U.S. DOJ demands Apple and Google unmask over 100k users of car-tinkering app
1–10 of 381 posts
Re: U.S. DOJ demands Apple and Google unmask over 100k users of car-tinkering app
#2Worth pointing out that this is part of a much larger encroachment on user privacy, and not just in the US: https://community.qbix.com/t/increasing-state-of-surveillanc...
Re: U.S. DOJ demands Apple and Google unmask over 100k users of car-tinkering app
#3> The government says it needs this information to identify and interview witnesses who can testify about how the tools were actually used.
Why start this whole thing, if you don't already have this information and have people willing to help you as witnesses?
Sounds to me they're saying they don't have this already, but why is this investigation happening in the first place then? Rather than finding every user of the tool, find the users who use the tool in the way you don't approve of, then request the information for those?
Really bananas approach to go for "Every single user of the app" and "Everyone who bought a dongle" when it has very real and legal use cases.
Re: U.S. DOJ demands Apple and Google unmask over 100k users of car-tinkering app
#4Worth pointing out that this is part of a much larger encroachment on user privacy, and not just in the US: https://community.qbix.com/t/increasing-state-of-surveillanc...
I wish that article wasn't extremely ai written
Re: U.S. DOJ demands Apple and Google unmask over 100k users of car-tinkering app
#5> The government says it needs this information to identify and interview witnesses who can testify about how the tools were actually used. Why start this whole thing, if you don't already have this information and have people willing to help you as witnesses? Sounds to me they're saying they don't have this already, but why is this investigation happening in the first place then? Rather than finding every user of th…
Why stop there? Why not request the PII of every person who could have plausibly downloaded the app at any point in time?
Re: U.S. DOJ demands Apple and Google unmask over 100k users of car-tinkering app
#6Re: U.S. DOJ demands Apple and Google unmask over 100k users of car-tinkering app
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wish that article wasn't extremely ai written
What would that improve in this case?
It would be more concise and the analysis section at the end would be more useful. I still read it I just hate reading articles online knowing I could have run a chatgpt deep research to the same effect.
Re: U.S. DOJ demands Apple and Google unmask over 100k users of car-tinkering app
#8Hopefully they hand it over, and all of these people lose their licenses. I'm sick of breathing in their exhaust on the way to work.
I think people should have the freedom to do what they want; if you want to have a truck that has horrible exhaust, fine, but we'll have it piped back into your cab for you to breathe instead of the people behind you, and if you want a car that sounds like a thousand go-carts racing down the street fine, but it'll be through headphones destroying your hearing every time you hit the gas.
Re: U.S. DOJ demands Apple and Google unmask over 100k users of car-tinkering app
#9> The government says it needs this information to identify and interview witnesses who can testify about how the tools were actually used. Why start this whole thing, if you don't already have this information and have people willing to help you as witnesses? Sounds to me they're saying they don't have this already, but why is this investigation happening in the first place then? Rather than finding every user of th…
Why stop there? Why not request the PII of every person who could have plausibly downloaded the app at any point in time?
It's the only way to be sure. Also, think of the children.
Re: U.S. DOJ demands Apple and Google unmask over 100k users of car-tinkering app
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
What would that improve in this case?
It would be more concise and the analysis section at the end would be more useful. I still read it I just hate reading articles online knowing I could have run a chatgpt deep research to the same effect.
Can you tell me what you would cut, in this article, specifically, that would make it more meaningfully concise?
The point isn't that you can't run the deep research. Everyone now has more capabilities, and if you want to waste time and tokens you can do it. The point is someone has done the work compiling these, and made it available once, for everyone to read. Think "caching". It has the exact amount of information needed to show the details of every attack. There is a lot. Sadly making it "concise" will remove information -- there is that much.
I do usually make edits to an article after I get it from an AI, as an editor would do when a writer submits something. I hate having AI shibboleths like "It's not X. It's Y". So I make it more humanized. But at the end of the day, the article does what it's supposed to do: make people aware of things in one place, rather than have to research it themselves every time.