Google Chrome Flaw Sets Your PC's Mic Live

First time accepted submitter AllTheTinfoilHats (3612007) writes "A security flaw in Google Chrome allows any website you visit with the browser to listen in on nearby conversations. It doesn't allow sites to access your microphone's audio, but provides them with a transcript of the browser's speech-to-text transcriptions of anything in range. It was found by a programmer in Israel, who says Google issued a low-priority label to the bug when he reported it, until he wrote about it on his blog and the post started picking up steam on social media. The website has to keep you clicking for eight seconds to keep the microphone on, and Google says it has no timeline for a fix." However, as discoverer Guy Aharonovsky is quoted, "It seems like they started to look for a way to quickly mitigate this flaw."

Comments

Re:Flaw?

[ShieldW0lf]

I have been a staunch supporter of Firefox for many years.

However, I cannot continue to use their browser in good conscience.

I believe that it is of vital importance to humanity that we continue to subsidize and support the nuclear family.

I recognize that the purpose of marriage is to support nuclear families.

Marriage is not a contract between two people. Marriage is a contract that a man and a woman make with their community.

The man and woman agree that they will be loyal to each other and in exchange, society creates structures to support their union.

In this way, resources are dedicated to funding the future of the human race.

I have always been a supporter of the rights of the GLBT community to have sexual relations with whomever they wish, and to live without fear as they do so. I continue to support such rights.

I also have always been happy to support the multitude of tax breaks and other social benefits granted married couples, and shoulder a greater burden. I recognize that one day, I will wish to retire, and the children they raise will be the ones caring for me in my old age.

I discovered, in my experience as a financial adviser, that these tax breaks are often exploited by married couples who do not and never intend to have children, allowing them to live more decadent lifestyles.

I consider this to be a great crime against us all. Those resources have an important purpose. I expect a return from the money I invest in married couples, and that return is children.

I have believed for a long time that married couples who do not have children within a certain reasonable period of time should have their marriage annulled as a non-fruitful union, as was been done for hundreds of years of our history.

I believe that couples with children who get divorced before those children are adult members of society should be forced to repay society for breach of contract. Their children end up with significantly higher levels of social and psychological impairment, and drag society down.

I consider marriage of homosexuals to be tantamount to theft. They are stealing resources that were intended for young families, resources that are in part mine.

If you reject the position that marriage has a purpose and generates a return for society in exchange for services rendered, you must then acknowledge that marriage is prejudicial against single people.

It is not right that I should live in a two bedroom apartment with my male roommate, and shoulder a greater tax burden than a gay couple across the hall, simply because they have formalized their sexual union.

Marriage is not about love. People do not need to be married to be in love. This is about resource allocation.

And so, after the dramatic statement that Mozilla has made as an organisation in their treatment of Brendan Eich, I have decided that I will no longer use their browser or endorse it to others.

Also, I will no longer test the software I develop with their browser. In this way, I will contribute to making Firefox deliver a substandard user experience to those who do choose to support them.

When homosexuals get married, they cross the line from outsiders who do no harm to aggressors who must be defended against, and Mozilla are also on the other side of that line.

I consider this to be a reasonable position.