4 ms·
To be fair, the response from CarrierIQ implies that this is the case: "In an interview last week, Carrier IQ VP of Marketing Andrew Coward rejected claims the
by revscat 15y ago
To be fair, the response from CarrierIQ implies that this is the case:
"In an interview last week, Carrier IQ VP of Marketing Andrew Coward rejected claims the software posed a privacy threat because it never captured key presses.
“Our technology is not real time,” he said at the time. "It's not constantly reporting back. It's gathering information up and is usually transmitted in small doses.”
Note that last clause there.
- CaptainZapp 15y agoAnd why exactly, should I believe Mr. Coward? Besides: Reading weasel words like 'usually' in corporate statements just makes me shudder.
- rationalbeaver 15y agoI'm not sure why I would care to defend him, but it seems that his claim that the data is not real time can be verified by the first image in the parent comment's list. In that shot there's a column listing the 'Upload Reason'. The reasons include "Scheduled" and "Archive full", which seems to indicate that the software reports back at set times unless the user was particularly active and the data file hit some size limit. There's also a third upload reason in that image which has it's own disturbing implications: "SMS_PullRequest_CS".
- runjake 15y agoWhat does it matter if it's real time or not? It's still creepy, and it's still my privacy.
- mitchty 15y agoThe fact that it has hooks to even know of the keystrokes is the real issue here. Even without recording or logging them afterwards, the fact that it has the ability means its a possible attack vector for things like worms/etc... Even if they never do anything with keystroke data, just the fact that they can is the dangerous part. What is to prevent some switch to start sending the keystrokes in the future? I'll be blunt, this companies implementation of its business model strikes me as being borderline wiretapping.