91–100 of 346 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The solution is to buy devices that you actually own. Sent from my Librem 5.
There are additional, similar, issues that come with using smartphone apps as well. Just using Librem doesn't resolve the overall issue for me.
This seems like much bigger news than it's being received as. Sure, other chip makers do sketchy things, but is that really where we're at in 2023? We're so beaten down by proprietary user-disrespecting hardware/software that we just shrug it off? This makes me mad. I'm so sick of this type of thing. It's a horrible time too because the embedded 5G chips are about to be part of everything , sending telemetry back abo…
This article just has little to no information in it, at least not enough to get all up in arms about. Supposedly this nefarious information is sent in the clear but no analysis was done to see what it actually happening? They're just guessing? The whole article is "Qualcomm privacy policy says they can do xyz" and then extrapolating from there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are additional, similar, issues that come with using smartphone apps as well. Just using Librem doesn't resolve the overall issue for me.
These issues have to be solved one by one. Giving up because there are more fights ahead is unwise. BTW Librem 5 is my daily driver.
The cost/benefit ratio of having a smartphone is no longer favorable, so I won't have one. That seems like a reasonable stance. I don't know what's unwise about it -- whether or not I own a smartphone will not affect the world in any way.
This kind of restates what was discussed here yesterday. Android's constant leaking of data to Google is hardly any news, but Qualcomm's firmware doing the same in plain text to izatcloud.net is newsworthy. Apparently Apple is doing the same. Someone has a nice geolocation database of practically everyone in the world.
> Apparently Apple is doing the same. Just curious, where did you find this?
Here is the technical data of what is really going on - it is not sinister, rather these are files needed by the GPS chipset: https://wwws.nightwatchcybersecurity.com/tag/qualcomm/
It may have a reasonable explanation of benefits it provides, but so does Intel Management Engine and nearly every privacy-invading feature ever. I know you didn't personally design it so I'm not asking you these questions, more just thinking through this (although anybody knows the answers I'd appreciate hearing them so I can be more informed). Why does this need to be built in at such a low level that not even flas…
You can remove the services that download the extra GPS data, nothing stops you from doing that, aside making GPS unusable :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep. This is, in part, why not only won't I ever own a Tesla, but I won't be owning cars that are too new.
Did you know a locksmith can unlock your car, too? You should add cars with physical keyed entry to your list too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, but trying to be optimistic about RISC-V is only going to lead to more pain. It's just an instruction set architecture and it's still going to be made in large SoC fabs by Qualcomm-class companies that want to save a buck on ARM licensing. There's no way to win here.
It's weird how much hype is around it considering about only advantage of it is "now corporations don't have to pay central entity for ISA".
I kind of want to modify that old adage to now read "cheap, open, documented. You can pick two."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This article just has little to no information in it, at least not enough to get all up in arms about. Supposedly this nefarious information is sent in the clear but no analysis was done to see what it actually happening? They're just guessing? The whole article is "Qualcomm privacy policy says they can do xyz" and then extrapolating from there.
Agreed, the article is lacking. In some other threads it's come out that this is a GPS sync feature to speed up the time it takes for GPS to get locks. A useful feature to be sure, but IMHO not one that has to be implemented in such a user disrespecting way. It should be a toggleable switch, preferably opt-in. It wouldn't be hard to throw up a dialog on first GPS access that lets the user opt in. As implemented where…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These issues have to be solved one by one. Giving up because there are more fights ahead is unwise. BTW Librem 5 is my daily driver.
I've been fighting this stuff for years. At some point, the best way to fight is just to stop giving them money. The cost/benefit ratio of having a smartphone is no longer favorable, so I won't have one. That seems like a reasonable stance. I don't know what's unwise about it -- whether or not I own a smartphone will not affect the world in any way.
But it will: in addition to not giving money to Qualcomm and co, I am giving money to the alternatives and constantly reminding all banks and organizations that alternative systems exist apart from the duopoly (whenever they offer me their apps).