I’ve often wondered about this type thing, and now it looks like my suspicions have been confirmed. Which is sad, but ultimately not very surprising.
I’ve also considered the issue of the review process. While I understand that things slip through the cracks (I can kinda see missing the clipboard snooping thing), it seems like making sure apps aren’t using the camera to peep in on users would be, like I dunno, maybe... one of the top priorities?!?!
as far as TikTok goes, wouldn’t it be pretty easy to verify that the app is or is not doing this with the iOS 14 update?
In a word, no.
For one thing, the reviewers have no idea what triggers the camera. For example, how would the reviewers check for it if Facebook only activates the camera in secret when the device is in your home? Or perhaps they only activate the snoop when the app has been running for half an hour or something.
The review has no way of picking this up, but there might be a way for iOS to guard against it. At the moment, Apple gives blanket permission for apps to use the camera and microphone. Why? Why not do use something more fine-grained like the location services? I can’t think of a situation where an app needs access to the camera all time. Apps should only be able to use the camera while the app itself is being interacted with.
A case like this "should" be able to be easily resolved, as I'm assuming that Apple has archived versions of old apps; and as such a forensic analyst should be able to quickly tell if the app actually appears to be doing anything (processing or transmitting) any data from the camera.
Like decades ago when Google scooped up private WiFi data: "It was done by a rogue programmer!" And, like then, everybody will nod and move on.....
In fairness, it wasn't private wifi data. It was publically broadcast over open networks, you yourself could have seen it if you wished. While it was still "bad Google" and they weren't being honest about the gathering of a few brief seconds of it IMO, it wasn't private. Fibbing about the "rogue programmer ' was more egregious.
Now you can get back to partisan posting. Sorry for the interruption.
“I don’t mind that a burglar broke into my house, rifled thought my stuff and stole my bike. I wasn’t using the bike much anyway.”
Sorry, Google and you don’t decide what information I want to keep private.
Isn't this the kind of thing that Apple is checking for during the review process?
No. It’s a review, not a test.
It’s unlikely that Apple would be able to test every pathway through even the most basic app without spending an unfeasible amount of time reading through the source code an writing individual tests for every single app. The review time for each app would be measured in years, rather than days.
Even the apps developers can’t test for every single condition the app may encounter. That’s one of the reasons they crash.
This sure does seem to validate the complaints of folks who complained about being bombarded with Roomba ads (or whatever) after briefly mentioning one in the privacy of their own homes.
I’ve often wondered about this type thing, and now it looks like my suspicions have been confirmed. Which is sad, but ultimately not very surprising.
I’ve also considered the issue of the review process. While I understand that things slip through the cracks (I can kinda see missing the clipboard snooping thing), it seems like making sure apps aren’t using the camera to peep in on users would be, like I dunno, maybe... one of the top priorities?!?!
as far as TikTok goes, wouldn’t it be pretty easy to verify that the app is or is not doing this with the iOS 14 update?
In a word, no.
For one thing, the reviewers have no idea what triggers the camera. For example, how would the reviewers check for it if Facebook only activates the camera in secret when the device is in your home? Or perhaps they only activate the snoop when the app has been running for half an hour or something.
The review has no way of picking this up, but there might be a way for iOS to guard against it. At the moment, Apple gives blanket permission for apps to use the camera and microphone. Why? Why not do use something more fine-grained like the location services? I can’t think of a situation where an app needs access to the camera all time. Apps should only be able to use the camera while the app itself is being interacted with.
I see now. I was just thinking with this green dot feature it would just pop on clear as day, but I suppose even that could theoretically be circumvented. I get that they only have so much time in the review process so I see how that type of stuff could be triggered under circumstances the developer(s) know won’t be part of the standard review process. It will be interesting to see what else comes to light in the coming weeks regarding Apple’s increasing security & privacy implementations. I’m liking the new image sharing protections, though they need to streamline it a bit. Slightly clunky in its first iteration. You’re saying something like that only for cameras & mics, which makes sense, and I’m sure is under review in Apple labs.
Google's argument as its defence for WiFi snooping was bogus. If I'm engaged in an activity in my house but happen to have left the curtains open, I am still entitled to privacy despite it now being much easier for other people to see what I am doing if they choose to try.
A case like this "should" be able to be easily resolved, as I'm assuming that Apple has archived versions of old apps; and as such a forensic analyst should be able to quickly tell if the app actually appears to be doing anything (processing or transmitting) any data from the camera.
Like decades ago when Google scooped up private WiFi data: "It was done by a rogue programmer!" And, like then, everybody will nod and move on.....
In fairness, it wasn't private wifi data. It was publically broadcast over open networks, you yourself could have seen it if you wished. While it was still "bad Google" and they weren't being honest about the gathering of a few brief seconds of it IMO, it wasn't private. Fibbing about the "rogue programmer ' was more egregious.
Now you can get back to partisan posting. Sorry for the interruption.
“I don’t mind that a burglar broke into my house, rifled thought my stuff and stole my bike. I wasn’t using the bike much anyway.”
Sorry, Google and you don’t decide what information I want to keep private.
That response made no sense at all Rayz. They weren't hacking/breaking into people's homes or rifling thru anyone's "stuff".
What Google did was closer to walking down the public sidewalk picking up whatever they found laying there, which of course does not mean they are necessarily entitled to keep what they find there if it's identifiable. If you find a $100 bill on the road you are not obliged to find the owner. If you find that bike you might be. Authorities were right to demand Google destroy it all since separating the identifiable from the mundane anonymous stuff would be an impossible task. Google should not have been collecting it to begin with.
Sometimes you find the goofiest comparisons that for whatever reason made sense to you when you sat at your keyboard. What's just as silly is at least two other people thought it made sense too.
Google's argument as its defence for WiFi snooping was bogus. If I'm engaged in an activity in my house but happen to have left the curtains open, I am still entitled to privacy despite it now being much easier for other people to see what I am doing if they choose to try.
Of course it was bogus. It still wasn't stealing. And your example was nothing similar to what Google was doing (Bad on Google BTW in case you missed that earlier)
Stand in front of your window at your own risk, anyone walking down the street is allowed to look at you, even you buck naked. You've looked at and overheard others while driving and walking down a public street too. You were no longer entitled to your privacy when you decided to put yourself in front of the window for the public to see, especially as they might find you offensive for doing so.
A case like this "should" be able to be easily resolved, as I'm assuming that Apple has archived versions of old apps; and as such a forensic analyst should be able to quickly tell if the app actually appears to be doing anything (processing or transmitting) any data from the camera.
Like decades ago when Google scooped up private WiFi data: "It was done by a rogue programmer!" And, like then, everybody will nod and move on.....
In fairness, it wasn't private wifi data. It was publically broadcast over open networks, you yourself could have seen it if you wished. While it was still "bad Google" and they weren't being honest about the gathering of a few brief seconds of it IMO, it wasn't private. Fibbing about the "rogue programmer ' was more egregious.
Now you can get back to partisan posting. Sorry for the interruption.
“I don’t mind that a burglar broke into my house, rifled thought my stuff and stole my bike. I wasn’t using the bike much anyway.”
Sorry, Google and you don’t decide what information I want to keep private.
That response made no sense at all Rayz. They weren't hacking/breaking into people's homes or rifling thru anyone's "stuff".
What Google did was closer to walking down the public sidewalk picking up whatever they found laying there, which of course does not mean they are necessarily entitled to keep what they find there if it's identifiable. If you find a $100 bill on the road you are not obliged to find the owner. If you find that bike you might be. Authorities were right to demand Google destroy it all since separating the identifiable from the mundane anonymous stuff would be an impossible task. Google should not have been collecting it to begin with.
Sometimes you find the goofiest comparisons that for whatever reason made sense to you when you sat at your keyboard. What's just as silly is at least two other people thought it made sense too.
Because they didn't physically enter the user's property its ok to steal their data?
Pretty much every hacker in the world could use that defense.
While all that happened a lifetime ago and few who worked there then are are working there now and, I sincerely doubt that Google is pulling that stuff anymore and nor would they do it again, it did illustrate where their priorities lie.
A case like this "should" be able to be easily resolved, as I'm assuming that Apple has archived versions of old apps; and as such a forensic analyst should be able to quickly tell if the app actually appears to be doing anything (processing or transmitting) any data from the camera.
Like decades ago when Google scooped up private WiFi data: "It was done by a rogue programmer!" And, like then, everybody will nod and move on.....
In fairness, it wasn't private wifi data. It was publically broadcast over open networks, you yourself could have seen it if you wished. While it was still "bad Google" and they weren't being honest about the gathering of a few brief seconds of it IMO, it wasn't private. Fibbing about the "rogue programmer ' was more egregious.
Now you can get back to partisan posting. Sorry for the interruption.
“I don’t mind that a burglar broke into my house, rifled thought my stuff and stole my bike. I wasn’t using the bike much anyway.”
Sorry, Google and you don’t decide what information I want to keep private.
That response made no sense at all Rayz. They weren't hacking/breaking into people's homes or rifling thru anyone's "stuff".
What Google did was closer to walking down the public sidewalk picking up whatever they found laying there, which of course does not mean they are necessarily entitled to keep what they find there if it's identifiable. If you find a $100 bill on the road you are not obliged to find the owner. If you find that bike you might be. Authorities were right to demand Google destroy it all since separating the identifiable from the mundane anonymous stuff would be an impossible task. Google should not have been collecting it to begin with.
Sometimes you find the goofiest comparisons that for whatever reason made sense to you when you sat at your keyboard. What's just as silly is at least two other people thought it made sense too.
Because they didn't physically enter the user's property its ok to steal their data?
Pretty much every hacker in the world could use that defense.
Read my second paragraph again George, perhaps more slowly. We agreed, Google couldn't keep the bike. Weird huh?
A case like this "should" be able to be easily resolved, as I'm assuming that Apple has archived versions of old apps; and as such a forensic analyst should be able to quickly tell if the app actually appears to be doing anything (processing or transmitting) any data from the camera.
Like decades ago when Google scooped up private WiFi data: "It was done by a rogue programmer!" And, like then, everybody will nod and move on.....
In fairness, it wasn't private wifi data. It was publically broadcast over open networks, you yourself could have seen it if you wished. While it was still "bad Google" and they weren't being honest about the gathering of a few brief seconds of it IMO, it wasn't private. Fibbing about the "rogue programmer ' was more egregious.
Now you can get back to partisan posting. Sorry for the interruption.
“I don’t mind that a burglar broke into my house, rifled thought my stuff and stole my bike. I wasn’t using the bike much anyway.”
Sorry, Google and you don’t decide what information I want to keep private.
That response made no sense at all Rayz. They weren't hacking/breaking into people's homes or rifling thru anyone's "stuff".
What Google did was closer to walking down the public sidewalk picking up whatever they found laying there, which of course does not mean they are necessarily entitled to keep what they find there if it's identifiable. If you find a $100 bill on the road you are not obliged to find the owner. If you find that bike you might be. Authorities were right to demand Google destroy it all since separating the identifiable from the mundane anonymous stuff would be an impossible task. Google should not have been collecting it to begin with.
Sometimes you find the goofiest comparisons that for whatever reason made sense to you when you sat at your keyboard. What's just as silly is at least two other people thought it made sense too.
Because they didn't physically enter the user's property its ok to steal their data?
Pretty much every hacker in the world could use that defense.
Read my second paragraph again George, perhaps more slowly. We agreed, Google couldn't keep the bike. Weird huh?
So that WiFi data was just laying there where somebody had abandoned it? Really? I didn't know that WiFi data could do that. I thought it had to be transmitted from a person's house.
A case like this "should" be able to be easily resolved, as I'm assuming that Apple has archived versions of old apps; and as such a forensic analyst should be able to quickly tell if the app actually appears to be doing anything (processing or transmitting) any data from the camera.
Like decades ago when Google scooped up private WiFi data: "It was done by a rogue programmer!" And, like then, everybody will nod and move on.....
In fairness, it wasn't private wifi data. It was publically broadcast over open networks, you yourself could have seen it if you wished. While it was still "bad Google" and they weren't being honest about the gathering of a few brief seconds of it IMO, it wasn't private. Fibbing about the "rogue programmer ' was more egregious.
Now you can get back to partisan posting. Sorry for the interruption.
“I don’t mind that a burglar broke into my house, rifled thought my stuff and stole my bike. I wasn’t using the bike much anyway.”
Sorry, Google and you don’t decide what information I want to keep private.
That response made no sense at all Rayz. They weren't hacking/breaking into people's homes or rifling thru anyone's "stuff".
What Google did was closer to walking down the public sidewalk picking up whatever they found laying there, which of course does not mean they are necessarily entitled to keep what they find there if it's identifiable. If you find a $100 bill on the road you are not obliged to find the owner. If you find that bike you might be. Authorities were right to demand Google destroy it all since separating the identifiable from the mundane anonymous stuff would be an impossible task. Google should not have been collecting it to begin with.
Sometimes you find the goofiest comparisons that for whatever reason made sense to you when you sat at your keyboard. What's just as silly is at least two other people thought it made sense too.
Because they didn't physically enter the user's property its ok to steal their data?
Pretty much every hacker in the world could use that defense.
Read my second paragraph again George, perhaps more slowly. We agreed, Google couldn't keep the bike. Weird huh?
So that WiFi data was just laying there where somebody had abandoned it? Really? I didn't know that WiFi data could do that. I thought it had to be transmitted from a person's house.
It bothers you that much that we might agree on something?
Data obviously can be "left laying (sic) around" or Google could not have collected snippets of it. A reminder to make sure your wifi isn't left lying around open so your neighbors and "visitors" don't pick it up.
People add themselves to someone else's wifi feed without permission pretty darn often. A few years ago a neighbor behind me was connecting to my internet wifi service (cheap SOB, long gone now), but that was before I knew better about securing it.
A case like this "should" be able to be easily resolved, as I'm assuming that Apple has archived versions of old apps; and as such a forensic analyst should be able to quickly tell if the app actually appears to be doing anything (processing or transmitting) any data from the camera.
Like decades ago when Google scooped up private WiFi data: "It was done by a rogue programmer!" And, like then, everybody will nod and move on.....
In fairness, it wasn't private wifi data. It was publically broadcast over open networks, you yourself could have seen it if you wished. While it was still "bad Google" and they weren't being honest about the gathering of a few brief seconds of it IMO, it wasn't private. Fibbing about the "rogue programmer ' was more egregious.
Now you can get back to partisan posting. Sorry for the interruption.
“I don’t mind that a burglar broke into my house, rifled thought my stuff and stole my bike. I wasn’t using the bike much anyway.”
Sorry, Google and you don’t decide what information I want to keep private.
That response made no sense at all Rayz. They weren't hacking/breaking into people's homes or rifling thru anyone's "stuff".
What Google did was closer to walking down the public sidewalk picking up whatever they found laying there, which of course does not mean they are necessarily entitled to keep what they find there if it's identifiable. If you find a $100 bill on the road you are not obliged to find the owner. If you find that bike you might be. Authorities were right to demand Google destroy it all since separating the identifiable from the mundane anonymous stuff would be an impossible task. Google should not have been collecting it to begin with.
Sometimes you find the goofiest comparisons that for whatever reason made sense to you when you sat at your keyboard. What's just as silly is at least two other people thought it made sense too.
Because they didn't physically enter the user's property its ok to steal their data?
Pretty much every hacker in the world could use that defense.
Read my second paragraph again George, perhaps more slowly. We agreed, Google couldn't keep the bike. Weird huh?
So that WiFi data was just laying there where somebody had abandoned it? Really? I didn't know that WiFi data could do that. I thought it had to be transmitted from a person's house.
It bothers you that much that we might agree on something?
Data obviously can be "left laying (sic) around" or Google could not have collected snippets of it. A reminder to make sure your wifi isn't left lying around open so your neighbors and "visitors" don't pick it up.
People add themselves to someone else's wifi feed without permission pretty darn often. A few years ago a neighbor behind me was connecting to my internet wifi service (cheap SOB, long gone now), but that was before I knew better about securing it.
Stealing is still stealing. Regardless of the excuse, rationalization or attempt at distraction.
A case like this "should" be able to be easily resolved, as I'm assuming that Apple has archived versions of old apps; and as such a forensic analyst should be able to quickly tell if the app actually appears to be doing anything (processing or transmitting) any data from the camera.
Like decades ago when Google scooped up private WiFi data: "It was done by a rogue programmer!" And, like then, everybody will nod and move on.....
In fairness, it wasn't private wifi data. It was publically broadcast over open networks, you yourself could have seen it if you wished. While it was still "bad Google" and they weren't being honest about the gathering of a few brief seconds of it IMO, it wasn't private. Fibbing about the "rogue programmer ' was more egregious.
Now you can get back to partisan posting. Sorry for the interruption.
“I don’t mind that a burglar broke into my house, rifled thought my stuff and stole my bike. I wasn’t using the bike much anyway.”
Sorry, Google and you don’t decide what information I want to keep private.
That response made no sense at all Rayz. They weren't hacking/breaking into people's homes or rifling thru anyone's "stuff".
What Google did was closer to walking down the public sidewalk picking up whatever they found laying there, which of course does not mean they are necessarily entitled to keep what they find there if it's identifiable. If you find a $100 bill on the road you are not obliged to find the owner. If you find that bike you might be. Authorities were right to demand Google destroy it all since separating the identifiable from the mundane anonymous stuff would be an impossible task. Google should not have been collecting it to begin with.
Sometimes you find the goofiest comparisons that for whatever reason made sense to you when you sat at your keyboard. What's just as silly is at least two other people thought it made sense too.
Because they didn't physically enter the user's property its ok to steal their data?
Pretty much every hacker in the world could use that defense.
Read my second paragraph again George, perhaps more slowly. We agreed, Google couldn't keep the bike. Weird huh?
So that WiFi data was just laying there where somebody had abandoned it? Really? I didn't know that WiFi data could do that. I thought it had to be transmitted from a person's house.
It bothers you that much that we might agree on something?
Data obviously can be "left laying (sic) around" or Google could not have collected snippets of it. A reminder to make sure your wifi isn't left lying around open so your neighbors and "visitors" don't pick it up.
People add themselves to someone else's wifi feed without permission pretty darn often. A few years ago a neighbor behind me was connecting to my internet wifi service (cheap SOB, long gone now), but that was before I knew better about securing it.
Stealing is still stealing. Regardless of the excuse, rationalization or attempt at distraction.
Absolutely correct, stealing is stealing, and money is money. East is East, West is West, China is China... So again we agree.
"We only access your camera when you tell us to -- for example, when you swipe from Feed to Camera. We found and are fixing a bug in iOS 14 Beta that mistakenly indicates that some people are using the camera when they aren't," Facebook said. "We do not access your camera in those instances, and no content is recorded."
Yeah, I suspect it is not the camera, but principally the microphone that IG activates to listen in on conversations. A month ago, I was getting advertisements directed to me shortly after having conversations with others involving the same items (Mini Coopers and jigsaw puzzles in particular). These were items that I had not searched for in recent memory so it seemed hard to believe they were pushed to me in a random fashion.
Instagram had access to my microphone at the time. I hope this lawsuit proceeds and hopefully there are forensics to back up these claims. I wished I had tested my hypothesis before I updated to iOS 14. In retrospect, I wish I would have put keywords in my conversation and see if the same items followed as advertisements.
"We only access your camera when you tell us to -- for example, when you swipe from Feed to Camera. We found and are fixing a bug in iOS 14 Beta that mistakenly indicates that some people are using the camera when they aren't," Facebook said. "We do not access your camera in those instances, and no content is recorded."
Yeah, I suspect it is not the camera, but principally the microphone that IG activates to listen in on conversations. A month ago, I was getting advertisements directed to me shortly after having conversations with others involving the same items (Mini Coopers and jigsaw puzzles in particular). These were items that I had not searched for in recent memory so it seemed hard to believe they were pushed to me in a random fashion.
Instagram had access to my microphone at the time. I hope this lawsuit proceeds and hopefully there are forensics to back up these claims. I wished I had tested my hypothesis before I updated to iOS 14. In retrospect, I wish I would have put keywords in my conversation and see if the same items followed as advertisements.
Probably more reasonable to assume that your group had shown a (digitally traceable) interest, and that Instagram (ie Facebook) just got it to be relevant to you by locations and friendlsts.
Comments
For one thing, the reviewers have no idea what triggers the camera. For example, how would the reviewers check for it if Facebook only activates the camera in secret when the device is in your home? Or perhaps they only activate the snoop when the app has been running for half an hour or something.
“I don’t mind that a burglar broke into my house, rifled thought my stuff and stole my bike. I wasn’t using the bike much anyway.”
Sorry, Google and you don’t decide what information I want to keep private.
No. It’s a review, not a test.
What Google did was closer to walking down the public sidewalk picking up whatever they found laying there, which of course does not mean they are necessarily entitled to keep what they find there if it's identifiable. If you find a $100 bill on the road you are not obliged to find the owner. If you find that bike you might be. Authorities were right to demand Google destroy it all since separating the identifiable from the mundane anonymous stuff would be an impossible task. Google should not have been collecting it to begin with.
Sometimes you find the goofiest comparisons that for whatever reason made sense to you when you sat at your keyboard. What's just as silly is at least two other people thought it made sense too.
Stand in front of your window at your own risk, anyone walking down the street is allowed to look at you, even you buck naked. You've looked at and overheard others while driving and walking down a public street too. You were no longer entitled to your privacy when you decided to put yourself in front of the window for the public to see, especially as they might find you offensive for doing so.
Weird huh?
Data obviously can be "left laying (sic) around" or Google could not have collected snippets of it. A reminder to make sure your wifi isn't left lying around open so your neighbors and "visitors" don't pick it up.
People add themselves to someone else's wifi feed without permission pretty darn often. A few years ago a neighbor behind me was connecting to my internet wifi service (cheap SOB, long gone now), but that was before I knew better about securing it.
Stealing is still stealing. Regardless of the excuse, rationalization or attempt at distraction.
So again we agree.
Yeah, I suspect it is not the camera, but principally the microphone that IG activates to listen in on conversations. A month ago, I was getting advertisements directed to me shortly after having conversations with others involving the same items (Mini Coopers and jigsaw puzzles in particular). These were items that I had not searched for in recent memory so it seemed hard to believe they were pushed to me in a random fashion.
Instagram had access to my microphone at the time. I hope this lawsuit proceeds and hopefully there are forensics to back up these claims. I wished I had tested my hypothesis before I updated to iOS 14. In retrospect, I wish I would have put keywords in my conversation and see if the same items followed as advertisements.