4 ms·

Are you referring to the article or the general discussion? I would see your point in general closed-source software but in this case the way the module is loa

by hoers 11y ago

Are you referring to the article or the general discussion? I would see your point in general closed-source software but in this case the way the module is loaded does indeed make a difference: it (silently) downloads and installs a closed-source blob with the ability to record audio into a piece of otherwise open source software. Specifically a browser, one of the biggest attack vectors anyway.

fridek 11y ago
Quoting https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=500922#c6 https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=500922#c... The significance of this depends on whether you're running Google Chrome (the official distribution) or Chromium. Now, you've reported in your "steps to reproduce" using Chrome on Mac. If we're talking about Chrome: Google Chrome (as opposed to Chromium) is not open source. It contains various bits of proprietary binary code, and always has. Therefore, whether it downloads the hotword module from the web store, or includes it in the distribution, is irrelevant from a trust standpoint. From our standpoint, the fact that the hotword module is a separate extension (rather than built in to the browser) is an implementation detail. Since a lot of the discussion is centered around Chromium on Linux, I want to address the concern that Chromium is entirely open source and yet it downloads a proprietary module. The key here is that Chromium is not a Google product (we do not directly distribute it, or make any guarantees with respect to compliance with various open source policies). Our primary focus is getting code ready for Google Chrome. If a third party (such as Debian) destributes it, it is their responsibility to enforce their own policy. And I see that they have now done that (as of 43.0.2357.81-1) by disabling the hotword module. We have also made changes from Chromium 45 onwards to make it easier for third party distributors to disable hotwording (see Issue 491435 ). Another key point is that the binary blob is not a native executable or library. It is a NaCl module, and therefore subject to the full sandbox of the NaCl platform. The hotword module has the same privileges as any website (except that it automatically has access to the microphone). -- EOQ -- Also I believe the binary blobs are downloaded from a static address and hopefully signed somehow. The security concern is something I would accept as a valid argument, but if Google domain and whatever certification they use is compromised user has much larger issues than his audio being recorded. Anyway, I'm trying to fight privacy-wackos that are spawning lately. Privacy is about having a choice to not share. In such meaning you can take almost an arbitrary definition of what you consider private and ask for a way to protect this idea of privacy. It should however not hinder the innovation and prevent developers from building great software. It's ok if I choose to trade some information in exchange for an interesting feature. There seem to be many people fighting for not giving up their extended vision of freedom, not paying for software in any way, not even ads, and expecting high quality results. "Expecting" is a keyword here. Everybody is very much free to use Firefox, which is considered better for achieving the above results, yet the talk about Chrome shows how many people want to have the cake and eat it (and do it in private so nobody knows, because we all care so much about your f-ing cake).

by hoers 11y ago

fridek 11y ago

Quoting https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=500922#c6 https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=500922#c... The significance of this depends on whether you're running Google Chrome (the official distribution) or Chromium. Now, you've reported in your "steps to reproduce" using Chrome on Mac. If we're talking about Chrome: Google Chrome (as opposed to Chromium) is not open source. It contains various bits of proprietary binary code, and always has. Therefore, whether it downloads the hotword module from the web store, or includes it in the distribution, is irrelevant from a trust standpoint. From our standpoint, the fact that the hotword module is a separate extension (rather than built in to the browser) is an implementation detail. Since a lot of the discussion is centered around Chromium on Linux, I want to address the concern that Chromium is entirely open source and yet it downloads a proprietary module. The key here is that Chromium is not a Google product (we do not directly distribute it, or make any guarantees with respect to compliance with various open source policies). Our primary focus is getting code ready for Google Chrome. If a third party (such as Debian) destributes it, it is their responsibility to enforce their own policy. And I see that they have now done that (as of 43.0.2357.81-1) by disabling the hotword module. We have also made changes from Chromium 45 onwards to make it easier for third party distributors to disable hotwording (see Issue 491435 ). Another key point is that the binary blob is not a native executable or library. It is a NaCl module, and therefore subject to the full sandbox of the NaCl platform. The hotword module has the same privileges as any website (except that it automatically has access to the microphone). -- EOQ -- Also I believe the binary blobs are downloaded from a static address and hopefully signed somehow. The security concern is something I would accept as a valid argument, but if Google domain and whatever certification they use is compromised user has much larger issues than his audio being recorded. Anyway, I'm trying to fight privacy-wackos that are spawning lately. Privacy is about having a choice to not share. In such meaning you can take almost an arbitrary definition of what you consider private and ask for a way to protect this idea of privacy. It should however not hinder the innovation and prevent developers from building great software. It's ok if I choose to trade some information in exchange for an interesting feature. There seem to be many people fighting for not giving up their extended vision of freedom, not paying for software in any way, not even ads, and expecting high quality results. "Expecting" is a keyword here. Everybody is very much free to use Firefox, which is considered better for achieving the above results, yet the talk about Chrome shows how many people want to have the cake and eat it (and do it in private so nobody knows, because we all care so much about your f-ing cake).