Post B2ty5Q45s96gtdPb8q by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
(DIR) More posts by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
(DIR) Post #B2tlkS9XiQZtqBCFyi by mttaggart@infosec.exchange
2026-02-02T03:36:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
This settlement is making the rounds, along with a lot of "I knew it!" FUD. Google has any number of reasons to not want to go to court on this. But the research on this has been fairly robust, and we've yet to see evidence of microphone eavesdropping as claimed here.Until someone shows me evidence a microphone is being activated by a Google service without user input, this is speculation at best.https://www.cbsnews.com/news/google-voice-assistant-lawsuit-settlement-68-million/
(DIR) Post #B2tlkTVuek4A3qfdU8 by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2026-02-02T03:41:17Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mttaggart> Google has any number of reasons to not want to go to court on thisReally? They've got deep pockets and laywers on speed dial. If it really isn't possible that ...> a microphone is being activated by a Google service without user input... surely the best way to put paid to the speculation is to put it before the courts? Settling out of courst doesn't prove it's happening, but they've missed a prime opportunity to convince people it's not, so ... 🤷♂️
(DIR) Post #B2tloZTuPVNxjBgccq by mttaggart@infosec.exchange
2026-02-02T03:42:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey Discovery is never a preferred process for a company like Google when settlement is this cheap. It proves nothing.
(DIR) Post #B2tme0rwLMSLRCSLKK by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2026-02-02T03:51:21Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mttaggart> great reverse engineers have been looking for this for a while and found nothingAbsence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and they have pretty good reason to hide this stuff *very* well. Knowing that reverse engineers will be looking for it, and that the consequences of them finding it would be *very* bad for the company.> I really don't think this is a thing the way most seem to assume it isLots of people report experiences that can't be explained otherwise.
(DIR) Post #B2tmpr4ObOY8WNvee8 by mttaggart@infosec.exchange
2026-02-02T03:53:27Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey They can be explained otherwise! It's good ad targeting! And "absence of evidence" only holds up when you don't have the means to collect the data. We do! We have! Those things simply are not present in the apps and services after heavy scrutiny.
(DIR) Post #B2tqcVPKENSTO9bn2O by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2026-02-02T04:35:53Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(1/2)@mttaggart I guess it comes down to what makes sense as a default assumption in the face of a known unknown. Given everything we know about Goggle, it is a safer assumption that they designed ChromeOS/ Android to give them access to mics, or that they haven't?Combine that with a variant of Pascal's Wager; what are the worst consequences of being wrong about the first assumption, vs. the second one?
(DIR) Post #B2tqn7HGHnypjgtdp2 by mttaggart@infosec.exchange
2026-02-02T04:37:45Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey That is a moved goalpost. The discussion was never about what to give Google, but whether they are doing what is claimed. And there is no evidence they are eavesdropping. So looking at this settlement and ascribing guilt in this case is prejudicial.
(DIR) Post #B2tqvZOpc3O3GuT5N2 by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2026-02-02T04:39:20Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(2/2)For example, what If I'm an anti-ICE protester with an Android device, and I wrongly assume Goggle can access my mic? Then I've been slightly more careful than I needed to. Not so bad.But what if I wrongly assume Goggle *can't* access my mic, and they record my protest planning discussions, and they're passed to ICE via the NSA dragnet Snowden exposed? Potentially *very* bad, and not just for me.
(DIR) Post #B2tr8spyeeIlK0Vuim by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2026-02-02T04:41:45Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mttaggart> looking at this settlement and ascribing guilt in this case is prejudicialAww, poor Goggle. Why don't people trust them? It's so unfair. Honesty, is this really a hill worth dying on?
(DIR) Post #B2trpHXnBarS6vE0sC by mttaggart@infosec.exchange
2026-02-02T04:49:22Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey I have no love for Google, but I actually do think it matters that people have evidence and not insinuations to back up their claims. So get some, or move on. Nobody should trust tech companies; that's not in dispute. What you claim about what they can do materially impacts their threat model though, and claiming that can eavesdrop without evidence is FUD.
(DIR) Post #B2txae1ztdjJEbkyye by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2026-02-02T05:53:59Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mttaggart > What you claim about what they can do materially impacts people's threat model thoughAbsolutely. This was my point in these 2 posts;https://mastodon.nzoss.nz/@strypey/115999175681793151You're right on a philosophical level that there's no basis to assume fact, and on legal level that they're innocent until proven guilty. But if you proceed from there to saying that people must therefore remove the possibility from their threat modelling, you're dead wrong and giving *very* bad advice.
(DIR) Post #B2txp7TJEZYgb4QxaC by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2026-02-02T05:56:37Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mttaggart FWIW I learned about this the hard way;https://disintermedia.net.nz/indymedia-stories-3-rob-and-me/
(DIR) Post #B2ty5Q45s96gtdPb8q by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2026-02-02T05:59:34Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mttaggart FWIW I learned about this the hard way;https://disintermedia.net.nz/indymedia-stories-3-rob-and-me/I had no evidence that Rob Gilchrist was a spook. But I wasn't the only one who made a *big* mistake by concluding that we ought to therefore assume he wasn't. Because it turned out he was.There are many, *many* more good reasons to assume Goggle are doing any spying they're theoretically capable of.
(DIR) Post #B2u4HTJeD8d0B8ojgG by mttaggart@infosec.exchange
2026-02-02T07:08:49Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey I find this to be an extraordinarily poor analogy. Take a look at the replies here to note the technical "evidence of absence" that we do have, to say nothing of the rather risible belief in the behavior in the first place. Skepticism is warranted; paranoia is not. You are free to disagree, but I don't really think I'm giving people "bad advice" by saying that there's no reason to believe Google is activating their microphone without their knowledge.