Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connectionsPath: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: bp@www.zefox.net Newsgroups: comp.sys.raspberry-pi Subject: Re: "An application want to turn on your camera..." Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2025 14:41:46 -0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 53 Message-ID: References: Injection-Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2025 16:41:47 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f457df5eca46f14d6fabd5025e87e592"; logging-data="1888604"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19lVMqc49MEdWHj4mfMiYgu4ekXgXg8HEw=" User-Agent: tin/2.6.4-20241224 ("Helmsdale") (FreeBSD/14.2-STABLE (arm64)) Cancel-Lock: sha1:18jL62ENVf3pLvIuAl9nV18Ea9c= Bytes: 2927 Theo wrote: > bp@www.zefox.net wrote: >> The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> > On 10/04/2025 01:01, bp@www.zefox.net wrote: >> >> The Chromium browser was running >> > >> > That is probably the culprit. >> > >> Can you explain a bit more? Chromium is a popular and sometimes >> justified scapegoat, but it's primarily a display process, not a >> capture process. > > Browsers use the camera for video calls - Zoom, Teams, ... > (when you aren't using their dedicated apps) > > Some websites also use it for taking static photos - eg a bank wants to take > a picture of you and your ID for verification. > > They shouldn't ask for camera permission unless a website wants it, but > perhaps you went to a website that did. > I wasn't doing anything that would justify a photo ID, but it would make sense to seek a snapshot for future use. But it seems really dumb to openly ask that a camera be used when no camera is present. >> Speaking of chromium, I just noticed the latest upgrade disabled >> ublock-origin. That's scapegoat-worthy. Can apt revert the change? > > That's a feature (for Google, not for you): > https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/google/google-chrome-disables-ublock-origin-for-some-in-manifest-v3-rollout/ > > Your options are using uBlock Origin Lite, or switch to Firefox. See: > https://ublockorigin.com/ > Firefox it is. At least for now. > You could find an old version of the Chromium .deb to install and pin it > using apt so it never updates, but that would be missing security updates > and be vulnerable. > Agreed, that's a poor solution. Still, there are a number of alternative browsers (brave, dillo, iridium, opera, vivaldi, palemoon....) Do any work? thanks for writing, bob prohaska