"Muh Google's not spying on users and stealing personal information from my office"

BigJimsWornOutTires

BigJimsWornOutTires

Kraken
Joined
Feb 6, 2021
Posts
23,828
Reputation
27,451

Read the story, I'm not explaining it. So now, the cat is out of the bag as hackers learned how Googlement does this. Not only them but Microsoft and Apple too. Doesn't matter if you're a doctor, lawyer, cop, or investor, if you have a computer or phone, and you use a Google/Microsoft/Apple product, they record everything. They steal your files. They steal your "confidential" patient files. And you can't catch them. If you try to, use that clever imagination of what comes next. You better be a saint or Jesus, if you even attempt. The same goes for people you personally know.
 
  • JFL
  • +1
Reactions: n0rthface, Deleted member 20399 and Clark69
Use this.
Adblocking is irrelevant when Google stalks your social media, banking and habits. With this, you obfuscate yourself to the point where profiling you becomes impossible.

As online advertising becomes ever more ubiquitous and unsanctioned, AdNauseam works to complete the cycle by automating ad clicks universally and blindly on behalf of its users. Built atop uBlock Origin, AdNauseam quietly clicks on every blocked ad, registering a visit on ad networks' databases. As the collected data gathered shows an omnivorous click-stream, user tracking, targeting and surveillance become futile.
 
  • JFL
Reactions: BigJimsWornOutTires
Use this.
Adblocking is irrelevant when Google stalks your social media, banking and habits. With this, you obfuscate yourself to the point where profiling you becomes impossible.

As online advertising becomes ever more ubiquitous and unsanctioned, AdNauseam works to complete the cycle by automating ad clicks universally and blindly on behalf of its users. Built atop uBlock Origin, AdNauseam quietly clicks on every blocked ad, registering a visit on ad networks' databases. As the collected data gathered shows an omnivorous click-stream, user tracking, targeting and surveillance become futile.
It's an interesting take. But knowing those people are ahead of you all, I don't think so. I'll stick with adblocking only because I get to record everything. Having another party take care of business, I won't know who's pushing the cookies.

Did You Know? Kaotic has a new owner? Not only that, but this new owner enjoys pushing BBC material.
 
  • JFL
Reactions: lemonnz
Retard, it's a use after free CVE in google's open source graphics engine abstraction layer that affects every chromium based browser. There are UAF CVEs patched in nearly every Chromium build.

It wouldn't really be possible for google to exploit this particular CVE or practically any local vulnerability because it would be found easily; they just surveil and monitor users through other means. Though obviously intelligence agencies and malicious actors use zero-days against their adversaries/victims.
 
Last edited:
  • JFL
Reactions: Deleted member 56659 and BigJimsWornOutTires
Retard, it's a use after free CVE in google's open source...
And you're calling me the retard?? Brutal. I can't make this shit up anymore.
 
And you're calling me the retard?? Brutal. I can't make this shit up anymore.
Explain what was incorrect, retard. The UAF CVE was in ANGLE, which is open source. You can view the source code here: https://github.com/google/angle
You do realize it's a local vulnerability and not a "backdoor" or anything of the sort?

 
  • JFL
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 56659 and BigJimsWornOutTires
Explain what was incorrect, retard. The UAF CVE was in ANGLE, which is open source. You can view the source code here: https://github.com/google/angle
You do realize it's a local vulnerability and not a "backdoor" or anything of the sort?

Morgan Freeman Laughing GIF
I'm not clicking that last link
 
Morgan Freeman Laughing GIF
I'm not clicking that last link
It's nist.gov, but whatever. You can just search up CVE-2024-2883 instead then. You're a pseudo-intellectual who knows nothing about cybersecurity. I can't believe you either tried implying that open source software can't have CVEs or that ANGLE isn't open source eventhough chromium itself is open source.
 
  • JFL
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 56659 and BigJimsWornOutTires
It's nist.gov, but whatever. You can just search up CVE-2024-2883 instead then. You're a pseudo-intellectual who knows nothing about cybersecurity. I can't believe you either tried implying that open source software can't have CVEs or that ANGLE isn't open source eventhough chromium itself is open source.
Staring I See You GIF by QuikTrip
 

Similar threads

BigJimsWornOutTires
Replies
3
Views
269
BigJimsWornOutTires
BigJimsWornOutTires

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top