Are Xiaomi browsers spyware? Yes, they are (2020)

Any chance of getting Lineage OS support for the Poco X3?

I believe they are used to allow the users to control their devices outside the network.

We're in a western/US-centric bubble here on HN. People are aware data collection is bad, they'd rather not have it at all even if they'll accept some from Google, MS, Amazon, etc., but most of all they'd rather not have China/Russia/NK/etc. have any that data. As you can already tell, just asking the question is enough to get flak.

Otherwise most consumer products (devices or software) phone home for one reason or another, whether it's telemetry and data collection, basic functionality that's implemented exclusively via cloud, or more advanced cloud features. It's down to deciding whether you trust western legal system and increased transparency to deal with the nefarious aspect of data collection, rather than the Russian, Chinese, etc. legal systems and transparency.

Almost every device or software with network connectivity I played with phoned home: the Philips Hue gateway (Netherlands), Tado (Germany), Apple Homepod (US), Amazon Alexa/Fire* stuff (US), Synology (Taiwan), Unifi Controller (US), LG/Samsung smart TVs (South Korea), Google Chromecast (US), random assortment of network connected cameras (China, Taiwan), and a big etc. here. Some do a better job than others and just connect for basic stuff as far as I can tell, some enabled telemetry without asking and after the backlash ask again after every update, some have no option to disable this connectivity, etc.

One thing that trips most people looking at this for the first time is when they start off with blocking internet connectivity for the least trustworthy devices (Chinese brands) and immediately see a zillion attempts being blocked, even if the device keeps working. They conclude the devices are trying to exfiltrate that much data. They're most likely constantly reattempting until they get a response. Some of my network cameras would try every second but after a successful connection the flood stopped and they barely sent anything.

I chose to "complicate" my life a bit and buy hardware that I can flash with some open source firmware cutting out the cloud features completely, or connecting via "home made" solutions everywhere I can then using my home VPN to control them if needed. Whether China or the US have that data is of little real consequence to me right now but it's a matter of principle and I'd rather not shift my principles based on geography.

> I am not familiar with Australia privacy law, could you give me a rough idea what is look like?

I assume it's the Australian Assistance and Access Bill that's being referred to here. It has nothing to do with privacy. It's prime job (which isn't hidden - it's spelt out in the explanatory notes) is to circumvent encryption by accessing the data at the end points, where it isn't encrypted. It must be unencrypted at the end points because humans can't read or listen to encrypted data. https://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/definition/Australian-...

The bill gives several government agencies the legal right to coerce any software company to "assist" them by writing a bug that is invisible to the OS. The "access" part gives them right to coerce a software company to distribute software to any device they target (there is legal oversight on who they can target).

To fill this out with a concrete example, they could compel Google to provide a version of the Android Google Keyboard that records all key strokes and the name of the application it is are sending them to. They can then force Google to install that keyboard via their auto update mechanism. Notice that using an open source program like Signal that securely and correctly encrypts everything, and comes from a trusted source is not a useful defence against this.

Both of these powers are accompanied by an automatic gag mechanism, meaning if Google revealed they were asked to do either of these things someone would go to jail. The provisions in the act for reporting when and where these powers are used, so the voters could have some say are to put it mildly weak.

Although Australia is very clearly a country that operates around "the rule of law", in the end the only difference that has made is we know they are doing it, whereas China could deny they are doing it. In reality, I don't think China tries to deny the Great Firewall of China, or the invasive probes they force citizens to install to support their social credits system.

So yeah in my view OP is quite correct. If there are differences they revolve around how widely these things are deployed, not over whether they exist. I presume my home country, Australia, deploys them a lot less, but they go to a great deal of trouble to ensure there is no way to be sure.

Purism are trying to lobby for the legislation [0] and to change the industry [1].

[0] https://puri.sm/posts/purisms-ceo-todd-weaver-testifies-at-s...

[1] https://wp.puri.sm/posts/breaking-ground/