251–260 of 505 posts
Does the article's author really believe this or is put there because of outside pressure? I, for one, would not believe that for a single second.
I truly don't understand, from a security and privacy perspective, why would anyone outside of China would voluntarily choose to run closed-source software from a company that's subject to domestic laws and regulations in China. The MSS is no joke. https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=china+mss... This is the same reason that Zoom is banned at my workplace and many other partner companies. You've actual…
Even without wifi access it is vastly superior to previous choices. At similar pricing to my previous one.
I’m quite wary of the whole monitoring scene but my next air filter purchase will be a Xiaomi again.
Can’t really speak to their other products but on that front they have made a convert out of me despite my aversion to questionable data practices.
Also apparently it’s home assistant compatible. So HA it and firewall it off is the plan
This paragraph stood out to me: > The intention here seems to be that aigt is the timestamp when the ID was generated. So if that timestamp deviates from current time by more than 7776000000 milliseconds (90 days) a new ID is going to be generated. However, this implementation is buggy, it will update aigt on every call rather than only when a new ID is generated. So the only scenario where a new ID will be generated…
Seems more likely this was done on purpose so if they got caught they could say "Junior engineer made a mistake. So sorry."
This paragraph stood out to me: > The intention here seems to be that aigt is the timestamp when the ID was generated. So if that timestamp deviates from current time by more than 7776000000 milliseconds (90 days) a new ID is going to be generated. However, this implementation is buggy, it will update aigt on every call rather than only when a new ID is generated. So the only scenario where a new ID will be generated…
> This should have been caught at a security review stage during design, it should have been caught at the code review stage, it should have been caught by automated tests, it should have been caught by QA, it should have been caught once live by data tests, it should have been seen once live by analysts, it should have been fixed at so many different points. Seems more likely this was done on purpose so if they got…
This paragraph stood out to me: > The intention here seems to be that aigt is the timestamp when the ID was generated. So if that timestamp deviates from current time by more than 7776000000 milliseconds (90 days) a new ID is going to be generated. However, this implementation is buggy, it will update aigt on every call rather than only when a new ID is generated. So the only scenario where a new ID will be generated…
Genuinely, I really want to see Purism succeed and increasing numbers of competitors in that space, because we need tools that don't require so much blind trust. Whether caused by inept software devs, scope for malicious code / backdoors in firmware, analytics spyware, and whether this stuff is well intentioned or not, if it can be abused, it will be. Open source and verifiable down to the firmware is the only chance…
A very good rule of thumb: Freedom-respecting (fully, 100% open-source) software won't screw you. Simply knowing someone could be watching you and your source code reduces the chance of malicious code.
Open-source doesn't mean anything for freedom if all you can do is look, because you don't have the signing keys and such to modify what you want. It just means they get to show you exactly how they put the noose on you, that's all.
Firefox is also chock-full of "telemetry" and it's 100% open-source. That one you do get to modify, but it's still a bloody bastard to strip it all out and recompile to your liking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But in context: - Australia has similar laws. - Snowden releases showed the US don’t even ask, they just take it. So it’s not like there is a huge amount of difference around the world.
> But in context: > > - Australia has similar laws. > > - Snowden releases showed the US don’t even ask, they just take it. > > So it’s not like there is a huge amount of difference around the world. I am not familiar with Australia privacy law, could you give me a rough idea what is look like? Snowdon case made the US government look bad, please don't use the same reason to make the Chinese Communist Party look good…
This isn't excusing the behaviour, it's pointing out that "privacy" is not a justification for not using Chinese goods, because American goods have evidence of exactly the same compromise.
This paragraph stood out to me: > The intention here seems to be that aigt is the timestamp when the ID was generated. So if that timestamp deviates from current time by more than 7776000000 milliseconds (90 days) a new ID is going to be generated. However, this implementation is buggy, it will update aigt on every call rather than only when a new ID is generated. So the only scenario where a new ID will be generated…
Genuinely, I really want to see Purism succeed and increasing numbers of competitors in that space, because we need tools that don't require so much blind trust. Whether caused by inept software devs, scope for malicious code / backdoors in firmware, analytics spyware, and whether this stuff is well intentioned or not, if it can be abused, it will be. Open source and verifiable down to the firmware is the only chance…
While I agree with your intent, the problem is that, many open source software is not verifiable.
Remember that a Kaggle competitor was openly cheating with his published code? (cf. https://www.theregister.com/2020/01/21/ai_kaggle_contest_che... ) Eventually he got caught, but it's sometimes extremely difficult to spot a well-hidden malicious code in a plain sight. We need to be much better at analyzing software.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're going to cite Snowden, please be accurate. Remember that one of the leaks was that the NSA tapped unencrypted Google backhaul in transit without Google's knowledge . There's a difference between panopticon fearmongering and citing specific information we should be wary of. The former leads to apathy. The latter leads to action.
How about this one? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're going to cite Snowden, please be accurate. Remember that one of the leaks was that the NSA tapped unencrypted Google backhaul in transit without Google's knowledge . There's a difference between panopticon fearmongering and citing specific information we should be wary of. The former leads to apathy. The latter leads to action.
How about this one? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A