Google Chrome Listening In To Your Room Shows The Importance Of Privacy Defense In Depth

Posted on Jun 18, 2015 by Rick Falkvinge
Share Tweet

Yesterday, news broke that Google has been stealth downloading audio listeners onto every computer that runs Chrome, and transmits audio data back to Google. Effectively, this means that Google had taken itself the right to listen to every conversation in every room that runs Chrome somewhere, without any kind of consent from the people eavesdropped on. In official statements, Google shrugged off the practice with what amounts to “we can do that”.

It looked like just another bug report. "When I start Chromium, it downloads something." Followed by strange status information that notably included the lines "Microphone: Yes" and "Audio Capture Allowed: Yes".

chrome-voicesearch

Without consent, Google’s code had downloaded a black box of code that – according to itself – had turned on the microphone and was actively listening to your room.

A brief explanation of the Open-source / Free-software philosophy is needed here. When you’re installing a version of GNU/Linux like Debian or Ubuntu onto a fresh computer, thousands of really smart people have analyzed every line of human-readable source code before that operating system was built into computer-executable binary code, to make it common and open knowledge what the machine actually does instead of trusting corporate statements on what it’s supposed to be doing. Therefore, you don’t install black boxes onto a Debian or Ubuntu system; you use software repositories that have gone through this source-code audit-then-build process. Maintainers of operating systems like Debian and Ubuntu use many so-called “upstreams” of source code to build the final product.

Chromium, the open-source version of Google Chrome, had abused its position as trusted upstream to insert lines of source code that bypassed this audit-then-build process, and which downloaded and installed a black box of unverifiable executable code directly onto computers, essentially rendering them compromised. We don’t know and can’t know what this black box does. But we see reports that the microphone has been activated, and that Chromium considers audio capture permitted.

This was supposedly to enable the “Ok, Google” behavior – that when you say certain words, a search function is activated. Certainly a useful feature. Certainly something that enables eavesdropping of every conversation in the entire room, too.

Obviously, your own computer isn’t the one to analyze the actual search command. Google’s servers do. Which means that your computer had been stealth configured to send what was being said in your room to somebody else, to a private company in another country, without your consent or knowledge, an audio transmission triggered by… an unknown and unverifiable set of conditions.

Google had two responses to this. The first was to introduce a practically-undocumented switch to opt out of this behavior, which is not a fix: the default install will still wiretap your room without your consent, unless you opt out, and more importantly, know that you need to opt out, which is nowhere a reasonable requirement. But the second was more of an official statement following technical discussions on Hacker News and other places. That official statement amounted to three parts (paraphrased, of course):

1) Yes, we’re downloading and installing a wiretapping black-box to your computer. But we’re not actually activating it. We did take advantage of our position as trusted upstream to stealth-insert code into open-source software that installed this black box onto millions of computers, but we would never abuse the same trust in the same way to insert code that activates the eavesdropping-blackbox we already downloaded and installed onto your computer without your consent or knowledge. You can look at the code as it looks right now to see that the code doesn’t do this right now.

2) Yes, Chromium is bypassing the entire source code auditing process by downloading a pre-built black box onto people’s computers. But that’s not something we care about, really. We’re concerned with building Google Chrome, the product from Google. As part of that, we provide the source code for others to package if they like. Anybody who uses our code for their own purpose takes responsibility for it. When this happens in a Debian installation, it is not Google Chrome’s behavior, this is Debian Chromium’s behavior. It’s Debian’s responsibility entirely.

3) Yes, we deliberately hid this listening module from the users, but that’s because we consider this behavior to be part of the basic Google Chrome experience. We don’t want to show all modules that we install ourselves.

If you think this is an excusable and responsible statement, raise your hand now.

Now, it should be noted that this was Chromium, the open-source version of Chrome. If somebody downloads the Google product Google Chrome, as in the prepackaged binary, you don’t even get a theoretical choice. You’re already downloading a black box from a vendor. In Google Chrome, this is all included from the start.

This episode highlights the need for hard, not soft, switches to all devices – webcams, microphones – that can be used for surveillance. A software on/off switch for a webcam is no longer enough, a hard shield in front of the lens is required. A software on/off switch for a microphone is no longer enough, a physical switch that breaks its electrical connection is required. That’s how you defend against this in depth.

Of course, people were quick to downplay the alarm. “It only listens when you say ‘Ok, Google’.” (Ok, so how does it know to start listening just before I’m about to say ‘Ok, Google?’) “It’s no big deal.” (A company stealth installs an audio listener that listens to every room in the world it can, and transmits audio data to the mothership when it encounters an unknown, possibly individually tailored, list of keywords – and it’s no big deal!?) “You can opt out. It’s in the Terms of Service.” (No. Just no. This is not something that is the slightest amount of permissible just because it’s hidden in legalese.) “It’s opt-in. It won’t really listen unless you check that box.” (Perhaps. We don’t know, Google just downloaded a black box onto my computer. And it may not be the same black box as was downloaded onto yours. )

Early last decade, privacy activists practically yelled and screamed that the NSA’s taps of various points of the Internet and telecom networks had the technical potential for enormous abuse against privacy. Everybody else dismissed those points as basically tinfoilhattery – until the Snowden files came out, and it was revealed that precisely everybody involved had abused their technical capability for invasion of privacy as far as was possible.

Perhaps it would be wise to not repeat that exact mistake. Nobody, and I really mean nobody, is to be trusted with a technical capability to listen to every room in the world, with listening profiles customizable at the identified-individual level, on the mere basis of “trust us”.

Privacy remains your own responsibility.

About Rick Falkvinge

Rick is Head of Privacy at Private Internet Access. He is also the founder of the first Pirate Party and is a political evangelist, traveling around Europe and the world to talk and write about ideas of a sensible information policy. Additionally, he has a tech entrepreneur background and loves good whisky and fast motorcycles.

VPN Service

Comments are closed.

235 Comments

  1. Living_without_a_purpose

    Even if this true or not. I made sure my Google Voice search was disabled. How the hell was it that I left it on? Oh well, I don’t talk much anyways,

    5 years ago
  2. Oletros

    According to the documentation, Chrome only listen in a new tab or the search bar and only when Ok Google is activated.

    Any proof of the claims made on the article?

    5 years ago
    1. Falkvinge

      Just follow the links. It’s all there.

      5 years ago
      1. Oletros

        No, none of the links says that Chrome is listening

        5 years ago
        1. Nagora Nerides

          It *has* to be listening for this to work. It’s not magic.

          5 years ago
          1. Oletros

            It has to be listening in a very particular situation, not always.

            5 years ago
          2. Nami Doc

            For now. You don’t know when google will enable it listening all the time, because it’s a black box being downloaded.

            5 years ago
          3. Joshua Landau

            No. The code is enabled by open-source code. That code is auditable.

            5 years ago
          4. Nami Doc

            …Which makes no assertion as to which code actually ends up on your machine, indeed.

            5 years ago
          5. them0use

            Multiple people have shown that the feature is disabled by default, and, when enabled, only sends data when triggered. If you have to go beyond that into “yeah, but the developers *could* sneak in code later to secretly enable it, make it listen for passwords, kill your dog, etc” territory, “but they *could*…” territory, then you should probably just stop using any software you haven’t audited personally, since the same thing is true of *everything else on your computer*.

            5 years ago
          6. Joshua Landau

            It does. That’s the whole point. Debian audits the code. If you don’t trust the Debian maintainers, don’t use Debian repos.

            If you don’t want to trust *any* auditor, you’re going to want to compile manually from source after manual audits. I guess there’s Gentoo, then. But it means you can’t use *any* precompiled package.

            Expecting Google to go along with that absurdity is stupid.

            5 years ago
        2. Falkvinge

          Something that activates when you say “Ok, Google” must, by definition, be listening to what you say – and by extension, to any sound in the room.

          There is no other way to detect if you’re saying “Ok, Google”, with the possible exception of lip-reading through the webcam, which would not be any better at all.

          There’s the issue of whether this is technically opt-in, opt-out, enabled, activated, and a number of other technical nuances. But the basic facts are there: Google downloaded eavesdropping software onto people’s computers without knowledge or consent, activated right this moment or not.

          5 years ago
          1. Oletros

            Something that is activated just on a new tab when an option is set to on it is not listening all the time.

            At least until you provide any proof of that always listening

            5 years ago
          2. Elliott Smith

            How is this a hard concept to understand? You can’t analyse audio to figure out if it says “ok google” if you haven’t recorded that audio! It has to be listening to every noise that goes into the microphone to decide if one of those noises was “ok google”.

            The issue is, there’s no reason Google couldn’t, if they so desired, silently change the behavior to listen for other keywords. What if someone had suspicions that a certain gmail address was operated by a criminal? They’d be able to check which computer’s chrome install was logged into that google account, then silently install a chrome update that records everything the person says and sends it directly to google.

            What if there’s a vulnerability and someone shady figures out how to exploit it?

            5 years ago
          3. Oletros

            > How is this a hard concept to understand?

            It seems that it is very hard to understand that the author has claimed that Chromium/Chrome is listening in all the tabs all the time and this is not true and the author has not given any proof of this.

            If any of you had spent just 30 second to look the documentation you will find that the only time it is listening is when the Ok Google is activated (it is not by default) in a new tab.

            When any of you can give any proof that Google is lying and it is listening every time then you can start to talk about “hard concept to understand”.

            And the hypothetical things are irrelevant, the author has made an accusation but it seems that he is incapable of reading the links he posts or it is just making things

            5 years ago
          4. Cowicide

            Oletros, I see your points, but it comes down to a matter of trust as well. Google only has itself to blame for that lack of trust as they have an incredibly spotty record when it comes to privacy.

            Google has put itself in a position where people (unless they are rather naive) don’t take their word on privacy.

            Please stop acting befuddled by the fact that people don’t trust Google’s intentions. It’s just making you look like a silly apologist.

            5 years ago
          5. Oletros

            It is not a question of trusting Google or not.

            The author has made a clear accusation:

            ” had turned on the microphone and was actively listening to your room.”

            Can he prove it or not? Because when he is asked he can’t answer, so, even if I don’t trust Google, the author is just inventing things.

            And the ones acting like silly apologists are the ones that believe the first thing they read in internet without even trying to contrast the sources

            But I give up, yes, Chrome is listening anything in the room even if you don’t have a mic. And the 9/11 was an internal plot.

            5 years ago
          6. Cowicide

            It is not a question of trusting Google or not.

            Actually, it is. Again, Google has only themselves to blame for all this distrust they’ve garnered.

            And the ones acting like silly apologists are the ones that believe the first thing they read in internet without even trying to contrast the sources

            You keep using that word “apologist”. I do not think it means what you think it means.

            5 years ago
          7. NooneYouKnow

            How about something that is downloaded without knowledge or consent, with the potential for eavesdropping all the time. Is this an acceptable practice to you?
            Whether it is listening all the time is irrelevant. You have to go looking for the ‘opt out’ part, with no guarantee that the software is, in fact, de-activated. Sorry, your position is wrong, in fact, your position is dangerous.

            5 years ago
          8. Falkvinge

            I haven’t said always listening. I’ve said 1) that there’s the potential to listen to any conversation, and therefore, that Google has taken itself the right to listen to every conversation, and 2) that Chromium appears to be listening based on preliminary data but deeper analysis seems to contradict this for now, 3) that Chrome is listening.

            There have been reports that the default is off. I have received screenshots that show it in what-must-be-on state, by users who were surprised about it (attached). These were not people who had taken active action or given consent.

            Regardless, I based this article on how I understood the Chrome dev comments about the feature (in the link).

            5 years ago
          9. Oletros

            Without consent, Google’s code had downloaded a black box of code that – according to itself – had turned on the microphone and was actively listening to your room.

            Yap, that quote doesn’t mean that you have accused that it is always listening. And Santa is a real person> I have received screenshots that show it in what-must-be-on state,

            You’re really joking if you claim that that screenshot means that is activated.

            > Regardless, I based this article on how I understood the Chrome dev comments

            No, you have based tour article in a lot of FUD without any proof. If your “paraphrased” explanation is what you have understood is clear that you don’t want to understand.

            5 years ago
  3. beernuts

    Fairly sure it does not transmit everything you say to google. The binary is code that listens for and recognizes “Ok Google” LOCALLY. This is easy to verify simply by watching outgoing network traffic. There would have to be a steady stream if it were sending all audio to Google.

    While the underlying issue IS certainly a bug, this seems like another techno-panic story on the whole.

    5 years ago
    1. JB

      If I read correctly, the article is about the fact that POTENTIALLY there is the possibility of doing that…

      5 years ago
      1. beernuts

        Not so much.

        QUOTE:

        “Obviously, your own computer isn’t the one to analyze the actual search command. Google’s servers do. Which means that your computer had been stealth configured to send what was being said in your room to somebody else, to a private company in another country, without your consent or knowledge, an audio transmission triggered by… an unknown and unverifiable set of conditions.”

        5 years ago
        1. Falkvinge

          Yes, as far as this is best understood, “Ok Google” is detected locally, and the audio stream right after that is sent to Google servers for recognition.

          This is also how Google’s voice detection works on Android. If you’re offline, you’re not getting a result but “Cannot contact Google servers at the moment. Resend audio?”.

          5 years ago
          1. MrBishop

            There’s an xposed module I use to block the remote servers and use local only as its faster and the computers/phones can use it as long as you have rooted android. All you need is the local file installed for audio processing and a decent CPU on your lhine. As far as chromium goes it looks like the standard Google Now that I’m running on my Chrome; it listens for the command phrase. When it hears is then it sends the words to the remote servers but not until. Yes its always listening but toy don’t need internet to use Now its just used by default because the servers are a little more accurate still. From the sounds ofnit its a bug that it’s on by default. A bug I don’t seem able to reproduce so its not something I’m worried about. Are yky sure you just didn’t have Google Now enabled in your phone? Google shares settings across devices and that could be a simple reason why its on by default.

            But there’s nothing always on, or wiretappy about this. Other the. The fact Google should have asked for the closed source install first they haven’t fine anything wrong. Although that was a big screw up since most of us who use chromium do so for a reason. Never the less your trust a binary that’s been compiled elsewhere so toy can’t be that concerned.

            Also good luck living in a world with the Echo and smart TVs and smart pho es in every room. If yky czng use rational logic to stay calm everything with Mic is going to terrorify you. But I don’t disagree a level of paranoia is healthy especially when they don’t ask for permission to install a binary. But I can’t find any video or logs for evidence so I am only having to take your word. Good reporting inudes Sources. Would you mind running wireshark and uploading a log or a video, also maybe just screen capture. Uninsta chromium completely then insta it and watch it to see if it’s installed post chromium or as part of it. Also to see what it actually does. Does it actually grab control over the Mic? Is it shared or exclusive? These are the things Linux users expect when reading an article about Linux/open source. But honestly it looks like this article was designed to create fear, anger, and confusion for the common man rather then help anyone understand what specifically Now is doing. Get back to me with the results of the packet sniff and let me know if, when, how often, it grabs the Mic?

            5 years ago
    2. Falkvinge

      As far as has been claimed, the black box only transmits to Google Servers after it has recognized “Ok Google”.

      1) There is no way to verify this. There may be other activation conditions. Those conditions may be present in black boxes on other computers but not yours.

      2) It still needs to listen continuously in order to recognize “Ok Google” using local processing.

      3) The activation behavior can be trivially reconfigured.

      5 years ago
      1. Oletros

        “2) It still needs to listen continuously in order to recognize “Ok Google” using local processing.”

        No, it doesn’t.

        5 years ago
        1. Robert Watkins

          Um – how would it recognise “Ok Google” if it _wasn’t_ listening continuously?

          Sure, right now it’s only when you’re on the Google home page or in a blank tab. But, as pointed out above, that’s possibly able to be changed. Who knows if there is a backdoor there – say, for law enforcement purposes? Or if one got added?

          The problem is over-hyped – but the problem is real.

          But hey, I use an iPhone and the microphone on that is listening out for “Hey Siri” every second it’s plugged into power, so what do I know?

          5 years ago
          1. Falkvinge

            Even if this is true, there’s also the fact that several people routinely have 30+ tabs open, at least one of which is a derelict of some unfinished or sidertracked thought process.

            Am I supposed to have to consciously think of not leaving a tab in a “listening” state in order to have privacy? That idea is horrendous.

            5 years ago
          2. Leslie Clarke

            If you look in the Google settings, there’s an option to turn off and on the voice search capability. It only listens constantly when it’s on, so you can turn it off.

            5 years ago
          3. Somewhat Reticent

            When was that option added?

            5 years ago
          4. billyoblivion

            (1) You’re sure that that switch does what it says?

            (2) Defaults should be (reasonable) secure. That one is not.

            5 years ago
        2. Alastair Houghton

          Yes, it does, though it might be hardware listening until it spots audio above a certain level before kicking some piece of software into action.

          5 years ago
          1. Oletros

            No, it doesn’t.

            Can any of you claiming that it is always listening give just ONE prof. Or, at least, just one plausible argument.

            As you accuse Google of lying, please, at least tell us that you have some proof of them lying.

            5 years ago
          2. Alastair Houghton

            I’m a software developer. I’m telling you that it has to be listening all the time in order to hear the “OK Google”.

            If it’s hard to understand, imagine that you’re blind and wearing ear defenders. Now you want to take the ear defenders off when someone says “OK Google”. How are you going to do that? You can’t, because you can’t tell when someone said “OK Google”, right?

            The only way to solve that is to listen all the time somehow; i.e. you have to take the ear defenders off. You can then decide not to pay attention until you hear “OK Google”, which I think is basically what’s going on, but you’re still listening, right?

            5 years ago
          3. Oletros

            It seems that it is hard to understand that it only detects Ok Google in a new tab so, it has to listen ONLY when a new tab is created AND if the detection has been enabled.

            Perhaps you’re a software developers, but you clearly don’t read how it works.

            So now, any proof of Chrome listening apart the specific situation when it has to listen?

            5 years ago
          4. Alastair Houghton

            I didn’t claim otherwise. If a new tab has been created and the detection is enabled (which it is, by default, in the case being discussed), then Chromium listens all the time. It doesn’t magically wait for someone to say “OK Google” first, because that’s impossible.

            5 years ago
          5. Oletros

            No, the detection is not enabled by default. Please, can all of you read at least what is enabled and what is not.

            5 years ago
          6. Alastair Houghton

            Quote from the article: “the default install will still wiretap your room without your consent, unless you opt out”.

            5 years ago
          7. Oletros

            Perhaps then you have to ask how the author of the articles knows it and how can prove that Google is lying.

            So no, the article can claim the FUD it wants, reality is what it is and.

            And y9u don’t have to opt out, you have to opt in and mark the “Allow OK Google detection”.

            Do you people have any critical thinking or believe the first thing you read on Internet because it follows your biases?

            It is funny that people like you, that say that they never had used some thing can do such claims without any knowledge of the situation.

            5 years ago
          8. Alastair Houghton

            You may be right that the article is incorrect in that regard — it seems that there has been some confusion caused by the wording of the status information in chrome://voicesearch/ and the fact that it actually does enable the webcam temporarily even if the setting is turned off.

            As for the rest of your comment, don’t be so rude!

            5 years ago
      2. Somewhat Reticent

        NSA/FBI/LEO-interest => activation … per secret deal Google is obligated to deny?

        5 years ago
      3. Alastair Houghton

        It isn’t true that there’s no way to verify this. Someone could reverse engineer the code. I would, if I had time and could be bothered, but in this case I don’t use Chrome or derivatives (I didn’t like Google’s existing behaviour wrt watching your browsing habits) and I have more important things to do with my time.

        Anyway, I’m sure you can find a security expert prepared to reverse it for you and tell you exactly what it does, if you ask. There’s bound to be someone interested in doing it.

        5 years ago
    3. Ed Snowden

      Dude… talk about naive…

      5 years ago
      1. beernuts

        What in the world is naive about that? It can be verified, and I DID watch network traffic before, during and after “activating” it with it’s hotword. Nothing is sent until it is activated.

        5 years ago
        1. ta2025

          Ahh, but google is nefariously in collusion with the router and network management software companies and even has inserted its people onto the design teams of the trusted platform open source network analyzers, purposely to write the code to mask their traffic and make it only APPEAR to start upstream traffic AFTER the “OK Google” Trigger. they even manipulate the bit counters to throw off the actual traffic statistics. There is no telling how deep this rabbit hole goes! 😉

          5 years ago
      2. euronímusz

        not naive but certainly a shill…

        5 years ago
        1. them0use

          Certainly. I mean, who would think to check the assertions in this article by looking at what the program is actually doing but a shill? Nice try, Google!

          5 years ago
    4. grat

      And if they add “my password is” or “my account number is”, or “I plan”, or “let’s watch”– How would you know?

      For that matter, what if someone ELSE figures out how to hack their code to add a phrase or two?

      There are so many ways to abuse / misuse / get screwed by this that it’s just crazy.

      Makes me glad that only one of my computers even HAS a microphone, but I’ll be uninstalling all google products from that laptop this evening.

      5 years ago
      1. them0use

        Do you run any closed source software, or open-source software you haven’t personally audited? Because if you’re setting the bar at “could be updated or hacked to listen for ‘my password is’, etc” then you’ll need to uninstall pretty much everything on your computer, since that could be done with any program. In fact, how do you know they’re not all doing that *right now*? >.>

        5 years ago
        1. Alastair Houghton

          Agreed, though the particular problem with Google is that unlike most software vendors, they have an incentive to act in a manner you might not like — they sell advertising (not software*), and it’s in their interests to maximise their revenue from that.

          Most of us (I’m a software developer) charge for our software, which is where we make our money, and in that case we really have no incentive to screw you — particularly, I might add, if we’re allowed to charge for upgrades in the future, because we’d actually like repeat business. It’s when things are free or unusually cheap that you need to start worrying, because it costs money to make software. Even with FOSS, it’s worth bearing in mind where the money is coming from and why — though at least with FOSS you can look at the source code, which makes it rather easier than auditing a binary.

          * Yes, I know there are a few exceptions (e.g. Google Search Appliance and some SAAS products), but Google makes its money from ads.

          5 years ago
    5. jeremiah johnson

      Hold the phone, there is NO ROOM for thought, here. You’re supposed to agree with the article and MOVE ON. You are NOT supposed to open your mouth, ESPECIALLY if you’re going to contradict the article.

      Geez, it’s like some people have never been in a mob before…

      5 years ago
    6. Alastair Houghton

      FWIW, it doesn’t necessarily send the audio itself; it could be doing some of the processing locally and sending a stream of symbols instead, which would cut down the data rate dramatically, to the point where you might not notice if you weren’t looking for that.

      5 years ago
    7. GTH_BHO

      it doesn’t have to be a steady stream. there are all sorts of ways to transmit the data. It doesn’t have to be a lot of bandwidth

      5 years ago
    8. S. Robot

      This article is the embodiment of the “slippery slope” argument. Google has the ability to listen to every room, but they proveably not doing that, as they said.

      Sure, google could upload more code to do that, but why speculate on all the things google could do? The article brings an important point up, but I feel like the tone is wrong. Very wrong.

      5 years ago
    9. Ed Jones

      You are clearly one of the sheep.

      2 years ago
  4. George Hamman

    Any proof of what your writing above? When you make such accusations, don’t expect people to just believe what you write… you need some sufficient proof, which i definitely don’t see on your article.

    5 years ago
    1. JB

      You (still) need proofs that corporations like Google, FB, Apple, etc, are amassing/stealing as many informations from our computers/profiles as possible?
      Have you been living as an hermit for the last decade?

      5 years ago
    2. Ashley Tate

      You need proof? There is an option to play back recorded audio if you use the “okay google…” thing

      3 years ago
  5. abc

    Is there a list, (maker,model) of all these spying devices? I mean like those Smart TVs, now we have to add Chromium,etc.
    Not the devices made explicitly to record audio or video, but those that have the capability besides their normal use, those that people are not kind of aware that are capable of doing this spying

    5 years ago
    1. Antimon555

      No need for a list, you only need to ask three questions:
      1: Does it have a connected/powered sensor to use for spying (microphone, camera, etc.)?
      2: Does it have an Internet connection?
      3: Is it open source?

      If answers 1 and 2 are “yes”, and 3 “no”, it is not unlikely that it is such a spying machine. If all three are “yes”, it may still be, if it isn’t properly checked, is hacked, etc. You’re only reasonably safe if answer 1, 2 or both are “no”.

      5 years ago
      1. Somewhat Reticent

        1. Does it have a speaker?
        2. Does it have any electrical connectors/sockets or radio/wifi/wireless circuits?
        3. Who actively audits all code?

        5 years ago
    2. diy crafts

      Without consent, Google’s code had downloaded a black box of code that – according to itself – had turned on the microphone and was actively listening to your room.

      3 years ago
    3. Inspirational Believe Tattoos

      It looked like just another bug report. “When I start Chromium, it downloads something.” Followed by strange status information that notably included the lines “Microphone: Yes” and “Audio Capture Allowed: Yes”.

      3 years ago