not suggest an assessment for real or potential damages, get insight to how this happened, and establish guidelines or rules to lower the chances of it happening?

Because I think the companies being held to the accountibilty of the people,
is more certain and effective than
the capricious accountability of the Government.

(Government “accountibilty” which is easily “buy-offable” which is exactly WHY it makes it tougher for smaller companies to pull off bigger company shenanigans. Not impossible, but tougher. Much tougher.)

We’ve already seen in this thread, lack of Government accountibilty, with lying under oath.

Your answer?

More Government. Bigger companies.

(It always strikes me as odd around campaign time when the leftist politicians begin harping about how they are for “the little guy” and all of that.
When in reality they are
massively BIG Business AND HUGE Government through and through.
And I have explained WHY the leftist politicians have this outlook here on CAF many times. It is because of their “low-ball view” of humanity. This is part and parcel to their elitist worldview.)

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.