and another large Wi-Fi Wireless chipmaker secretly sends data to their mothership + shares with ISPs. What can do you? very little, since the code is binary and it is buried in their FW. Even with Opensource SW, it is hard to get rid of the binary blob.
Smartphones with Qualcomm chip secretly send personal data to Qualcomm
111–120 of 346 posts
Re: Smartphones with Qualcomm chip secretly send personal data to Qualcomm
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your enemies want you to think eternal outrage is unhealthy. That's how they eventually win; They can play this game longer than you're willing to play it.
I am not willing to live in a state of eternal outrage. It's an incredibly unpleasant place to be and what's the point? My outrage changes nothing, and I don't need to be outraged to do whatever is in my power to change things. Not giving these bastards money is a good start.
This article finally pushed me over to thinking that we need to start pushing for some laws to limit this sort of thing. It's just pervasive, and "not giving [them] money" is completely ineffective. And for some companies, like Google or Facebook, it's pretty hard for a consumer to actually give them money in the first place, nor is practical [0] to not use their products.
[0] practical, not possible.
Re: Smartphones with Qualcomm chip secretly send personal data to Qualcomm
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you know a locksmith can unlock your car, too? You should add cars with physical keyed entry to your list too.
What a strange point. The ability to break into a car is rather different than having a constant data connection to the car.
I’m trying to discern your point. If it’s about cars having a data connection then my point makes no sense, obviously. But your comment was in response to someone complaining about “remote control” which is just “remote unlock” (that’s all Tesla does remotely in the context of GGP). So that’s how I interpreted your response.
Re: Smartphones with Qualcomm chip secretly send personal data to Qualcomm
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
This completely bypasses the OS. The kernel never even sees it. Addendum: To the people downvoting, the article is clear: > During operation, the covert operating system (AMSS) has complete control over the hardware, microphone and camera. The Linux kernel and deGoogled /e/OS end-user operating system function as a slave on top of the hidden AMSS operating system.
This operating system, know as firmware running in the DSP. That's the only sane way to have a working device that needs to handle signals. It's not hidden in any way, and the kernel/Android actively talks with it, configures it, turns it on/off.
But the kernel does not know what it does.
In fact, the article claims:
> During operation, the covert operating system (AMSS) has complete control over the hardware, microphone and camera
Re: Smartphones with Qualcomm chip secretly send personal data to Qualcomm
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Imagine if you bought a car from somebody, and they secretly kept a spare key and periodically used your car to run their personal errand. This is happening already. Teslas can be controlled remotely, and it does not have to be the owner of said Tesla. Yes, somehow people are okay with that. The world we live in gets scarier and scarier every year.
Let me put it into perspective. 1) AFAIK Teslas cannot be driven remotely. But even if they could Tesla is not using cars for errands, like wtf c’mon. And if they wanted to do that and paid me for it, I might be interested in helping the environment. 2) Tesla is able to remotely unlock a vehicle if they verify the owner. This replaces a call to a locksmith and/or the towing company and is way more convenient. So yes,…
> Tesla is able to remotely unlock a vehicle if they verify the owner.
But with another car, I can choose who (if anyone) I'm willing to give that ability to. I certainly wouldn't want it to be Tesla.
Re: Smartphones with Qualcomm chip secretly send personal data to Qualcomm
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Imagine if you bought a car from somebody, and they secretly kept a spare key and periodically used your car to run their personal errand. This is happening already. Teslas can be controlled remotely, and it does not have to be the owner of said Tesla. Yes, somehow people are okay with that. The world we live in gets scarier and scarier every year.
> The world we live in gets scarier and scarier every year. One could accurately summarize progress since the Industrial Revolution as asking whether we could (and how), and not whether we should (and why). You can see this expressed in the growing focus on STEM education vs. the liberal arts and results in things like remote-controlled Teslas. Cave Johnson said, "science isn't about why; it's about why not". The tra…
> Cave Johnson
+1 for the Aperture ref.
Re: Smartphones with Qualcomm chip secretly send personal data to Qualcomm
#117This is all assumptions. Just because izatcloud.net is owned by Qualcomm = they must be exfiltrating personal data? c'mon! Then you go and peddle your own NitroPhone as a "Qualcomm free" alternative? You're just gaslighting your customers to buy. This is a very short-sighted article based on lax assumptions and NO WIRESHARK to back it up. Just because a firmware makes a call home doesn't mean it's sending your person…
This is a bad faith take. If Google's T&Cs said they could record you anytime they like, but they given you a PCAP showing they don't, you would be outraged at their claimed legal right to do so?
This is the same. Quadcomm have the capability, and the claimed legal right. It essentially doesn't matter whether they do, or do not, actually execute on it today.
Re: Smartphones with Qualcomm chip secretly send personal data to Qualcomm
#118I hate this stock
Re: Smartphones with Qualcomm chip secretly send personal data to Qualcomm
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let me put it into perspective. 1) AFAIK Teslas cannot be driven remotely. But even if they could Tesla is not using cars for errands, like wtf c’mon. And if they wanted to do that and paid me for it, I might be interested in helping the environment. 2) Tesla is able to remotely unlock a vehicle if they verify the owner. This replaces a call to a locksmith and/or the towing company and is way more convenient. So yes,…
> Tesla is able to remotely unlock a vehicle if they verify the owner. But with another car, I can choose who (if anyone) I'm willing to give that ability to. I certainly wouldn't want it to be Tesla.
I think every major car manufacturer has some kind of remote unlock capability these days - people want an app.
You could design one of those apps to end-to-end encrypt all comms with the car, but I don't think most people would appreciate the usability hit.
Re: Smartphones with Qualcomm chip secretly send personal data to Qualcomm
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not willing to live in a state of eternal outrage. It's an incredibly unpleasant place to be and what's the point? My outrage changes nothing, and I don't need to be outraged to do whatever is in my power to change things. Not giving these bastards money is a good start.
This article finally pushed me over to thinking that we need to start pushing for some laws to limit this sort of thing. It's just pervasive, and "not giving [them] money" is completely ineffective. And for some companies, like Google or Facebook, it's pretty hard for a consumer to actually give them money in the first place, nor is practical [0] to not use their products. [0] practical , not possible .
The main reason why I'm eliminating these kinds of things from my life is self-protection rather than trying to get companies to change their behavior. As you say, getting them to change outside of effective legislation is impossible.
> for some companies, like Google or Facebook, it's pretty hard for a consumer to actually give them money in the first place, nor is practical [0] to not use their products.
Well, the only Facebook product I use is WhatsApp, and that's to talk with one person in Europe who only uses WhatsApp. The only Google product I use is YouTube, and I only use that with an account that is not used for any other purpose, and on a tablet that is not used for any other purpose.
So my experience is that avoiding these companies is entirely practical. All you give up is a small amount of convenience.