On 01-05-2021 18:19, Joe wrote: > On Sat, 01 May 2021 09:28:04 +0200 > deloptes <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Joe wrote: >> >> > I know someone who started to be shown online adverts that could >> > only have been based on a sound-wave conversation within the >> > hearing of his smartphone. I don't know about other similar claims, >> > but I trust his. >> > >> > Are you saying that you don't believe anyone could be that naughty? >> > Go look up 'superfish' and 'lenovo' if you're not aware of the >> > incident, and that was years ago. I don't believe that advertisers >> > consider any kind of non-lethal behaviour to be unethical. >> >> People can state anything, but it is not necessary true. >> >> However if you have enabled some kind of assistant like Alexa, Siri or >> whatever they are called, it could be that they are indeed spying on >> you. Again to make such a statement means you need to provide >> evidence. >> >> Some state their brainwaves are being influenced by whatever (video, >> tv, wireless) It could be true, but there is no evidence and the >> probability of this being true is very low. > > At the moment, yes. But there are regular announcements of brain wave > measurements being used by e.g. disabled people to allow some control > of things. Do you doubt for a moment that researchers around the world > are studying brain waves with a view to at least surveillance of > thoughts, if not control, of for weaponry? >> >> I am writing this and asking you to start checking facts and stop >> believing. >> > > Facts have become extremely difficult to come by. Almost every > potential supplier of 'facts' has his own agenda and cannot be trusted > to be honest. Even universities, which used to carry out research just > for the sake of it (e.g. Faraday, Davy etc.) are now mostly sponsored > by businesses and cannot be trusted to be unbiased. Everything has been > made political, and there is nobody who does not have their own > political beliefs and agendas. We users and writers of free software > certainly do. > > I work on the basis that if something underhanded and unethical can be > done and can provide some political or financial return, it *will* be > done until it is discovered and measures are put in place to prevent it > happening, if indeed that ever occurs. Manufacturers *have* been caught > eavesdropping on people in their homes, and said that these occasions > were 'accidental', or for quality control purposes, or some such. Some > even admit to targeting advertising: > > https://www.techwalls.com/samsung-smart-tv-eavesdropping-company-admits/ > > 'Here’s what Samsung says to warn you, at least: > > “Please be aware that if your spoken words include personal or other > sensitive information, that information will be among the data captured > and transmitted to a third party through your use of Voice > Recognition.”' > > Such manufacturers say that voice facilities can be turned off to > prevent this, but whose word do we have to take that it is true? > > Remember when Google StreetView camera vehicles were found to be > collecting personal wifi SSDs and anything available that was > unencrypted as they drove around? > > https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/may/15/google-admits-storing-private-data > > Naturally, there were good, honest reasons for doing that, but Google > would have looked more ethical if it had announced in advance that it > would be doing it, instead of hiding it until it was discovered. > > Remember when the shiny new Windows 95 was found to be accumulating in > a file the names of web sites visited? That was a very crude and > unsophisticated way of spying, a quarter of a century ago, but it > brought to the public's attention the fact that such spying was now > possible. Even Windows 95 was just too large to disassemble and audit, > and an installation was by today's standards a drop in the ocean at > 25MB. Windows now occupies tens of gigabytes, and even a large Linux > installation can be several GB in size. > >> This is not religion. > > There is nothing 'religious' about assuming that many private businesses > will take every opportunity to make money from you in ways that you > would not permit if you were given the choice. What is the purpose of > 'free' social media, after all? What about the written guarantee cards > provided with products since the early twentieth century, to be > returned to obtain some small additional benefit? What were they if not > the gathering of low-level purchasing information to assist future > marketing? We *know* that's the kind of thing businesses do. We should > expect them to use all possibly technological assistance to do it more > and better. And we can certainly expect our rulers to spy on us > whenever possible.
Personal information is the new currency: fact! Social media organisations do not fund large server banks, and employ serious numbers of sys. admins, supplying a 24/7 service to supply you with your own personal sandpit to play in, for free: fact! Samsung only came out with that warning after they were caught: fact! Build your own routers because most manufactured ones have suspect firmware: fact! Agents from 3 letter government departments have been involved in Microsoft's programming department for decades: fact! There are many other examples, and the trend is obvious. Anybody who refuses to observe the traffic deserves to get run over. Cheers! Harry -- `Women fall in love with what they hear, men fall in love with what they see, that's why women wear make up and men lie'.
