111–117 of 117 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
You insist on using broad brushstroke language like "masked goons". Nobody is going to listen to your lack of nuance on other topics either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Disabling "advertising ID" on iOS makes it extremely difficult to reliably fingerprint phones. Apple doesn't allow SDKs which attempt to bypass this, so the app would have to have a first party auth of some type.
>Disabling "advertising ID" on iOS makes it extremely difficult to reliably fingerprint phones. You got this flipped. The whole point of "fingerprinting" is to build a stable identifier that works even if a explicit identifier (IMEI or advertising ID) isn't available. And yes, there are shady SDKs that do this without facing repercussions. https://www.buchodi.com/i-broke-applovins-mediation-cipher-p...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You insist on using broad brushstroke language like "masked goons". Nobody is going to listen to your lack of nuance on other topics either.
Well you're right, "goon" is a value judgement, but if someone's critical thinking extends no further than 'bad word therefore bad argument' then I'm not sure I could reach them in any case.
It sounds like they disabled the "advertising ID" OS feature, but there are many other ways to fingerprint a device for advertising. Maybe this will lead to real privacy reform, now that the true risks are apparent. Not to mention ICE using the same data against civilians.
Disabling "advertising ID" on iOS makes it extremely difficult to reliably fingerprint phones. Apple doesn't allow SDKs which attempt to bypass this, so the app would have to have a first party auth of some type.
Do they really allow any app to be downloaded on mil phones?
Why even allow any mobile phone for the US solider if it could cause any arbitrary problem for the US military if the location data, name, unit, rank, ... of the respective soldier was published and permanently updated on a publicly viewable website? It should be obvious that the US military has good reasons why this would be the death for many military strategies. So, why doesn't the military than treat every soldie…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US is currently not deploying troops against an adversary that can make use of that information.
Why would they need to be deployed for an adversary to make use of that information? Sure it's more valuable on deployment, but wouldn't we also want to, you know, not give information on mobilization or lack thereof?
Invasions are usually spearheaded by elite forces that I presume are competent enough to understand that actively broadcasting what you're about to do is a bad idea.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US is currently not deploying troops against an adversary that can make use of that information.
China, Iran and Russia are probably all capable of it. Russians would love the blackmail potential.