61–70 of 231 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep. But still it’s kind of annoying to have to enable everything. It’s confusing to people who don’t know this.
Enable what? Modern MacOS/iOS discourage you from disabiling Wi-Fi/Bluetooth anyway.
Could this technology be used to create a "shadow" internet/network/messaging service where devices connect and communicate directly with each other. This way governments can't just block internet access or services during demonstrations.
A government - or even just a sufficiently motivated individual - can trivially jam all phone, wifi, bluetooth etc communication. Or they could just 'listen in' to record the signatures of all detected phones, so they can work out and identify who is in the crowd etc. Military systems use frequency hopping etc and would be a more difficult target. But doubtless motivated governments could hamper their use in crowds t…
In any society, there is state-"friendly" communication and state-"unfriendly" communication. Also there are state-"essential" communications like state-propoganda [1]. Is it possible to build communication networks that allow for secure and anonymous state-unfriendly communication, such that trivially jamming it also jams state-friendly and state-essential communications?
As you might realize, a yes answer to this question is sufficient for protestors communication needs. Not the harder question of completely unblockable communications - which as we know is impossible. Of course, in the real world, the answer to my question might not be a "yes/no" but a resource-tradeoff.
[1] which every country in the world democratic or dictorial engages in. If you don't agree, please read Manufacturing Consent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's obviously never going to happen. The best we can hope for is probably something Googely with support for iOS
Which is not going to happen because Google has multiple competing messaging apps.
Interestingly the article on the bottom links to a Usenix 2019 (held Aug 14 - 16) paper with the title "A Billion Open Interfaces for Eve and Mallory: MitM, DoS, and Tracking Attacks on iOS and macOS Through Apple Wireless Direct Link" Abstract: "Apple Wireless Direct Link (AWDL) is a key protocol in Apple's ecosystem used by over one billion iOS and macOS devices for device-to-device communications. AWDL is a propri…
This is great, especially considering that AirDrop is used for instance by Hong Kong protesters to bypass the great firewall [1]. [1] https://qz.com/1660460/hong-kong-protesters-use-airdrop-to-b...
I wonder if it's more reliable than Apple's own implementation for MacOs. It used to be rock solid – and between iOS devices it still is – but between Macs I regularly have to switch both to "Search for an older Mac" to make them see each other, with no explanation why.
I was complaining about this with a coworker today. AirDrop 1 was flawless, since 2.0 it has been more often than not unreliable between Macs. I’d love to know if anyone knows the technical details about what caused this regression?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Looks great, I wonder why it doesn't have more traction.
Maybe because it's not free: 5$ a year for 4 devices but only the same type, you cannot install it on your Mac and your iPhone With only one licence. So if you want to transfer between Mac and iPhone, it's at least 10$ a year.
I wonder if it's more reliable than Apple's own implementation for MacOs. It used to be rock solid – and between iOS devices it still is – but between Macs I regularly have to switch both to "Search for an older Mac" to make them see each other, with no explanation why.
I’ve found it very flaky on iOS - regularly try to transfer between my phone and my wife’s sitting next to each other and it will randomly not see the other phone or take minutes to find it :( When it works, it just works.
On the Mac though, it is a different story. Just yesterday my wife was trying to send me a PDF and I had to send it to my phone from her Mac, then dump it into iCloud Drive. I rebooted my Mac and then it worked again - but these are stock 2018/2019 Apple laptops, they shouldn't have these issues.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A government - or even just a sufficiently motivated individual - can trivially jam all phone, wifi, bluetooth etc communication. Or they could just 'listen in' to record the signatures of all detected phones, so they can work out and identify who is in the crowd etc. Military systems use frequency hopping etc and would be a more difficult target. But doubtless motivated governments could hamper their use in crowds t…
Absolutely, but I can ask a bit more nuanced question. In any society, there is state-"friendly" communication and state-"unfriendly" communication. Also there are state-"essential" communications like state-propoganda [1]. Is it possible to build communication networks that allow for secure and anonymous state-unfriendly communication, such that trivially jamming it also jams state-friendly and state-essential commu…
That air-drop does work in the Hong Kong protests really just says that the state wasn't really prepared, but they probably will be next time.
Although, really, China is so far ahead in the practical application of face recognition and making protesters disappear or arranging counter-riots etc that I guess airdrop is not really where they think the fight goes?