Discussion:
12 Android apps, could violate consumer privacy rights by picking up background noise to feed to advertisers.
(too old to reply)
Max Muller
2016-03-20 16:51:35 UTC
Permalink
Android inability to turn off access bites the users again!
http://www.informationweek.com/government/open-government/ftc-raps-android-developers-for-using-silverpush-software/d/d-id/1324765


12 Android apps, could violate consumer privacy rights by picking up
background noise to feed to advertisers.

The software, called SilverPush, turns on an Android device's microphone
and can pick up background sounds to better target advertisers.

The functionality is designed to run silently in the background, even
while the user is not actively using the application. Using this
technology, SilverPush could generate a detailed log of the television
content viewed while a user's mobile phone was turned on.

The FTC letter noted that for the time being, SilverPush has represented
that its audio beacons are not currently embedded into any television
programming aimed at US households.
Arno Welzel
2016-03-20 18:45:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Max Muller
Android inability to turn off access bites the users again!
http://www.informationweek.com/government/open-government/ftc-raps-android-developers-for-using-silverpush-software/d/d-id/1324765
How can one turn off access to the microphone on a computer with Windows
or MacOS?

Yes - I understand the problem. But I wonder why people complain about
the missing possibility to turn off access to certain functions of the
device on smartphones but happily use machines with Windows or MacOS
where all applications always have access to all data of the user
running it.
--
Arno Welzel
http://arnowelzel.de
http://de-rec-fahrrad.de
http://fahrradzukunft.de
tlvp
2016-03-21 02:09:26 UTC
Permalink
How can one turn off access to the microphone on a computer with Windows ...
Disable the microphone device. Use the Control Panel to do so. Thusly:

Control Panel > Hardware and Sound > Sound > Manage Audio Devices >
(Sound)Recording tab > Microphone > Properties > General > Device Usage >
drop-down list: enable | disable.

Admittedly a long click-trail to follow, but pretty much follow-your-nose.
A suitable expert might be able to offedr a one-line regedit hack for that.

HTH. Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
Arno Welzel
2016-03-21 06:43:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by tlvp
How can one turn off access to the microphone on a computer with Windows ...
Control Panel > Hardware and Sound > Sound > Manage Audio Devices >
(Sound)Recording tab > Microphone > Properties > General > Device Usage >
drop-down list: enable | disable.
Admittedly a long click-trail to follow, but pretty much follow-your-nose.
A suitable expert might be able to offedr a one-line regedit hack for that.
Thanks for the hint. But I know very well that one can disable devices
completely. I don't want to disable/enable the microphone all the time
when I need it on a regular basis. Even using a registry hack would be
quite cumbersome.
--
Arno Welzel
http://arnowelzel.de
http://de-rec-fahrrad.de
http://fahrradzukunft.de
Lewis
2016-03-21 04:38:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Max Muller
Android inability to turn off access bites the users again!
http://www.informationweek.com/government/open-government/ftc-raps-android-developers-for-using-silverpush-software/d/d-id/1324765
How can one turn off access to the microphone on a computer with Windows
or MacOS?
System Preferences -> Sound -> Input _Input level to 0

Om many macs, you can also set the input source to line in. If there is
nothing connected to line in, then there is no active mic.

You can also go further by removing the audio kernel extension, but
that's a bit much.

Dunno on Windows, and don't care.
Post by Arno Welzel
Yes - I understand the problem. But I wonder why people complain about
the missing possibility to turn off access to certain functions of the
device on smartphones but happily use machines with Windows or MacOS
where all applications always have access to all data of the user
running it.
You are grossly misinformed.
--
Updated to be PRCE compatible after 400 years: /(bb|[^b]{2})/
Arno Welzel
2016-03-21 06:45:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Max Muller
Android inability to turn off access bites the users again!
http://www.informationweek.com/government/open-government/ftc-raps-android-developers-for-using-silverpush-software/d/d-id/1324765
How can one turn off access to the microphone on a computer with Windows
or MacOS?
System Preferences -> Sound -> Input _Input level to 0
You don't get it, do you? Nothing keeps a program from setting the input
level back to the desired value as there is no special permission
required to do so. People may even want to use the microphone on a
regular basis and don't want to play around with the recording level all
the time.

[...]
Post by Lewis
Post by Arno Welzel
Yes - I understand the problem. But I wonder why people complain about
the missing possibility to turn off access to certain functions of the
device on smartphones but happily use machines with Windows or MacOS
where all applications always have access to all data of the user
running it.
You are grossly misinformed.
How to I keep an application from read the data where my login as has
access to?
--
Arno Welzel
http://arnowelzel.de
http://de-rec-fahrrad.de
http://fahrradzukunft.de
Jolly Roger
2016-03-21 07:03:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Lewis
Post by Arno Welzel
How can one turn off access to the microphone on a computer with Windows
or MacOS?
System Preferences -> Sound -> Input _Input level to 0
You don't get it, do you? Nothing keeps a program from setting the input
level back to the desired value
Wrong. Disabling the kernel extension will certainly do that.
--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
Arno Welzel
2016-03-21 07:52:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jolly Roger
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Lewis
Post by Arno Welzel
How can one turn off access to the microphone on a computer with Windows
or MacOS?
System Preferences -> Sound -> Input _Input level to 0
You don't get it, do you? Nothing keeps a program from setting the input
level back to the desired value
Wrong. Disabling the kernel extension will certainly do that.
The kernel extension is enabled by default? I'm not talking about things
a regular user would never do.
--
Arno Welzel
http://arnowelzel.de
http://de-rec-fahrrad.de
http://fahrradzukunft.de
Jolly Roger
2016-03-21 16:30:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Jolly Roger
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Lewis
Post by Arno Welzel
How can one turn off access to the microphone on a computer with Windows
or MacOS?
System Preferences -> Sound -> Input _Input level to 0
You don't get it, do you? Nothing keeps a program from setting the input
level back to the desired value
Wrong. Disabling the kernel extension will certainly do that.
The kernel extension is enabled by default? I'm not talking about things
a regular user would never do.
Please. Anyone who owns their Mac can disable a kernel extension.
--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
Arno Welzel
2016-03-21 17:53:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jolly Roger
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Jolly Roger
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Lewis
Post by Arno Welzel
How can one turn off access to the microphone on a computer with Windows
or MacOS?
System Preferences -> Sound -> Input _Input level to 0
You don't get it, do you? Nothing keeps a program from setting the input
level back to the desired value
Wrong. Disabling the kernel extension will certainly do that.
The kernel extension is enabled by default? I'm not talking about things
a regular user would never do.
Please. Anyone who owns their Mac can disable a kernel extension.
My wife owns a Macbook Pro for many years now - I doubt she even knows
what a kernel extension is and what it is used for. Not everybody is a
tech-savvy user.
--
Arno Welzel
http://arnowelzel.de
http://de-rec-fahrrad.de
http://fahrradzukunft.de
Jolly Roger
2016-03-21 18:16:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Jolly Roger
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Jolly Roger
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Lewis
Post by Arno Welzel
How can one turn off access to the microphone on a computer with Windows
or MacOS?
System Preferences -> Sound -> Input _Input level to 0
You don't get it, do you? Nothing keeps a program from setting the input
level back to the desired value
Wrong. Disabling the kernel extension will certainly do that.
The kernel extension is enabled by default? I'm not talking about things
a regular user would never do.
Please. Anyone who owns their Mac can disable a kernel extension.
My wife owns a Macbook Pro for many years now - I doubt she even knows
what a kernel extension is and what it is used for. Not everybody is a
tech-savvy user.
So? For those who want to know how to remove a OS X kernel extension
it's a simple web search away. You asked how one can turn off access to
the microphone on a Mac, and you've got your answer, like it or not.
--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
Arno Welzel
2016-03-21 18:38:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jolly Roger
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Jolly Roger
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Jolly Roger
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Lewis
Post by Arno Welzel
How can one turn off access to the microphone on a computer with Windows
or MacOS?
System Preferences -> Sound -> Input _Input level to 0
You don't get it, do you? Nothing keeps a program from setting the input
level back to the desired value
Wrong. Disabling the kernel extension will certainly do that.
The kernel extension is enabled by default? I'm not talking about things
a regular user would never do.
Please. Anyone who owns their Mac can disable a kernel extension.
My wife owns a Macbook Pro for many years now - I doubt she even knows
what a kernel extension is and what it is used for. Not everybody is a
tech-savvy user.
So? For those who want to know how to remove a OS X kernel extension
it's a simple web search away. You asked how one can turn off access to
the microphone on a Mac, and you've got your answer, like it or not.
Well - in this case I say that the access to the microphone in Android
can be controlled quite easily. Either use SRT AppGuard or root your
device and use tools like AppOps. This is as easy as looking for ways
how to keep programs from using the microphone in MacOS. And it's even
better, since one has not to disable/enable the microphone all the time
if is really needed - e.g. for a VoIP chat or similar.
--
Arno Welzel
http://arnowelzel.de
http://de-rec-fahrrad.de
http://fahrradzukunft.de
nospam
2016-03-21 18:44:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Jolly Roger
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Jolly Roger
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Jolly Roger
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Lewis
System Preferences -> Sound -> Input _Input level to 0
You don't get it, do you? Nothing keeps a program from setting the input
level back to the desired value
Wrong. Disabling the kernel extension will certainly do that.
The kernel extension is enabled by default? I'm not talking about things
a regular user would never do.
Please. Anyone who owns their Mac can disable a kernel extension.
My wife owns a Macbook Pro for many years now - I doubt she even knows
what a kernel extension is and what it is used for. Not everybody is a
tech-savvy user.
So? For those who want to know how to remove a OS X kernel extension
it's a simple web search away. You asked how one can turn off access to
the microphone on a Mac, and you've got your answer, like it or not.
Well - in this case I say that the access to the microphone in Android
can be controlled quite easily. Either use SRT AppGuard or root your
device and use tools like AppOps. This is as easy as looking for ways
how to keep programs from using the microphone in MacOS. And it's even
better, since one has not to disable/enable the microphone all the time
if is really needed - e.g. for a VoIP chat or similar.
setting the microphone level to zero on a mac is as easy as it gets and
no need for root either.

if you're going to use voip, you'd be using an external mic anyway (on
a headset), so there's no need to enable/disable anything.
Arno Welzel
2016-03-22 07:11:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by nospam
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Jolly Roger
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Jolly Roger
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Jolly Roger
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Lewis
System Preferences -> Sound -> Input _Input level to 0
You don't get it, do you? Nothing keeps a program from setting the input
level back to the desired value
Wrong. Disabling the kernel extension will certainly do that.
The kernel extension is enabled by default? I'm not talking about things
a regular user would never do.
Please. Anyone who owns their Mac can disable a kernel extension.
My wife owns a Macbook Pro for many years now - I doubt she even knows
what a kernel extension is and what it is used for. Not everybody is a
tech-savvy user.
So? For those who want to know how to remove a OS X kernel extension
it's a simple web search away. You asked how one can turn off access to
the microphone on a Mac, and you've got your answer, like it or not.
Well - in this case I say that the access to the microphone in Android
can be controlled quite easily. Either use SRT AppGuard or root your
device and use tools like AppOps. This is as easy as looking for ways
how to keep programs from using the microphone in MacOS. And it's even
better, since one has not to disable/enable the microphone all the time
if is really needed - e.g. for a VoIP chat or similar.
setting the microphone level to zero on a mac is as easy as it gets and
no need for root either.
And setting the level back to normal is easy as well for a malicous
application as long as the respective kernel extension for volume
control is not disabled.
--
Arno Welzel
http://arnowelzel.de
http://de-rec-fahrrad.de
http://fahrradzukunft.de
nospam
2016-03-22 15:17:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by nospam
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Jolly Roger
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Jolly Roger
Please. Anyone who owns their Mac can disable a kernel extension.
My wife owns a Macbook Pro for many years now - I doubt she even knows
what a kernel extension is and what it is used for. Not everybody is a
tech-savvy user.
So? For those who want to know how to remove a OS X kernel extension
it's a simple web search away. You asked how one can turn off access to
the microphone on a Mac, and you've got your answer, like it or not.
Well - in this case I say that the access to the microphone in Android
can be controlled quite easily. Either use SRT AppGuard or root your
device and use tools like AppOps. This is as easy as looking for ways
how to keep programs from using the microphone in MacOS. And it's even
better, since one has not to disable/enable the microphone all the time
if is really needed - e.g. for a VoIP chat or similar.
setting the microphone level to zero on a mac is as easy as it gets and
no need for root either.
And setting the level back to normal is easy as well for a malicous
application as long as the respective kernel extension for volume
control is not disabled.
if you're that paranoid, remove the kext.

otherwise, adjusting the mic level is sufficient.
Arno Welzel
2016-03-22 20:46:58 UTC
Permalink
[...]
Post by nospam
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by nospam
setting the microphone level to zero on a mac is as easy as it gets and
no need for root either.
And setting the level back to normal is easy as well for a malicous
application as long as the respective kernel extension for volume
control is not disabled.
if you're that paranoid, remove the kext.
otherwise, adjusting the mic level is sufficient.
I think you don't get. It's not only about "how to mute microphone".
Maybe you should read the thread once again - and also what I said about
desktop systems in comparison to Android.
--
Arno Welzel
http://arnowelzel.de
http://de-rec-fahrrad.de
http://fahrradzukunft.de
nospam
2016-03-22 21:12:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by nospam
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by nospam
setting the microphone level to zero on a mac is as easy as it gets and
no need for root either.
And setting the level back to normal is easy as well for a malicous
application as long as the respective kernel extension for volume
control is not disabled.
if you're that paranoid, remove the kext.
otherwise, adjusting the mic level is sufficient.
I think you don't get. It's not only about "how to mute microphone".
yes it is.
Post by Arno Welzel
Maybe you should read the thread once again - and also what I said about
desktop systems in comparison to Android.
desktop and mobile systems are different. so what.

the point is that normal people will be satisfied with simple measures,
while paranoid people can take additional steps to satisfy their
paranoia.
Arno Welzel
2016-03-22 21:52:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by nospam
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by nospam
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by nospam
setting the microphone level to zero on a mac is as easy as it gets and
no need for root either.
And setting the level back to normal is easy as well for a malicous
application as long as the respective kernel extension for volume
control is not disabled.
if you're that paranoid, remove the kext.
otherwise, adjusting the mic level is sufficient.
I think you don't get. It's not only about "how to mute microphone".
yes it is.
No. It is about telling the system that a program MUST NOT EVER use the
microphon at all, even if it wants to. Because that is what people
complain about in Android that you can't block access to the microphone
or other resources for apps after you installed them.

Android 6 will change this - but many devices still use Android 5 or
older versions.
Post by nospam
Post by Arno Welzel
Maybe you should read the thread once again - and also what I said about
desktop systems in comparison to Android.
desktop and mobile systems are different. so what.
the point is that normal people will be satisfied with simple measures,
while paranoid people can take additional steps to satisfy their
paranoia.
So - you think it is paranoia when apps can access the microphone in
Android and people don't want this?
--
Arno Welzel
http://arnowelzel.de
http://de-rec-fahrrad.de
http://fahrradzukunft.de
Lewis
2016-03-23 00:34:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by nospam
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by nospam
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by nospam
setting the microphone level to zero on a mac is as easy as it gets and
no need for root either.
And setting the level back to normal is easy as well for a malicous
application as long as the respective kernel extension for volume
control is not disabled.
if you're that paranoid, remove the kext.
otherwise, adjusting the mic level is sufficient.
I think you don't get. It's not only about "how to mute microphone".
yes it is.
No. It is about telling the system that a program MUST NOT EVER use the
microphon at all, even if it wants to. Because that is what people
complain about in Android that you can't block access to the microphone
or other resources for apps after you installed them.
Again, you are *inventing* a problem that does not exist on OS X.
--
I was good and deleted the "You *&;#$ing moron" before posting aren't
you proud of me?
Arno Welzel
2016-03-23 06:37:32 UTC
Permalink
[...]
Post by Lewis
Post by Arno Welzel
No. It is about telling the system that a program MUST NOT EVER use the
microphon at all, even if it wants to. Because that is what people
complain about in Android that you can't block access to the microphone
or other resources for apps after you installed them.
Again, you are *inventing* a problem that does not exist on OS X.
If "Silverpush" is a problem in Android as "Max Muller" claimed in the
beginning of this thread then there *is* a problem like this not only in
OS X but in literally *every* desktop operating system. Because one can
create malicious programs which uses a built-in microphone to record
stuff in the background. Just because nobody dit his yet (neither in OS
X nor in Windows) does not mean that is technically impossible. There is
no concept of "permissions" as in Android where a program has to request
the permission to use specific features of the device, like reading the
adress book, accessing built-in microphones etc..
--
Arno Welzel
http://arnowelzel.de
http://de-rec-fahrrad.de
http://fahrradzukunft.de
Chris
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arno Welzel
[...]
Post by Lewis
Post by Arno Welzel
No. It is about telling the system that a program MUST NOT EVER use the
microphon at all, even if it wants to. Because that is what people
complain about in Android that you can't block access to the microphone
or other resources for apps after you installed them.
Again, you are *inventing* a problem that does not exist on OS X.
If "Silverpush" is a problem in Android as "Max Muller" claimed in the
beginning of this thread then there *is* a problem like this not only in
OS X but in literally *every* desktop operating system. Because one can
create malicious programs which uses a built-in microphone to record
stuff in the background. Just because nobody dit his yet (neither in OS
X nor in Windows) does not mean that is technically impossible. There is
no concept of "permissions" as in Android where a program has to request
the permission to use specific features of the device, like reading the
adress book, accessing built-in microphones etc..
Clearly you don't know what you're talking about. OSX has very
clear sets of permissions. It is a UNIX OS after all.


If nothing else everything that hasn't been installed via the app
store had to be given explicit permission to even run.
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Arno Welzel
2016-03-23 09:12:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris
Post by Arno Welzel
[...]
Post by Lewis
Post by Arno Welzel
No. It is about telling the system that a program MUST NOT EVER use the
microphon at all, even if it wants to. Because that is what people
complain about in Android that you can't block access to the microphone
or other resources for apps after you installed them.
Again, you are *inventing* a problem that does not exist on OS X.
If "Silverpush" is a problem in Android as "Max Muller" claimed in the
beginning of this thread then there *is* a problem like this not only in
OS X but in literally *every* desktop operating system. Because one can
create malicious programs which uses a built-in microphone to record
stuff in the background. Just because nobody dit his yet (neither in OS
X nor in Windows) does not mean that is technically impossible. There is
no concept of "permissions" as in Android where a program has to request
the permission to use specific features of the device, like reading the
adress book, accessing built-in microphones etc..
Clearly you don't know what you're talking about. OSX has very
clear sets of permissions. It is a UNIX OS after all.
Then - which permission is required for an application to use the
microphone?

And if one program can read data of the current user how can one keep
another program started with the same user credentials from reading the
same data?
--
Arno Welzel
http://arnowelzel.de
http://de-rec-fahrrad.de
http://fahrradzukunft.de
Arno Welzel
2016-03-23 09:13:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Chris
Post by Arno Welzel
[...]
Post by Lewis
Post by Arno Welzel
No. It is about telling the system that a program MUST NOT EVER use the
microphon at all, even if it wants to. Because that is what people
complain about in Android that you can't block access to the microphone
or other resources for apps after you installed them.
Again, you are *inventing* a problem that does not exist on OS X.
If "Silverpush" is a problem in Android as "Max Muller" claimed in the
beginning of this thread then there *is* a problem like this not only in
OS X but in literally *every* desktop operating system. Because one can
create malicious programs which uses a built-in microphone to record
stuff in the background. Just because nobody dit his yet (neither in OS
X nor in Windows) does not mean that is technically impossible. There is
no concept of "permissions" as in Android where a program has to request
the permission to use specific features of the device, like reading the
adress book, accessing built-in microphones etc..
Clearly you don't know what you're talking about. OSX has very
clear sets of permissions. It is a UNIX OS after all.
Then - which permission is required for an application to use the
microphone?
And if one program can read data of the current user how can one keep
another program started with the same user credentials from reading the
same data?
Or to make it more clear: Unix permissions are given to a USER and not
to a PROGRAM. If the USER has the rights to do something than EVERY
program started by the user has at least the same rights.
--
Arno Welzel
http://arnowelzel.de
http://de-rec-fahrrad.de
http://fahrradzukunft.de
Frank Slootweg
2016-03-23 16:02:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Chris
Post by Arno Welzel
[...]
Post by Lewis
Post by Arno Welzel
No. It is about telling the system that a program MUST NOT EVER use the
microphon at all, even if it wants to. Because that is what people
complain about in Android that you can't block access to the microphone
or other resources for apps after you installed them.
Again, you are *inventing* a problem that does not exist on OS X.
If "Silverpush" is a problem in Android as "Max Muller" claimed in the
beginning of this thread then there *is* a problem like this not only in
OS X but in literally *every* desktop operating system. Because one can
create malicious programs which uses a built-in microphone to record
stuff in the background. Just because nobody dit his yet (neither in OS
X nor in Windows) does not mean that is technically impossible. There is
no concept of "permissions" as in Android where a program has to request
the permission to use specific features of the device, like reading the
adress book, accessing built-in microphones etc..
Clearly you don't know what you're talking about. OSX has very
clear sets of permissions. It is a UNIX OS after all.
Then - which permission is required for an application to use the
microphone?
And if one program can read data of the current user how can one keep
another program started with the same user credentials from reading the
same data?
Or to make it more clear: Unix permissions are given to a USER and not
to a PROGRAM. If the USER has the rights to do something than EVERY
program started by the user has at least the same rights.
Well, a UNIX program/process can be given special permissions (SetUID/
SetGUID), and I assume that OS X - as any decent UNIX - also has ACLs.

But the *point* is that while things *could* be set up this way - i.e.
to enable the desired control over the microphone - they *are* not set
up this way in OS X. (And *no* way a general iUser could set this up
without FUBARring the system.)

What we have here is just another example of the (in)famous iZealot
(non-)argument: iThing is perfect, so if there's a dispute about any
feature, either iThing has the feature or the feature is not needed.

Meanwhile in the real world, ...
Jolly Roger
2016-03-24 02:46:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank Slootweg
Post by Arno Welzel
Or to make it more clear: Unix permissions are given to a USER and not
to a PROGRAM. If the USER has the rights to do something than EVERY
program started by the user has at least the same rights.
Well, a UNIX program/process can be given special permissions (SetUID/
SetGUID), and I assume that OS X - as any decent UNIX - also has ACLs.
But the *point* is that while things *could* be set up this way - i.e.
to enable the desired control over the microphone - they *are* not set
up this way in OS X.
True, but OS X ain't iOS by a long shot.
Post by Frank Slootweg
(And *no* way a general iUser could set this up
without FUBARring the system.)
If by iUsers you mean iOS users then you are very wrong. iOS has very
well designed fine grained privacy controls that restrict access to key
features like audio and video recording by default on a per-app basis,
such that any time any app wants access, the operating system
interactively asks the user to decide whether acess may be granted. And
the user can easily change those access rights by visiting the Settings
application.
Post by Frank Slootweg
What we have here is just another example of the (in)famous iZealot
(non-)argument: iThing is perfect, so if there's a dispute about any
feature, either iThing has the feature or the feature is not needed.
Bullshit. In fact iOS clearly has Android beat in this area.
Post by Frank Slootweg
Meanwhile in the real world, ...
In the real world, we don't compare mobile operating systems with
desktop operating systems without the clear caveat that they are
designed very differently and therefore won't stack up the same way with
regard to things like this.
--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
Lewis
2016-03-23 14:18:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Chris
Post by Arno Welzel
[...]
Post by Lewis
Post by Arno Welzel
No. It is about telling the system that a program MUST NOT EVER use the
microphon at all, even if it wants to. Because that is what people
complain about in Android that you can't block access to the microphone
or other resources for apps after you installed them.
Again, you are *inventing* a problem that does not exist on OS X.
If "Silverpush" is a problem in Android as "Max Muller" claimed in the
beginning of this thread then there *is* a problem like this not only in
OS X but in literally *every* desktop operating system. Because one can
create malicious programs which uses a built-in microphone to record
stuff in the background. Just because nobody dit his yet (neither in OS
X nor in Windows) does not mean that is technically impossible. There is
no concept of "permissions" as in Android where a program has to request
the permission to use specific features of the device, like reading the
adress book, accessing built-in microphones etc..
Clearly you don't know what you're talking about. OSX has very
clear sets of permissions. It is a UNIX OS after all.
Then - which permission is required for an application to use the
microphone?
And if one program can read data of the current user how can one keep
another program started with the same user credentials from reading the
same data?
Or to make it more clear: Unix permissions are given to a USER and not
to a PROGRAM.
This is, of course, 100% totally *spectacularly* wrong.
Post by Arno Welzel
If the USER has the rights to do something than EVERY
program started by the user has at least the same rights.
This is also not true, many program drop privs and most 'root' programs
will spawn user-level processes that do not run as root.

Sounds to me like you know nothing at all about Unix.

_www 5567 0.0 0.3 Fri05PM 4:52.13 /usr/sbin/httpd -D FOREGROUND
_www 5565 0.0 0.3 Fri05PM 5:55.83 /usr/sbin/httpd -D FOREGROUND
_www 5563 0.0 0.2 Fri05PM 5:09.54 /usr/sbin/httpd -D FOREGROUND
_www 5561 0.0 0.2 Fri05PM 5:36.01 /usr/sbin/httpd -D FOREGROUND
root 5558 0.0 0.1 Fri05PM 0:12.66 /usr/sbin/httpd -D FOREGROUND
_www 94046 0.0 0.1 Sun10AM 3:07.06 /usr/sbin/httpd -D FOREGROUND

For example, the process 5558 is running under the UID 0 (root), but
spawns all the httpd processes as the _www user. This is how most
services work.
--
There are strange things done in the midnight sun/By the men who moil
for gold; The Arctic trails have their secret tales/That would make your
blood run cold; The Northern Lights have seen queer sights,/But the
queerest they ever did see Was the night on the marge of Lake Lebarge/
ohen I cremated Sam McGeo
Arno Welzel
2016-03-24 07:13:12 UTC
Permalink
[...]
Post by Lewis
Post by Arno Welzel
Or to make it more clear: Unix permissions are given to a USER and not
to a PROGRAM.
This is, of course, 100% totally *spectacularly* wrong.
It isn't.
Post by Lewis
Post by Arno Welzel
If the USER has the rights to do something than EVERY
program started by the user has at least the same rights.
This is also not true, many program drop privs and most 'root' programs
will spawn user-level processes that do not run as root.
And what is "root"? Not a user? And why do you think it's called
"user-level"?
Post by Lewis
Sounds to me like you know nothing at all about Unix.
Sounds to me you even don't know what I am talking about.
Post by Lewis
_www 5567 0.0 0.3 Fri05PM 4:52.13 /usr/sbin/httpd -D FOREGROUND
_www 5565 0.0 0.3 Fri05PM 5:55.83 /usr/sbin/httpd -D FOREGROUND
_www 5563 0.0 0.2 Fri05PM 5:09.54 /usr/sbin/httpd -D FOREGROUND
_www 5561 0.0 0.2 Fri05PM 5:36.01 /usr/sbin/httpd -D FOREGROUND
root 5558 0.0 0.1 Fri05PM 0:12.66 /usr/sbin/httpd -D FOREGROUND
_www 94046 0.0 0.1 Sun10AM 3:07.06 /usr/sbin/httpd -D FOREGROUND
For example, the process 5558 is running under the UID 0 (root), but
spawns all the httpd processes as the _www user. This is how most
services work.
And what is "_www" in this list? Not a USER account which has certain
permissions? And malware would of course be so kind to work this way and
not just use the root permissions when started as a service?

And BTW: I didn't talk about a well designed service but about
applications which are started by the user and run with the permissions
of the user and can access any resources and data which the user has
access to.
--
Arno Welzel
http://arnowelzel.de
http://de-rec-fahrrad.de
http://fahrradzukunft.de
Chris
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Chris
Post by Arno Welzel
[...]
Post by Lewis
Post by Arno Welzel
No. It is about telling the system that a program MUST NOT EVER use the
microphon at all, even if it wants to. Because that is what people
complain about in Android that you can't block access to the microphone
or other resources for apps after you installed them.
Again, you are *inventing* a problem that does not exist on OS X.
If "Silverpush" is a problem in Android as "Max Muller" claimed in the
beginning of this thread then there *is* a problem like this not only in
OS X but in literally *every* desktop operating system. Because one can
create malicious programs which uses a built-in microphone to record
stuff in the background. Just because nobody dit his yet (neither in OS
X nor in Windows) does not mean that is technically impossible. There is
no concept of "permissions" as in Android where a program has to request
the permission to use specific features of the device, like reading the
adress book, accessing built-in microphones etc..
Clearly you don't know what you're talking about. OSX has very
clear sets of permissions. It is a UNIX OS after all.
Then - which permission is required for an application to use the
microphone?
I'm pretty sure you were told elsewhere.
Post by Arno Welzel
And if one program can read data of the current user how can one keep
another program started with the same user credentials from reading the
same data?
What data?

Programs aren't magic, they need interactions from the user to
achieve anything. You have to allow a programme to do stuff
either explicitly or implicitly.

Even malicious programs will only run after some user interaction
(E.g. open an email attachment).
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Rod Speed
2016-03-24 03:42:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Chris
Post by Arno Welzel
[...]
Post by Lewis
Post by Arno Welzel
No. It is about telling the system that a program MUST NOT EVER use the
microphon at all, even if it wants to. Because that is what people
complain about in Android that you can't block access to the microphone
or other resources for apps after you installed them.
Again, you are *inventing* a problem that does not exist on OS X.
If "Silverpush" is a problem in Android as "Max Muller" claimed in the
beginning of this thread then there *is* a problem like this not only in
OS X but in literally *every* desktop operating system. Because one can
create malicious programs which uses a built-in microphone to record
stuff in the background. Just because nobody dit his yet (neither in OS
X nor in Windows) does not mean that is technically impossible. There is
no concept of "permissions" as in Android where a program has to request
the permission to use specific features of the device, like reading the
adress book, accessing built-in microphones etc..
Clearly you don't know what you're talking about. OSX has very
clear sets of permissions. It is a UNIX OS after all.
Then - which permission is required for an application to use the
microphone?
I'm pretty sure you were told elsewhere.
Post by Arno Welzel
And if one program can read data of the current user how can one keep
another program started with the same user credentials from reading the
same data?
What data?
Programs aren't magic, they need interactions from the user to
achieve anything. You have to allow a programme to do stuff
either explicitly or implicitly.
Even malicious programs will only run after some user interaction
(E.g. open an email attachment).
That is just plain wrong with programs that are designed to infect your
system.
tlvp
2016-03-24 04:15:04 UTC
Permalink
... programs that are designed to infect your
system.
For a recent example, cf.

<https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2016/03/23/android-bug-could-allow-an-app-to-take-over-your-phone-completely/>.

Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
Arno Welzel
2016-03-24 07:18:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Chris
Post by Arno Welzel
[...]
Post by Lewis
Post by Arno Welzel
No. It is about telling the system that a program MUST NOT EVER use the
microphon at all, even if it wants to. Because that is what people
complain about in Android that you can't block access to the microphone
or other resources for apps after you installed them.
Again, you are *inventing* a problem that does not exist on OS X.
If "Silverpush" is a problem in Android as "Max Muller" claimed in the
beginning of this thread then there *is* a problem like this not only in
OS X but in literally *every* desktop operating system. Because one can
create malicious programs which uses a built-in microphone to record
stuff in the background. Just because nobody dit his yet (neither in OS
X nor in Windows) does not mean that is technically impossible. There is
no concept of "permissions" as in Android where a program has to request
the permission to use specific features of the device, like reading the
adress book, accessing built-in microphones etc..
Clearly you don't know what you're talking about. OSX has very
clear sets of permissions. It is a UNIX OS after all.
Then - which permission is required for an application to use the
microphone?
I'm pretty sure you were told elsewhere.
I can't remember. Message ID?
Post by Chris
Post by Arno Welzel
And if one program can read data of the current user how can one keep
another program started with the same user credentials from reading the
same data?
What data?
Every data the user has access to - e-mails, addressbooks, private
documents etc.
Post by Chris
Programs aren't magic, they need interactions from the user to
achieve anything. You have to allow a programme to do stuff
either explicitly or implicitly.
The interaction is "start the program".
Post by Chris
Even malicious programs will only run after some user interaction
(E.g. open an email attachment).
Well - opening email attachments is a quite normal action for most
people. Why do you think ransomware is so successful?

Also downloading and installing software is quite normal for most
people. And as far I know desktop systems don't ask the user if it is OK
when the software he installed wants to read his e-mail or other data
stored on the harddisc where the user has access to. I also don't
remember that either Windows or OS X ever ask the user for permission if
a program wants to use the microphone.
--
Arno Welzel
http://arnowelzel.de
http://de-rec-fahrrad.de
http://fahrradzukunft.de
Jolly Roger
2016-03-24 07:25:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arno Welzel
Also downloading and installing software is quite normal for most
people. And as far I know desktop systems don't ask the user if it is OK
when the software he installed wants to read his e-mail or other data
stored on the harddisc where the user has access to. I also don't
remember that either Windows or OS X ever ask the user for permission if
a program wants to use the microphone.
It wouldn't be hard at all to add that sort of functionality, desktop
operating systems vendors saw fit to do so.
--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
Chris
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Chris
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Chris
Post by Arno Welzel
[...]
Post by Lewis
Post by Arno Welzel
No. It is about telling the system that a program MUST NOT EVER use the
microphon at all, even if it wants to. Because that is what people
complain about in Android that you can't block access to the microphone
or other resources for apps after you installed them.
Again, you are *inventing* a problem that does not exist on OS X.
If "Silverpush" is a problem in Android as "Max Muller" claimed in the
beginning of this thread then there *is* a problem like this not only in
OS X but in literally *every* desktop operating system. Because one can
create malicious programs which uses a built-in microphone to record
stuff in the background. Just because nobody dit his yet (neither in OS
X nor in Windows) does not mean that is technically impossible. There is
no concept of "permissions" as in Android where a program has to request
the permission to use specific features of the device, like reading the
adress book, accessing built-in microphones etc..
Clearly you don't know what you're talking about. OSX has very
clear sets of permissions. It is a UNIX OS after all.
Then - which permission is required for an application to use the
microphone?
I'm pretty sure you were told elsewhere.
I can't remember. Message ID?
Post by Chris
Post by Arno Welzel
And if one program can read data of the current user how can one keep
another program started with the same user credentials from reading the
same data?
What data?
Every data the user has access to - e-mails, addressbooks, private
documents etc.
I'm not sure what you're trying get at? Are you trying to say that
by running Word a user is leaving themselves open for another
program to read and extract all their personal data?

Although theoretically possible, to be able program such a thing
is practically unfeasible. Far too complex, ppls file system
organisation is too idiosyncratic.
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Chris
Programs aren't magic, they need interactions from the user to
achieve anything. You have to allow a programme to do stuff
either explicitly or implicitly.
The interaction is "start the program".
So...?
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Chris
Even malicious programs will only run after some user interaction
(E.g. open an email attachment).
Well - opening email attachments is a quite normal action for most
people. Why do you think ransomware is so successful?
Which is why we use malware scanners and don't open unsolicited
email attachments.
Post by Arno Welzel
Also downloading and installing software is quite normal for most
people. And as far I know desktop systems don't ask the user if it is OK
when the software he installed wants to read his e-mail or other data
stored on the harddisc where the user has access to. I also don't
remember that either Windows or OS X ever ask the user for permission if
a program wants to use the microphone.
Sure. There's an element of trust with everything you download and
install. You have to trust the application only does what says it
will. Which is why Windows and OSX check with the user the first
time they try to run anything newly installed. On a Mac you can
disallow running of any unverified programs.

Linux is a bit different as 99% of software is installed via
package managers which are inherently safer.

Not sure about the fixation with microphones, tho.
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
tlvp
2016-03-25 02:38:12 UTC
Permalink
... don't open unsolicited
email attachments.
Rubbish. Untenable advice. Think:

When the email shows as being from the friend you asked for a copy of his
newborn's photo, and comes with a jpg attached, how are you to know in
advance whether that jpg email attachment is the photo you solicited or
some other, totally unsolicited, attachment (sent perhaps by someone
unrelated to your friend, just spoofing your friends address)?

Give realistic advice! Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
Jolly Roger
2016-03-25 02:41:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by tlvp
... don't open unsolicited
email attachments.
When the email shows as being from the friend you asked for a copy of his
newborn's photo
Never happens in practice.
Post by tlvp
Give realistic advice!
Look in the mirror.
--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
Lewis
2016-03-25 03:44:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by tlvp
... don't open unsolicited
email attachments.
When the email shows as being from the friend you asked for a copy of his
newborn's photo, and comes with a jpg attached, how are you to know in
advance whether that jpg email attachment is the photo you solicited or
some other, totally unsolicited, attachment (sent perhaps by someone
unrelated to your friend, just spoofing your friends address)?
You are astonishingly stupid. No, really. Go away.
--
"Humor is a rubber sword - it allows you to make a point without drawing
blood." - Mary Hirsch
Frank Slootweg
2016-03-24 19:00:57 UTC
Permalink
[...]
Post by Chris
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Chris
Clearly you don't know what you're talking about. OSX has very
clear sets of permissions. It is a UNIX OS after all.
Then - which permission is required for an application to use the
microphone?
I'm pretty sure you were told elsewhere.
No, he hasn't been told, for the simple reason that there's no such
permission setting in OS X (like there isn't in other 'desktop' OSs,
which was/is Arno's point).

The only protection against the mentioned eavesdropping would be a
*physical* switch, which can't be overridden by software.

Again: This is *not* a OS X problem, because all current devices and
OSs have the same limitation. So all iZealots can just STFU, because
no-one is attacking their beloved iThingies.

[...]
Jolly Roger
2016-03-24 22:04:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank Slootweg
The only protection against the mentioned eavesdropping would be a
*physical* switch, which can't be overridden by software.
Wrong. Disabling the appropriate kernel extension in OS X prevents all
software from accessing the hardware.
Post by Frank Slootweg
Again: This is *not* a OS X problem, because all current devices and
OSs have the same limitation. So all iZealots can just STFU, because
no-one is attacking their beloved iThingies.
The truth hurts, eh? Keep hating - it's working so well for you.
--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
Jolly Roger
2016-03-24 02:42:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arno Welzel
If "Silverpush" is a problem in Android as "Max Muller" claimed in the
beginning of this thread then there *is* a problem like this not only in
OS X but in literally *every* desktop operating system.
Sure, but for those Mac users who are concerned, disabling the audio IO
kernel extension is not hard to do. Do that, and nothing can access the
microphone.
Post by Arno Welzel
Because one can create malicious programs which uses a built-in
microphone to record stuff in the background. Just because nobody dit
his yet (neither in OS X nor in Windows) does not mean that is
technically impossible. There is no concept of "permissions" as in
Android where a program has to request the permission to use specific
features of the device, like reading the adress book, accessing
built-in microphones etc..
Desktop operating systems are designed differently than mobile operating
systems, obviously. And iOS's permissions are far better designed and on
many more iOS devices than Android's.
--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
Arno Welzel
2016-03-24 07:33:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jolly Roger
Post by Arno Welzel
If "Silverpush" is a problem in Android as "Max Muller" claimed in the
beginning of this thread then there *is* a problem like this not only in
OS X but in literally *every* desktop operating system.
Sure, but for those Mac users who are concerned, disabling the audio IO
kernel extension is not hard to do. Do that, and nothing can access the
microphone.
Yes, I know. But again: the average user doesn't know anything about
kernel extensions. The system never asks the user "hey, this program
will use your microphone - is that OK for you?".
Post by Jolly Roger
Post by Arno Welzel
Because one can create malicious programs which uses a built-in
microphone to record stuff in the background. Just because nobody dit
his yet (neither in OS X nor in Windows) does not mean that is
technically impossible. There is no concept of "permissions" as in
Android where a program has to request the permission to use specific
features of the device, like reading the adress book, accessing
built-in microphones etc..
Desktop operating systems are designed differently than mobile operating
systems, obviously. And iOS's permissions are far better designed and on
many more iOS devices than Android's.
I don't really think that iOS is better than Android or vice versa when
it comes to permissions. Both tell the user what apps want to do. The
only difference is that iOS will ask when using the app while Android
asks when installing the app - and Android 6 allows to control the
permissions afterwards as well (or use App Ops on Android 4/5).

My point was: Why do people complain about malicious apps on a mobile
device even though the app can not do things without asking for the
permission first but on the other hand they accept that desktop systems
which also run on laptops and notebooks don't even ask the user if a
program want's to read personal data, access the internet or access the
microphone etc.
--
Arno Welzel
http://arnowelzel.de
http://de-rec-fahrrad.de
http://fahrradzukunft.de
Jolly Roger
2016-03-24 08:23:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Jolly Roger
Post by Arno Welzel
If "Silverpush" is a problem in Android as "Max Muller" claimed in the
beginning of this thread then there *is* a problem like this not only in
OS X but in literally *every* desktop operating system.
Sure, but for those Mac users who are concerned, disabling the audio IO
kernel extension is not hard to do. Do that, and nothing can access the
microphone.
Yes, I know. But again: the average user doesn't know anything about
kernel extensions. The system never asks the user "hey, this program
will use your microphone - is that OK for you?".
Neither does any other mainstream desktop OS. What's your point?
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Jolly Roger
Post by Arno Welzel
Because one can create malicious programs which uses a built-in
microphone to record stuff in the background. Just because nobody dit
his yet (neither in OS X nor in Windows) does not mean that is
technically impossible. There is no concept of "permissions" as in
Android where a program has to request the permission to use specific
features of the device, like reading the adress book, accessing
built-in microphones etc..
Desktop operating systems are designed differently than mobile operating
systems, obviously. And iOS's permissions are far better designed and on
many more iOS devices than Android's.
I don't really think that iOS is better than Android or vice versa when
it comes to permissions.
Wrong. Android and other mobile operating systems have always lagged
behind iOS in this area. iOS is the clear leader.
Post by Arno Welzel
Both tell the user what apps want to do.
Not in the same way they don't. iOS tells the user at the exact moment
(and each time) each app requests access.
Post by Arno Welzel
The only difference is that iOS will ask when using the app while
Android asks when installing the app
No, there are many important differences. Android asks once during
installation, and the user must either allow access to all of the
services at once or none at all. iOS asks each and every time, and
allows the user to allow or deny access to each individual service. iOS
provides *much* better protection. And Android is playing catch up.
Also, many Android users are running older versions that don't offer
newer protections, and many users won't even be able to update to newer
versions.
Post by Arno Welzel
and Android 6 allows to control the permissions afterwards as well (or
use App Ops on Android 4/5).
A recent addition many users won't see. And it's nowhere near as easy as
in iOS.
Post by Arno Welzel
My point was: Why do people complain about malicious apps on a mobile
device even though the app can not do things without asking for the
permission first but on the other hand they accept that desktop systems
which also run on laptops and notebooks don't even ask the user if a
program want's to read personal data, access the internet or access the
microphone etc.
Mostly for historical reasons. Privacy is much more of an issue lately
and especially with mobile devices that people carry with them wherever
they go. Part of the equation is also that mobile devices are replacing
desktop computers for more people as time goes on. At any rate, there's
nothing at all preventing desktop operating system vendors from adding
similar protections to desktop operating systems though, if demand is
high enough.
--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
Arno Welzel
2016-03-24 09:21:16 UTC
Permalink
[...]
Post by Jolly Roger
Post by Arno Welzel
Yes, I know. But again: the average user doesn't know anything about
kernel extensions. The system never asks the user "hey, this program
will use your microphone - is that OK for you?".
Neither does any other mainstream desktop OS. What's your point?
That IS my point! Deskop systems don't care for privacy - but no one
seems to bother.


[...]
Post by Jolly Roger
Post by Arno Welzel
and Android 6 allows to control the permissions afterwards as well (or
use App Ops on Android 4/5).
A recent addition many users won't see. And it's nowhere near as easy as
in iOS.
Then use iOS and be happy. Why are you posting here anyway? Do you try
to convince people to give up their Android devices and spend a lot of
money for a new iOS device? How much does Apple pay you for this service?
--
Arno Welzel
http://arnowelzel.de
http://de-rec-fahrrad.de
http://fahrradzukunft.de
nospam
2016-03-24 14:11:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Jolly Roger
Post by Arno Welzel
and Android 6 allows to control the permissions afterwards as well (or
use App Ops on Android 4/5).
A recent addition many users won't see. And it's nowhere near as easy as
in iOS.
Then use iOS and be happy. Why are you posting here anyway? Do you try
to convince people to give up their Android devices and spend a lot of
money for a new iOS device? How much does Apple pay you for this service?
it's crossposted to misc.phone.mobile.iphone and comp.mobile.android.
Jolly Roger
2016-03-24 15:58:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arno Welzel
[...]
Post by Jolly Roger
Post by Arno Welzel
Yes, I know. But again: the average user doesn't know anything about
kernel extensions. The system never asks the user "hey, this program
will use your microphone - is that OK for you?".
Neither does any other mainstream desktop OS. What's your point?
That IS my point! Deskop systems don't care for privacy - but no one
seems to bother.
Desktops are historically different and are on their way out.
Post by Arno Welzel
[...]
Post by Jolly Roger
Post by Arno Welzel
and Android 6 allows to control the permissions afterwards as well (or
use App Ops on Android 4/5).
A recent addition many users won't see. And it's nowhere near as easy as
in iOS.
Then use iOS and be happy. Why are you posting here anyway?
I could just as easily ask: Why are YOU posting HERE? You do realize you
are cross posting, right? Do you understand how Usenet works?
Post by Arno Welzel
Do you try
to convince people to give up their Android devices and spend a lot of
money for a new iOS device?
I'm posting in the iOS news group. So no. And iOS and Android devices are
competitively priced.
Post by Arno Welzel
How much does Apple pay you for this service?
... because anyone who points out factual differences between platforms
must be a paid shill in your world. Got it. You're sounding more and more
like a sucker.
--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
tlvp
2016-03-25 02:55:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jolly Roger
Desktops are historically different and are on their way out.
Likewise, Timex/Sinclairs are historically different, and out already. So?
Relevance of either statement to this thread is minimal. Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
Jolly Roger
2016-03-25 02:58:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by tlvp
Post by Jolly Roger
Desktops are historically different and are on their way out.
Relevance of either statement to this thread is minimal.
That must be why you trimmed all context.

You lose. Keep trolling if it makes you feel better though.

Cheers indeed.
--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
Rod Speed
2016-03-25 03:43:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jolly Roger
Post by Arno Welzel
[...]
Post by Jolly Roger
Post by Arno Welzel
Yes, I know. But again: the average user doesn't know anything about
kernel extensions. The system never asks the user "hey, this program
will use your microphone - is that OK for you?".
Neither does any other mainstream desktop OS. What's your point?
That IS my point! Deskop systems don't care for privacy - but no one
seems to bother.
Desktops are historically different and are on their way out.
Post by Arno Welzel
[...]
Post by Jolly Roger
Post by Arno Welzel
and Android 6 allows to control the permissions afterwards as well (or
use App Ops on Android 4/5).
A recent addition many users won't see. And it's nowhere near as easy as
in iOS.
Then use iOS and be happy. Why are you posting here anyway?
I could just as easily ask: Why are YOU posting HERE? You do realize you
are cross posting, right? Do you understand how Usenet works?
Post by Arno Welzel
Do you try
to convince people to give up their Android devices and spend a lot of
money for a new iOS device?
I'm posting in the iOS news group. So no. And iOS and Android devices are
competitively priced.
Like hell they are at the low end.
Post by Jolly Roger
Post by Arno Welzel
How much does Apple pay you for this service?
... because anyone who points out factual differences
between platforms must be a paid shill in your world.
Got it. You're sounding more and more like a sucker.
Rod Speed
2016-03-25 03:31:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arno Welzel
[...]
Post by Jolly Roger
Post by Arno Welzel
Yes, I know. But again: the average user doesn't know anything about
kernel extensions. The system never asks the user "hey, this program
will use your microphone - is that OK for you?".
Neither does any other mainstream desktop OS. What's your point?
That IS my point! Deskop systems don't care for privacy - but no one
seems to bother.
Those who care about privacy do.
Post by Arno Welzel
[...]
Post by Jolly Roger
Post by Arno Welzel
and Android 6 allows to control the permissions afterwards as well (or
use App Ops on Android 4/5).
A recent addition many users won't see. And it's nowhere near as easy as
in iOS.
Then use iOS and be happy. Why are you posting here anyway?
There is no here. Look at the groups list, stupid.
Post by Arno Welzel
Do you try to convince people to give up their Android
devices and spend a lot of money for a new iOS device?
He clearly doesn't.
Post by Arno Welzel
How much does Apple pay you for this service?
Apple isnt that stupid. There are fuck all using usenet and even Apple has
noticed that.
nospam
2016-03-24 14:11:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Jolly Roger
Post by Arno Welzel
If "Silverpush" is a problem in Android as "Max Muller" claimed in the
beginning of this thread then there *is* a problem like this not only in
OS X but in literally *every* desktop operating system.
Sure, but for those Mac users who are concerned, disabling the audio IO
kernel extension is not hard to do. Do that, and nothing can access the
microphone.
Yes, I know. But again: the average user doesn't know anything about
kernel extensions. The system never asks the user "hey, this program
will use your microphone - is that OK for you?".
ios has been doing exactly that all along.
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Jolly Roger
Post by Arno Welzel
Because one can create malicious programs which uses a built-in
microphone to record stuff in the background. Just because nobody dit
his yet (neither in OS X nor in Windows) does not mean that is
technically impossible. There is no concept of "permissions" as in
Android where a program has to request the permission to use specific
features of the device, like reading the adress book, accessing
built-in microphones etc..
Desktop operating systems are designed differently than mobile operating
systems, obviously. And iOS's permissions are far better designed and on
many more iOS devices than Android's.
I don't really think that iOS is better than Android or vice versa when
it comes to permissions. Both tell the user what apps want to do. The
only difference is that iOS will ask when using the app while Android
asks when installing the app - and Android 6 allows to control the
permissions afterwards as well (or use App Ops on Android 4/5).
the main difference is that ios asks for permission for *each* item
when first accessing it (and it can later be revoked or reinstated at
any time), while android asked for blanket permissions when installing
the app and the app won't run if you don't like *any* of them.

that finally changed with android 6, where it now has the granularity
that ios has had all along. unfortunately, android 6 is currently a
tiny, tiny slice of the install base.
Post by Arno Welzel
My point was: Why do people complain about malicious apps on a mobile
device even though the app can not do things without asking for the
permission first but on the other hand they accept that desktop systems
which also run on laptops and notebooks don't even ask the user if a
program want's to read personal data, access the internet or access the
microphone etc.
because desktop systems were originally designed in an era where
systems were not online all the time and when malware was merely
annoying.

mobile operating systems were designed in an era where devices are
online all the time and have very personal information, such as banking
information, text messages, photos and much more. security is *very*
important.
Michael Eyd
2016-03-24 14:41:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by nospam
Post by Arno Welzel
I don't really think that iOS is better than Android or vice versa when
it comes to permissions. Both tell the user what apps want to do. The
only difference is that iOS will ask when using the app while Android
asks when installing the app - and Android 6 allows to control the
permissions afterwards as well (or use App Ops on Android 4/5).
the main difference is that ios asks for permission for *each* item
when first accessing it (and it can later be revoked or reinstated at
any time), while android asked for blanket permissions when installing
the app and the app won't run if you don't like *any* of them.
that finally changed with android 6, where it now has the granularity
that ios has had all along. unfortunately, android 6 is currently a
tiny, tiny slice of the install base.
Additionally, the new authorization scheme in android 6 can only be used
by apps, that were specifically written for that scheme. Any 'old' app
will still use the old 'all or nothing' logic. :-( And it remains to be
seen, how fast app developers will adopt the new scheme at all...

In sharp contrast to this (at least for now) severe limitation, all apps
under iOS have had to obey to the granular authorization scheme from day
one. So looking at the real world, I do think that iOS has a huge
advantage over Android (even Android 6) when it comes to app
authorizations.

Best regards,

Michael
Lewis
2016-03-24 16:03:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Eyd
Post by nospam
Post by Arno Welzel
I don't really think that iOS is better than Android or vice versa when
it comes to permissions. Both tell the user what apps want to do. The
only difference is that iOS will ask when using the app while Android
asks when installing the app - and Android 6 allows to control the
permissions afterwards as well (or use App Ops on Android 4/5).
the main difference is that ios asks for permission for *each* item
when first accessing it (and it can later be revoked or reinstated at
any time), while android asked for blanket permissions when installing
the app and the app won't run if you don't like *any* of them.
that finally changed with android 6, where it now has the granularity
that ios has had all along. unfortunately, android 6 is currently a
tiny, tiny slice of the install base.
Additionally, the new authorization scheme in android 6 can only be used
by apps, that were specifically written for that scheme. Any 'old' app
will still use the old 'all or nothing' logic. :-( And it remains to be
seen, how fast app developers will adopt the new scheme at all...
In sharp contrast to this (at least for now) severe limitation, all apps
under iOS have had to obey to the granular authorization scheme from day
one. So looking at the real world, I do think that iOS has a huge
advantage over Android (even Android 6) when it comes to app
authorizations.
As I said, possibly in another thread/group, iOS was designed to be
secure from the start, android was designed to be insecure from the
start and has tried to slather security onto that insecure base. This
doesn't work.

The current version of iOS is on more than 80% of iOS devices, the
current version of Android is on less than 2% of Android devices.

No version of Android is anywhere near 50% of the base, and the most
popular version is still Kitkat, released more than 2.5 years ago.

<http://www.appbrain.com/stats/top-android-sdk-versions>

And, of course, new security models that are optional for apps are no
actually security models, are they? On iOS an app cannot access you
contacts without explicitly saying "We want to access your contacts" and
on Android can simply ask for blanket permissions a single time to
access contacts, photos, location, mic, health data, camera, etc.
Because android makes it so easy for the app and so opaque to the user,
most apps ask for an absurd level of permissions.
--
Im finding's you'r mis'use of apostrophe's disturbing.
Andy Burns
2016-03-24 17:53:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Eyd
the new authorization scheme in android 6 can only be used
by apps, that were specifically written for that scheme. Any 'old' app
will still use the old 'all or nothing' logic. :-( And it remains to be
seen, how fast app developers will adopt the new scheme at all...
Actually you *can* individually disable permissions for old as well as
new apps, of course an old app won't realise you've done that, and won't
have a chance to "beg" for extra permissions at run time, so might crash
or behave unexpectedly.
Rod Speed
2016-03-25 03:25:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Jolly Roger
Post by Arno Welzel
If "Silverpush" is a problem in Android as "Max Muller" claimed in the
beginning of this thread then there *is* a problem like this not only in
OS X but in literally *every* desktop operating system.
Sure, but for those Mac users who are concerned, disabling the audio IO
kernel extension is not hard to do. Do that, and nothing can access the
microphone.
Yes, I know. But again: the average user doesn't know anything about
kernel extensions. The system never asks the user "hey, this program
will use your microphone - is that OK for you?".
Post by Jolly Roger
Post by Arno Welzel
Because one can create malicious programs which uses a built-in
microphone to record stuff in the background. Just because nobody dit
his yet (neither in OS X nor in Windows) does not mean that is
technically impossible. There is no concept of "permissions" as in
Android where a program has to request the permission to use specific
features of the device, like reading the adress book, accessing
built-in microphones etc..
Desktop operating systems are designed differently than mobile operating
systems, obviously. And iOS's permissions are far better designed and on
many more iOS devices than Android's.
I don't really think that iOS is better than Android or vice versa when
it comes to permissions.
More fool you. iOS is much more fine grained than android
is and the sandbox system means that no iOS app gets any
access to anything you don't give it permission to access either.
Post by Arno Welzel
Both tell the user what apps want to do.
That utterly mangles the real story.
Post by Arno Welzel
The only difference is that iOS will ask when using
the app while Android asks when installing the app
There are a lot more differences than that. And there is no way
with iOS to install any apps other than from the store either.
Post by Arno Welzel
- and Android 6 allows to control the permissions
afterwards as well (or use App Ops on Android 4/5).
And have no basis for any confidence that it will always see what any app
does.
Post by Arno Welzel
My point was: Why do people complain about malicious
apps on a mobile device even though the app can not
do things without asking for the permission first
That is a lie with android.
Post by Arno Welzel
but on the other hand they accept that desktop systems which also
run on laptops and notebooks don't even ask the user if a program
want's to read personal data, access the internet or access the
microphone etc.
Because if you care about that, you don't use those desktop systems,
or don't have any data you care about on them, stupid.
tlvp
2016-03-25 02:48:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jolly Roger
disabling the audio IO
kernel extension is not hard to do. Do that, and nothing can access the
microphone.
Or rather, nothing can access the microphone without first reenabling the
audio IO kernel extension :-) . Think that no exploit can do that? Cf.

<http://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-zero-day-vulnerability-fully-compromises-your-devices/>:

will do whatever its author pleases :-) . Patched, thus far, "only in
updates for El Capitan 10.11.4, and iOS 9.3." Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
Jolly Roger
2016-03-25 02:57:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by tlvp
Post by Jolly Roger
disabling the audio IO
kernel extension is not hard to do. Do that, and nothing can access the
microphone.
Or rather, nothing can access the microphone without first reenabling the
audio IO kernel extension
Disabling the kernel extension involves removing it from the file system
and restarting. Re-enabling the kernel extension is hard to do when the
kernel extension is non-existent on the file system. Your knowledge of
OS X is woefully ignorant here and it shows.
Post by tlvp
Think that no exploit can do that? Cf.
Whatever "Cf." means, no, an exploit can't create a signed kernel extension
from thin air.
Post by tlvp
will do whatever its author pleases :-) . Patched, thus far, "only in
updates for El Capitan 10.11.4, and iOS 9.3." Cheers, -- tlvp
Requires the system to already be compromised. You lose. Keep trying
though. It's entertaining at least.
--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
Lewis
2016-03-23 14:13:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arno Welzel
[...]
Post by Lewis
Post by Arno Welzel
No. It is about telling the system that a program MUST NOT EVER use the
microphon at all, even if it wants to. Because that is what people
complain about in Android that you can't block access to the microphone
or other resources for apps after you installed them.
Again, you are *inventing* a problem that does not exist on OS X.
If "Silverpush" is a problem in Android as "Max Muller" claimed in the
beginning of this thread then there *is* a problem like this not only in
OS X but in literally *every* desktop operating system.
I can write a one line program that deletes every file on your computer.

This is not a "problem". The problem is allowing malicious programs onto
your computer in the first place.

Again, you are inventing problems that do not exist.

The issues on Android are much like the issues on Windows, the OS was
designed from the beginning to be insecure, and they have tried and
mostly failed to layer some semblance of security on top of that
fundamentally broken core.
--
In the end we will not remember the words of our enemies, but the
silence of our friends. -Martin Luther King, Jr
Arno Welzel
2016-03-24 07:23:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Arno Welzel
[...]
Post by Lewis
Post by Arno Welzel
No. It is about telling the system that a program MUST NOT EVER use the
microphon at all, even if it wants to. Because that is what people
complain about in Android that you can't block access to the microphone
or other resources for apps after you installed them.
Again, you are *inventing* a problem that does not exist on OS X.
If "Silverpush" is a problem in Android as "Max Muller" claimed in the
beginning of this thread then there *is* a problem like this not only in
OS X but in literally *every* desktop operating system.
I can write a one line program that deletes every file on your computer.
You can't - since a program can only delete the files which can be
deleted by the user. As long as the user just starts the program at
least the system itself is still useable afterwards. And the files of
the user should be backed up anyway.
Post by Lewis
This is not a "problem". The problem is allowing malicious programs onto
your computer in the first place.
Well - then just don't install malware... problem solved ;-).
Post by Lewis
Again, you are inventing problems that do not exist.
If this is the case, then Android doesn't have a problem. Just don't
install apps which may use the microphone to record stuff in the
background without letting the user know.
Post by Lewis
The issues on Android are much like the issues on Windows, the OS was
designed from the beginning to be insecure, and they have tried and
mostly failed to layer some semblance of security on top of that
fundamentally broken core.
Wrong - apps in Android can not get out of their sandbox. The problem
is, that most people ignore the requested permission and just install
everything, even if the installer clearly tells them that the app which
is about to installed want's to access your personal data or use audio
input.

As you said: "allowing malicious programs..."
--
Arno Welzel
http://arnowelzel.de
http://de-rec-fahrrad.de
http://fahrradzukunft.de
Lewis
2016-03-22 21:11:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arno Welzel
[...]
Post by nospam
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by nospam
setting the microphone level to zero on a mac is as easy as it gets and
no need for root either.
And setting the level back to normal is easy as well for a malicous
application as long as the respective kernel extension for volume
control is not disabled.
if you're that paranoid, remove the kext.
otherwise, adjusting the mic level is sufficient.
I think you don't get. It's not only about "how to mute microphone".
Maybe you should read the thread once again - and also what I said about
desktop systems in comparison to Android.
Are you a JF sock-puppet? Because you seem to be making up issues that
don't exist and then denigrating OS X for not solving those imaginary
issues.

I've never had an app change my microphone input. Not as long as there
have been mics on Macs.
--
If there's a bustle in your hedgerow don't be alarmed now.
Arno Welzel
2016-03-22 21:49:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Arno Welzel
[...]
Post by nospam
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by nospam
setting the microphone level to zero on a mac is as easy as it gets and
no need for root either.
And setting the level back to normal is easy as well for a malicous
application as long as the respective kernel extension for volume
control is not disabled.
if you're that paranoid, remove the kext.
otherwise, adjusting the mic level is sufficient.
I think you don't get. It's not only about "how to mute microphone".
Maybe you should read the thread once again - and also what I said about
desktop systems in comparison to Android.
Are you a JF sock-puppet? Because you seem to be making up issues that
don't exist and then denigrating OS X for not solving those imaginary
issues.
The whole thread is about "Silverpush" in Android and that it may access
the microphone on Android devices and that it is a problem that one can
not block access to the microphone after installing an app which
requests access when installing it.

I tried to explain that on desktop system which use Windows or MacOS one
doesn't even know if the application wants to access your local data or
the microphone - you just can trust that the app will do harmful things.
Post by Lewis
I've never had an app change my microphone input. Not as long as there
have been mics on Macs.
This is just because nobody had the idea of creating a malware doing so
yet. If there would be a malware recording everything in the background
you wouldn't even notice.
--
Arno Welzel
http://arnowelzel.de
http://de-rec-fahrrad.de
http://fahrradzukunft.de
Arno Welzel
2016-03-22 21:54:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Lewis
Post by Arno Welzel
[...]
Post by nospam
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by nospam
setting the microphone level to zero on a mac is as easy as it gets and
no need for root either.
And setting the level back to normal is easy as well for a malicous
application as long as the respective kernel extension for volume
control is not disabled.
if you're that paranoid, remove the kext.
otherwise, adjusting the mic level is sufficient.
I think you don't get. It's not only about "how to mute microphone".
Maybe you should read the thread once again - and also what I said about
desktop systems in comparison to Android.
Are you a JF sock-puppet? Because you seem to be making up issues that
don't exist and then denigrating OS X for not solving those imaginary
issues.
The whole thread is about "Silverpush" in Android and that it may access
the microphone on Android devices and that it is a problem that one can
not block access to the microphone after installing an app which
requests access when installing it.
I tried to explain that on desktop system which use Windows or MacOS one
doesn't even know if the application wants to access your local data or
the microphone - you just can trust that the app will do harmful things.
... trust the app that it will *not* do harmful things...
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Lewis
I've never had an app change my microphone input. Not as long as there
have been mics on Macs.
This is just because nobody had the idea of creating a malware doing so
yet. If there would be a malware recording everything in the background
you wouldn't even notice.
--
Arno Welzel
http://arnowelzel.de
http://de-rec-fahrrad.de
http://fahrradzukunft.de
Jolly Roger
2016-03-22 22:42:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Lewis
I've never had an app change my microphone input. Not as long as there
have been mics on Macs.
This is just because nobody had the idea of creating a malware doing so
yet. If there would be a malware recording everything in the background
you wouldn't even notice.
Bullshit; it's because it would not be tolerated. As such, it would be
plastered all over the Mac news environment, and most Mac users would
avoid it like the plague as a result, which is part of what makes Macs
different than your average piece of shit PC - Mac users are generally
more educated and informed than their PC counterparts.
--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
Arno Welzel
2016-03-23 06:24:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jolly Roger
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Lewis
I've never had an app change my microphone input. Not as long as there
have been mics on Macs.
This is just because nobody had the idea of creating a malware doing so
yet. If there would be a malware recording everything in the background
you wouldn't even notice.
Bullshit; it's because it would not be tolerated. As such, it would be
Malware would never be tolerated.
Post by Jolly Roger
plastered all over the Mac news environment, and most Mac users would
avoid it like the plague as a result, which is part of what makes Macs
different than your average piece of shit PC - Mac users are generally
more educated and informed than their PC counterparts.
I see...
--
Arno Welzel
http://arnowelzel.de
http://de-rec-fahrrad.de
http://fahrradzukunft.de
Anonymous
2016-03-23 20:37:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jolly Roger
Post by Arno Welzel
This is just because nobody had the idea of creating a malware
doing so yet. If there would be a malware recording everything in
the background you wouldn't even notice.
Bullshit; it's because it would not be tolerated.
So we wouldn't have spam if it weren't tolarated? Bullshit.
Tolarance only becomes relevant after discovery. And intolarance is
nothing more than motivation to react - it's not a solution.
Post by Jolly Roger
As such, it would be plastered all over the Mac news environment,
and most Mac users would avoid it like the plague as a result,
News, social media, word of mouth are all forms of *incident
response*. Do you actually believe that waiting for an incident to
occur is good security?
Lewis
2016-03-23 00:36:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Lewis
Post by Arno Welzel
[...]
Post by nospam
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by nospam
setting the microphone level to zero on a mac is as easy as it gets and
no need for root either.
And setting the level back to normal is easy as well for a malicous
application as long as the respective kernel extension for volume
control is not disabled.
if you're that paranoid, remove the kext.
otherwise, adjusting the mic level is sufficient.
I think you don't get. It's not only about "how to mute microphone".
Maybe you should read the thread once again - and also what I said about
desktop systems in comparison to Android.
Are you a JF sock-puppet? Because you seem to be making up issues that
don't exist and then denigrating OS X for not solving those imaginary
issues.
The whole thread is about "Silverpush" in Android and that it may access
the microphone on Android devices and that it is a problem that one can
not block access to the microphone after installing an app which
requests access when installing it.
No, you asked how to disable the Mic on OS X and then complained that
it didn't *really* disable the mic or was "too hard".
Post by Arno Welzel
I tried to explain that on desktop system which use Windows or MacOS one
doesn't even know if the application wants to access your local data or
the microphone
That's simply not true.
Post by Arno Welzel
you just can trust that the app will do harmful things.
Again, you are inventing issues that do not exist.
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Lewis
I've never had an app change my microphone input. Not as long as there
have been mics on Macs.
This is just because nobody had the idea of creating a malware doing so
yet. If there would be a malware recording everything in the background
you wouldn't even notice.
That is also not true, I would certainly notice.
--
Lobotomy means never having to say you're sorry -- or anything else.
Arno Welzel
2016-03-23 06:28:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Lewis
Post by Arno Welzel
[...]
Post by nospam
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by nospam
setting the microphone level to zero on a mac is as easy as it gets and
no need for root either.
And setting the level back to normal is easy as well for a malicous
application as long as the respective kernel extension for volume
control is not disabled.
if you're that paranoid, remove the kext.
otherwise, adjusting the mic level is sufficient.
I think you don't get. It's not only about "how to mute microphone".
Maybe you should read the thread once again - and also what I said about
desktop systems in comparison to Android.
Are you a JF sock-puppet? Because you seem to be making up issues that
don't exist and then denigrating OS X for not solving those imaginary
issues.
The whole thread is about "Silverpush" in Android and that it may access
the microphone on Android devices and that it is a problem that one can
not block access to the microphone after installing an app which
requests access when installing it.
No, you asked how to disable the Mic on OS X and then complained that
it didn't *really* disable the mic or was "too hard".
Right - because just muting the mic does not keep a program from using
it and disabling a kernel extension is nothing a normal end user would
do or even thing about. Does the average Mac user know what a "kernel
extension" is? I thought people use Macs because they are much easier to
use and you do *not* have to fiddle with techical details like on PCs.
Post by Lewis
Post by Arno Welzel
I tried to explain that on desktop system which use Windows or MacOS one
doesn't even know if the application wants to access your local data or
the microphone
That's simply not true.
Aha - and what shows you when the mic is used by a program in Windows or
MacOS?
Post by Lewis
Post by Arno Welzel
you just can trust that the app will do harmful things.
Again, you are inventing issues that do not exist.
As I said: Then the whole thread makes no sense at all.

[...]
Post by Lewis
Post by Arno Welzel
This is just because nobody had the idea of creating a malware doing so
yet. If there would be a malware recording everything in the background
you wouldn't even notice.
That is also not true, I would certainly notice.
How?
--
Arno Welzel
http://arnowelzel.de
http://de-rec-fahrrad.de
http://fahrradzukunft.de
Jolly Roger
2016-03-24 02:37:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arno Welzel
Right - because just muting the mic does not keep a program from using
it and disabling a kernel extension is nothing a normal end user would
do or even thing about. Does the average Mac user know what a "kernel
extension" is? I thought people use Macs because they are much easier to
use and you do *not* have to fiddle with techical details like on PCs.
With Macs you have to fiddle far less than with Windows or Linux PCs,
which is a selling point. That doesn't necessarily mean the average Mac
user doesn't know how though.
--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
Lewis
2016-03-23 14:10:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Lewis
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Lewis
Post by Arno Welzel
[...]
Post by nospam
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by nospam
setting the microphone level to zero on a mac is as easy as it gets and
no need for root either.
And setting the level back to normal is easy as well for a malicous
application as long as the respective kernel extension for volume
control is not disabled.
if you're that paranoid, remove the kext.
otherwise, adjusting the mic level is sufficient.
I think you don't get. It's not only about "how to mute microphone".
Maybe you should read the thread once again - and also what I said about
desktop systems in comparison to Android.
Are you a JF sock-puppet? Because you seem to be making up issues that
don't exist and then denigrating OS X for not solving those imaginary
issues.
The whole thread is about "Silverpush" in Android and that it may access
the microphone on Android devices and that it is a problem that one can
not block access to the microphone after installing an app which
requests access when installing it.
No, you asked how to disable the Mic on OS X and then complained that
it didn't *really* disable the mic or was "too hard".
Right - because just muting the mic does not keep a program from using
it
Yes it does, the input being at zero means that no sound reaches the
mic.
--
Commander: "Seems odd you'd name your ship after a battle you were on
the wrong side of."

Mal: "May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the
wrong one."
Arno Welzel
2016-03-24 07:01:24 UTC
Permalink
[...]
Post by Lewis
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Lewis
No, you asked how to disable the Mic on OS X and then complained that
it didn't *really* disable the mic or was "too hard".
Right - because just muting the mic does not keep a program from using
it
Yes it does, the input being at zero means that no sound reaches the
mic.
Wrong - a program can still bring the input back to the desired level
since BY DEFAULT any program is allowed to do so.

Yes, I know, one can disable the respective kernel extension - but do
you really think an average Mac user will even know what a "kernel
extension" is or even realize, that a program may record everything from
the microphone in the background? There is no visual "microphone in use"
indicator on the screen.
--
Arno Welzel
http://arnowelzel.de
http://de-rec-fahrrad.de
http://fahrradzukunft.de
Jolly Roger
2016-03-24 07:21:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arno Welzel
[...]
Post by Lewis
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Lewis
No, you asked how to disable the Mic on OS X and then complained that
it didn't *really* disable the mic or was "too hard".
Right - because just muting the mic does not keep a program from using
it
Yes it does, the input being at zero means that no sound reaches the
mic.
Wrong - a program can still bring the input back to the desired level
since BY DEFAULT any program is allowed to do so.
So disable the kernel extension instead. Problem solved.
Post by Arno Welzel
Yes, I know, one can disable the respective kernel extension - but do
you really think an average Mac user will even know what a "kernel
extension" is or even realize, that a program may record everything from
the microphone in the background? There is no visual "microphone in use"
indicator on the screen.
The average user doesn't know or care. So I'm not sure what your point
is.

It's no secret that mobile operating systems (iOS in particular) are
designed with more privacy protections than typical desktop operating
systems. And it's possible to disable audio IO in OS X and other
operating systems for those users who are paranoid about such things.
And it wouldn't be hard at all for desktop operating system vendors to
add more privacy protections.
--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
Arno Welzel
2016-03-24 07:39:51 UTC
Permalink
[...]
Post by Jolly Roger
Post by Arno Welzel
Yes, I know, one can disable the respective kernel extension - but do
you really think an average Mac user will even know what a "kernel
extension" is or even realize, that a program may record everything from
the microphone in the background? There is no visual "microphone in use"
indicator on the screen.
The average user doesn't know or care. So I'm not sure what your point
is.
My point is, that desktop systems are not designed with security for the
user in mind but more with security to protect the system against the user.

Permissions in desktop systems do not protect the privacy of the user
but the integrity of the system. A program running with the credentials
of a user (which is the case for literally any desktop application) can
read and modify all data of the user but not the data of the operating
system.

And I wonder why people don't care about this when on the other hand
exactly this behaviour is considered insecure on mobile devices.

[...]
Post by Jolly Roger
And it wouldn't be hard at all for desktop operating system vendors to
add more privacy protections.
It doesn't matter if it would be hard. At the moment there is no privacy
protection on desktop systems.
--
Arno Welzel
http://arnowelzel.de
http://de-rec-fahrrad.de
http://fahrradzukunft.de
nospam
2016-03-24 14:11:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arno Welzel
Permissions in desktop systems do not protect the privacy of the user
but the integrity of the system. A program running with the credentials
of a user (which is the case for literally any desktop application) can
read and modify all data of the user but not the data of the operating
system.
which means it can't change system settings, such as microphone level.
Post by Arno Welzel
And I wonder why people don't care about this when on the other hand
exactly this behaviour is considered insecure on mobile devices.
mobile devices are a bigger target for many reasons.
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Jolly Roger
And it wouldn't be hard at all for desktop operating system vendors to
add more privacy protections.
It doesn't matter if it would be hard. At the moment there is no privacy
protection on desktop systems.
wrong.
Rod Speed
2016-03-25 03:39:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by nospam
Post by Arno Welzel
Permissions in desktop systems do not protect the privacy
of the user but the integrity of the system. A program
running with the credentials of a user (which is the case for
literally any desktop application) can read and modify all
data of the user but not the data of the operating system.
which means it can't change system settings, such as microphone level.
You're wrong, as always.
Post by nospam
Post by Arno Welzel
And I wonder why people don't care about this when on the other
hand exactly this behaviour is considered insecure on mobile devices.
mobile devices are a bigger target for many reasons.
Even sillier than you usually manage.
Post by nospam
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Jolly Roger
And it wouldn't be hard at all for desktop operating
system vendors to add more privacy protections.
It doesn't matter if it would be hard. At the moment
there is no privacy protection on desktop systems.
wrong.
You did get that bit right, presumably by accident.
Rod Speed
2016-03-25 03:28:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arno Welzel
[...]
Post by Jolly Roger
Post by Arno Welzel
Yes, I know, one can disable the respective kernel extension - but do
you really think an average Mac user will even know what a "kernel
extension" is or even realize, that a program may record everything from
the microphone in the background? There is no visual "microphone in use"
indicator on the screen.
The average user doesn't know or care. So I'm not sure what your point
is.
My point is, that desktop systems are not designed with security for the
user in mind but more with security to protect the system against the user.
Permissions in desktop systems do not protect the privacy of the user
but the integrity of the system. A program running with the credentials
of a user (which is the case for literally any desktop application) can
read and modify all data of the user but not the data of the operating
system.
And I wonder why people don't care about this when on the other hand
exactly this behaviour is considered insecure on mobile devices.
Because they don't use those desktop systems if they care about the
security of their data or don't have any data they care about on them.
Post by Arno Welzel
[...]
Post by Jolly Roger
And it wouldn't be hard at all for desktop operating system vendors to
add more privacy protections.
It doesn't matter if it would be hard. At the moment there is no privacy
protection on desktop systems.
Corse there is, you can only install apps you know aren't malicious.
Les Cargill
2016-03-25 03:52:38 UTC
Permalink
Arno Welzel wrote:
<snip>
Post by Arno Welzel
It doesn't matter if it would be hard. At the moment there is no privacy
protection on desktop systems.
Sure there is. Unplug the wire going to the Internet.
--
Les Cargill
nospam
2016-03-23 14:16:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Lewis
Post by Arno Welzel
The whole thread is about "Silverpush" in Android and that it may access
the microphone on Android devices and that it is a problem that one can
not block access to the microphone after installing an app which
requests access when installing it.
No, you asked how to disable the Mic on OS X and then complained that
it didn't *really* disable the mic or was "too hard".
Right - because just muting the mic does not keep a program from using
it
yes it does.
Post by Arno Welzel
and disabling a kernel extension is nothing a normal end user would
do or even thing about.
normal end users don't worry about apps snooping.
Post by Arno Welzel
Does the average Mac user know what a "kernel
extension" is? I thought people use Macs because they are much easier to
use and you do *not* have to fiddle with techical details like on PCs.
this isn't about average users. it's about paranoid users, who will
seek out a solution due to their paranoia.
tlvp
2016-03-23 03:00:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
I've never had an app change my microphone input.
Maybe you haven't. But numerous crib-cam set-ups have. Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
Jolly Roger
2016-03-23 04:06:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by tlvp
Post by Lewis
I've never had an app change my microphone input.
Maybe you haven't. But numerous crib-cam set-ups have. Cheers, -- tlvp
Citation please. And what is a crib-cam set-up?
--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
Rod Speed
2016-03-23 04:50:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jolly Roger
Post by tlvp
Post by Lewis
I've never had an app change my microphone input.
Maybe you haven't. But numerous crib-cam set-ups have.
Citation please. And what is a crib-cam set-up?
What you setup to watch the brat in the crib remotely.
Jolly Roger
2016-03-23 05:07:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Jolly Roger
Post by tlvp
Post by Lewis
I've never had an app change my microphone input.
Maybe you haven't. But numerous crib-cam set-ups have.
Citation please. And what is a crib-cam set-up?
What you setup to watch the brat in the crib remotely.
And they have changed microphone input on computers how?
--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
tlvp
2016-03-23 07:45:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jolly Roger
And they have changed microphone input on computers how?
On anything. As early as 2006, even:

: FBI taps cell phone mic as eavesdropping tool
:
: Agency used novel surveillance technique on alleged Mafioso:
: activating his cell phone's microphone and then just listening.

See<http://www.cnet.com/news/fbi-taps-cell-phone-mic-as-eavesdropping-tool/>.

Don't like that? Google [ malware eavesdropping through your microphone ]
and take your pick :-) . Perhaps you'd prefer a report that begins

: New bugs in Google Chrome, allow malicious sites to activate your
: microphone, and listen in on anything said around your computer, even ...

Find it at <https://www.talater.com/chrome-is-listening/> :-) .

Cheers, -- tlvp (Oh: and complaints to dev/nul please.)
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
Jolly Roger
2016-03-24 02:49:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by tlvp
Post by Jolly Roger
And they have changed microphone input on computers how?
I asked about nanny cams accessing microphones on computers
specifically. You're avoiding.
Post by tlvp
: FBI taps cell phone mic as eavesdropping tool
: activating his cell phone's microphone and then just listening.
Not a computer, and not a nanny cam.
Post by tlvp
See<http://www.cnet.com/news/fbi-taps-cell-phone-mic-as-eavesdropping-tool/>.
Don't like that? Google [ malware eavesdropping through your microphone ]
and take your pick :-) . Perhaps you'd prefer a report that begins
: New bugs in Google Chrome, allow malicious sites to activate your
: microphone, and listen in on anything said around your computer, even ...
Also not a nanny cam.
--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
Rod Speed
2016-03-23 18:40:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jolly Roger
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Jolly Roger
Post by tlvp
Post by Lewis
I've never had an app change my microphone input.
Maybe you haven't. But numerous crib-cam set-ups have.
Citation please. And what is a crib-cam set-up?
What you setup to watch the brat in the crib remotely.
And they have changed microphone input on computers how?
The app does that.
tlvp
2016-03-23 07:29:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jolly Roger
Post by tlvp
Post by Lewis
I've never had an app change my microphone input.
Maybe you haven't. But numerous crib-cam set-ups have. Cheers, -- tlvp
Citation please. And what is a crib-cam set-up?
You want me to believe you've never met the monosyllables crib or cam ;-) ?
Forget it. But google [ crib cam security ] . My first hit just now begins:

: Nanny Heard a ‘Strange’ and ‘Creepy’ Sound Coming From a Security Camera
: Above a Baby Crib — and Then She Realized What It Was and Panicked

Cf.
<http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/01/27/nanny-heard-a-strange-and-creepy-sound-coming-from-a-security-camera-above-a-baby-crib-and-then-she-realized-what-it-was-and-panicked/>.

Many many more like that if you bother to look. Many more in which outside
interlopers turn mikes on, off; turn volume up, down; and even swivel
repositionable cams <, >, ^, v.

Enjoy. Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
Jolly Roger
2016-03-24 02:47:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by tlvp
Post by Jolly Roger
Post by tlvp
Post by Lewis
I've never had an app change my microphone input.
Maybe you haven't. But numerous crib-cam set-ups have. Cheers, -- tlvp
Citation please. And what is a crib-cam set-up?
You want me to believe you've never met the monosyllables crib or cam ;-) ?
: Nanny Heard a ‘Strange’ and ‘Creepy’ Sound Coming From a Security Camera
: Above a Baby Crib — and Then She Realized What It Was and Panicked
Nanny cameras aren't apps that control Mac microphones last I checked.
--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
Lewis
2016-03-23 14:08:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by tlvp
Post by Jolly Roger
Post by tlvp
Post by Lewis
I've never had an app change my microphone input.
Maybe you haven't. But numerous crib-cam set-ups have. Cheers, -- tlvp
Citation please. And what is a crib-cam set-up?
You want me to believe you've never met the monosyllables crib or cam ;-) ?
: Nanny Heard a ‘Strange’ and ‘Creepy’ Sound Coming From a Security Camera
: Above a Baby Crib — and Then She Realized What It Was and Panicked
Cf.
<http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/01/27/nanny-heard-a-strange-and-creepy-sound-coming-from-a-security-camera-above-a-baby-crib-and-then-she-realized-what-it-was-and-panicked/>.
And this has what to do with an application changing the mic input on my
Mac?

Oh right, nothing. Nothing at all.
--
Don't ride in anything with a Capissen-38 engine, they fall right out of
the sky
tlvp
2016-03-25 02:26:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by tlvp
<http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/01/27/nanny-heard-a-strange-and-creepy-sound-coming-from-a-security-camera-above-a-baby-crib-and-then-she-realized-what-it-was-and-panicked/>.
And this has what to do with an application changing the mic input on my
Mac?
Oh, you're only interested in actions on a Mac? OK here's actions on a Mac:

<http://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-zero-day-vulnerability-fully-compromises-your-devices/>.

All conceivable actions, not just only "changing the mic input" :-) .
Enjoy. Cheers. And next time do your own homework, please; thanks. -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
Jolly Roger
2016-03-25 02:37:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by tlvp
Post by Lewis
Post by tlvp
<http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/01/27/nanny-heard-a-strange-and-creepy-sound-coming-from-a-security-camera-above-a-baby-crib-and-then-she-realized-what-it-was-and-panicked/>.
And this has what to do with an application changing the mic input on my
Mac?
<http://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-zero-day-vulnerability-fully-compromises-your-devices/>.
Now you're talking about generic exploits, moving the goal posts,
predictably, because you have nothing else. Boring. Anyhow:

"The flaw has been patched, but only in updates for El Capitan 10.11.4,
and iOS 9.3, which was released March 21."

and:

"In order to exploit the vulnerability, a cyberattacker must first
compromise the target system"

and of course:

"Vilaça said he was not aware of any examples of the exploit being used
in the wild"

Still nothing at all about a baby monitor accessing the microphone of a
Mac. This is the best you can do? Mega fail. *HUGE FUCKING YAWN*
--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
Lewis
2016-03-23 14:07:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by tlvp
Post by Lewis
I've never had an app change my microphone input.
Maybe you haven't. But numerous crib-cam set-ups have. Cheers, -- tlvp
Really? What ones? Links to credible news stories or credible tech
sites, please.

Or are you making things up?
--
Everybody hates a tourist, especially one who thinks it's all such
laugh. Yeah, and the chip stains and grease will come out in the bath.
You will never understand how it feels to live your life with no meaning
or control, and with nowhere left to go. You are amazed that the exist,
and they burn so bright whilst you can only wonder why.
tlvp
2016-03-24 03:31:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by tlvp
Post by Lewis
I've never had an app change my microphone input.
Maybe you haven't. But numerous crib-cam set-ups have. Cheers, -- tlvp
Really? What ones? Links to credible news stories or credible tech
sites, please.
Or are you making things up?
I don't find your incredulity very credible. Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
nospam
2016-03-21 18:41:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Jolly Roger
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Jolly Roger
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Lewis
Post by Arno Welzel
How can one turn off access to the microphone on a computer with Windows
or MacOS?
System Preferences -> Sound -> Input _Input level to 0
You don't get it, do you? Nothing keeps a program from setting the input
level back to the desired value
Wrong. Disabling the kernel extension will certainly do that.
The kernel extension is enabled by default? I'm not talking about things
a regular user would never do.
Please. Anyone who owns their Mac can disable a kernel extension.
My wife owns a Macbook Pro for many years now - I doubt she even knows
what a kernel extension is and what it is used for. Not everybody is a
tech-savvy user.
then why don't you help her out?

and that's only one way to do it. there are others.
Arno Welzel
2016-03-22 07:14:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by nospam
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Jolly Roger
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Jolly Roger
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Lewis
Post by Arno Welzel
How can one turn off access to the microphone on a computer with Windows
or MacOS?
System Preferences -> Sound -> Input _Input level to 0
You don't get it, do you? Nothing keeps a program from setting the input
level back to the desired value
Wrong. Disabling the kernel extension will certainly do that.
The kernel extension is enabled by default? I'm not talking about things
a regular user would never do.
Please. Anyone who owns their Mac can disable a kernel extension.
My wife owns a Macbook Pro for many years now - I doubt she even knows
what a kernel extension is and what it is used for. Not everybody is a
tech-savvy user.
then why don't you help her out?
I'm talking about the regular user and not those with tech-savvy friends
or family members.

If you see "hey, there are always some tech-savvy friends around tot
help" then Silvepush on Android is also no problem at all. Of course a
regular user can't do anything against this except removing the apps
which use it - but hey... rooting an Android device or using SRT
AppGuard etc. is no magic and can be done by everybody as well. So where
is the problem with Silverpush then?
--
Arno Welzel
http://arnowelzel.de
http://de-rec-fahrrad.de
http://fahrradzukunft.de
nospam
2016-03-22 15:17:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by nospam
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Jolly Roger
Please. Anyone who owns their Mac can disable a kernel extension.
My wife owns a Macbook Pro for many years now - I doubt she even knows
what a kernel extension is and what it is used for. Not everybody is a
tech-savvy user.
then why don't you help her out?
I'm talking about the regular user and not those with tech-savvy friends
or family members.
regular users aren't paranoid which means they have no interest in
disabling features they might otherwise use.
Arno Welzel
2016-03-22 20:49:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by nospam
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by nospam
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Jolly Roger
Please. Anyone who owns their Mac can disable a kernel extension.
My wife owns a Macbook Pro for many years now - I doubt she even knows
what a kernel extension is and what it is used for. Not everybody is a
tech-savvy user.
then why don't you help her out?
I'm talking about the regular user and not those with tech-savvy friends
or family members.
regular users aren't paranoid which means they have no interest in
disabling features they might otherwise use.
Well - then this whole topic does not matter! Silverpush on Android may
pick up private stuff using the microphone on the device - so what? It
only affects a very few apps and as discussed in another thread here
many smartphones are not very good in picking up sounds in a room anyway
compared to dedicated recording devices.
--
Arno Welzel
http://arnowelzel.de
http://de-rec-fahrrad.de
http://fahrradzukunft.de
nospam
2016-03-22 21:12:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by nospam
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by nospam
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Jolly Roger
Please. Anyone who owns their Mac can disable a kernel extension.
My wife owns a Macbook Pro for many years now - I doubt she even knows
what a kernel extension is and what it is used for. Not everybody is a
tech-savvy user.
then why don't you help her out?
I'm talking about the regular user and not those with tech-savvy friends
or family members.
regular users aren't paranoid which means they have no interest in
disabling features they might otherwise use.
Well - then this whole topic does not matter!
pretty much.
Post by Arno Welzel
Silverpush on Android may
pick up private stuff using the microphone on the device - so what? It
only affects a very few apps and as discussed in another thread here
many smartphones are not very good in picking up sounds in a room anyway
compared to dedicated recording devices.
lots of things can listen to sounds. amazon echo, for instance.

as i said, regular users aren't paranoid. if they don't want an app
listening, they either deny permission or delete the app.
Arno Welzel
2016-03-22 21:53:10 UTC
Permalink
[...]
Post by nospam
Post by Arno Welzel
Silverpush on Android may
pick up private stuff using the microphone on the device - so what? It
only affects a very few apps and as discussed in another thread here
many smartphones are not very good in picking up sounds in a room anyway
compared to dedicated recording devices.
lots of things can listen to sounds. amazon echo, for instance.
as i said, regular users aren't paranoid. if they don't want an app
listening, they either deny permission or delete the app.
So - why are you participating this thread then? You don't care anway.
--
Arno Welzel
http://arnowelzel.de
http://de-rec-fahrrad.de
http://fahrradzukunft.de
Lewis
2016-03-21 13:28:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arno Welzel
How to I keep an application from read the data where my login as has
access to?
Only run Mac App Store apps.
--
I want a refund, I want a light, I want a reason for all this night
after night after night after night
pamela
2016-03-22 18:51:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Max Muller
Android inability to turn off access bites the users again!
http://www.informationweek.com/government/open-government/ftc-ra
ps-android-developers-for-using-silverpush-software/d/d-id/13247
65
How can one turn off access to the microphone on a computer with
Windows or MacOS?
Yes - I understand the problem. But I wonder why people complain
about the missing possibility to turn off access to certain
functions of the device on smartphones but happily use machines
with Windows or MacOS where all applications always have access
to all data of the user running it.
Would a mic blocking app stop SilverPush from listening to the mic?

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?
id=com.bettertomorrowapps.microphoneblockfree
Arno Welzel
2016-03-22 20:51:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by pamela
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Max Muller
Android inability to turn off access bites the users again!
http://www.informationweek.com/government/open-government/ftc-ra
ps-android-developers-for-using-silverpush-software/d/d-id/13247
65
How can one turn off access to the microphone on a computer with
Windows or MacOS?
Yes - I understand the problem. But I wonder why people complain
about the missing possibility to turn off access to certain
functions of the device on smartphones but happily use machines
with Windows or MacOS where all applications always have access
to all data of the user running it.
Would a mic blocking app stop SilverPush from listening to the mic?
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?
id=com.bettertomorrowapps.microphoneblockfree
I don't think so. Did you read the reviews? Doesn't look very good.
--
Arno Welzel
http://arnowelzel.de
http://de-rec-fahrrad.de
http://fahrradzukunft.de
pamela
2016-03-23 16:44:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by pamela
Post by Arno Welzel
Post by Max Muller
Android inability to turn off access bites the users again!
http://www.informationweek.com/government/open-government/ftc-
ra
ps-android-developers-for-using-silverpush-software/d/d-id/132
47 65
How can one turn off access to the microphone on a computer
with Windows or MacOS?
Yes - I understand the problem. But I wonder why people
complain about the missing possibility to turn off access to
certain functions of the device on smartphones but happily use
machines with Windows or MacOS where all applications always
have access to all data of the user running it.
Would a mic blocking app stop SilverPush from listening to the mic?
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?
id=com.bettertomorrowapps.microphoneblockfree
I don't think so. Did you read the reviews? Doesn't look very
good.
Yes, some of the reviews were disappointing. Maybe other apps
block the mic more effectively.

If the mic can't be blocked then I wonder if an app could mask what
the mic hears by swamping it with white noise.
Steve Hayes
2016-03-21 03:33:53 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 20 Mar 2016 16:51:35 -0000 (UTC), Max Muller
Post by Max Muller
Android inability to turn off access bites the users again!
http://www.informationweek.com/government/open-government/ftc-raps-android-developers-for-using-silverpush-software/d/d-id/1324765
12 Android apps, could violate consumer privacy rights by picking up
background noise to feed to advertisers.
The software, called SilverPush, turns on an Android device's microphone
and can pick up background sounds to better target advertisers.
The functionality is designed to run silently in the background, even
while the user is not actively using the application. Using this
technology, SilverPush could generate a detailed log of the television
content viewed while a user's mobile phone was turned on.
The FTC letter noted that for the time being, SilverPush has represented
that its audio beacons are not currently embedded into any television
programming aimed at US households.
Isn't that fraud?

Presumably the user has to pay for the bandwidth used to transmit that
stuff?
--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://hayesgreene.wordpress.com/
http://hayesgreene.blogspot.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/afgen/
Loading...