Post 2907564 by rysiek@mastodon.social
(DIR) More posts by rysiek@mastodon.social
(DIR) Post #2885591 by retrohacker@fosstodon.org
2019-01-12T01:27:49Z
0 likes, 6 repeats
The year is 2019 and I can’t buy a good majority of consumer technology because we lack privacy legislation and consumer protections. Example: it’s absurd that my TV came with spyware that can’t be turned off or avoided; I had to stop it from phoning home at the network level. It also came with an arbitration clause and a clause waiving the right to a class action lawsuit.
(DIR) Post #2885657 by crlf@niu.moe
2019-01-12T01:46:47Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@retrohacker How do they make you agree to that? Is there an EULA just to turn it on the first time?
(DIR) Post #2887253 by hansbauer@fosstodon.org
2019-01-12T03:01:49Z
5 likes, 3 repeats
@retrohackeri think the problem is not lack of legislation. the tech monopoly of big corps exists because people bought it. they sold their privacy for convenience and trendy blinking lights. furthermore, it is impossible for lawmakers to understand new technologies and to do specific laws for each new tech trap and it is impossible to stop the stupidity from people with the "it is ok, i have nothing to hide" mindset.
(DIR) Post #2896535 by Matter@fosstodon.org
2019-01-12T09:48:30Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@retrohacker My parents didn't understand why I was annoyed at them when they bought a "Smart" TV. But then when I looked into it, it's pretty much impossible to get a TV that doesn't connect to the internet these days. A TV should do one thing, and only that: be a display. If you want smart stuff, glue a raspberry pi to it or some other thing. Trying to do two things at once like a smart TV does is a recipe for disaster
(DIR) Post #2896536 by grainloom@cybre.space
2019-01-12T11:07:15Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Matter @retrohacker is it possible to buy a "smart" TV then take its guts out and drive it with an off-the-shelf SoC?
(DIR) Post #2896794 by Matter@fosstodon.org
2019-01-12T11:19:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@grainloom @retrohacker possible? Yes. But then again, it is possible to do many things, but probably not practical or reasonable :D. It probably depends on the device, some might have the display driver be decoupled from the computer part, which would make it easier to just neuter the computer part. Some might have both on the same board which would make it necessary to make or get (somehow) a display driver for it. Probably easier to just not connect it to any network and ignore the smart part
(DIR) Post #2896795 by rtwx@fosstodon.org
2019-01-12T11:19:14Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@grainloom @Matter @retrohacker you uh, don’t have to connect it to the internet right
(DIR) Post #2901091 by rick_777@cybre.space
2019-01-12T14:25:04Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@hansbauer@retrohackerThe"I have nothing to hide" excuse is government propaganda. The issue behind these monopolies is far deeper, it's corrupt legislators in cahoots with companies. It's a web of laws aimed at protecting the rich, and the more these laws are passed, the harder it is to fight then at consumer level - 1/3
(DIR) Post #2901300 by DetectiveHyde@shigusegubu.club
2019-01-12T14:32:55.243781Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@hansbauer @retrohacker Spot on.I wish I'd gotten into free software stuff back when I had a chance of actually taking the time to comprehend it properly. Might have been a bigger part of my life and given me more control.
(DIR) Post #2901307 by wowaname@anime.website
2019-01-12T14:33:12.642151Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@rick_777 @retrohacker @hansbauer >The"I have nothing to hide" excuse is government propaganda.no, privacy is less appreciated and more taken for granted than you think. you seem to be spinning this into some anticapitalist rhetoric(also choose an instance with a longer character limit or complain to your admin to fix it; it's difficult to read split posts)
(DIR) Post #2901749 by rysiek@mastodon.social
2019-01-12T14:54:16Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@hansbauer @retrohacker nope, actually, it's the lack of legislation.We don't expect people to be experts in chemistry and food safety in order for them not to get poisoned by food they buy. This is called food safety standards.And yet we expect people will become tech and legal experts, reading through endless EULAs and understanding the fine print, and then being able to verify the tech behind it, for them to be able to protect their basic privacy?Bollocks.
(DIR) Post #2902312 by mydogisahusky@bitcoinhackers.org
2019-01-12T15:17:10Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@retrohacker TV's have been a really bad idea for awhile. If you expose anyone you care about to msm programming, you are damaging them.I go with a great stand alone monitor, and feed it as i see fit.
(DIR) Post #2904124 by FreePietje@x0f.org
2019-01-12T16:30:33Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@hansbauer @retrohacker A lot of people don't seem to understand the importance of privacy and therefor don't demand it. I'm now seeing ppl willing to pay more if they're not being spied on. Privacy as a product and not a human right 😕 One café is open about it: https://twitter.com/ChristopherA/status/1046476073641205760"But if handing over personal data seems invasive, Ferris said the students don't seem to mind. She doesn't think she has seen a single customer refuse to give up the data."
(DIR) Post #2907024 by rysiek@mastodon.social
2019-01-12T14:56:30Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@hansbauer @retrohacker legislators were able to create food safety standards that make getting poisoned by store-bought food impossibly unlikely. They were able to create regulations around medicines that make it highly unlikely for people to get poisoned by actual, you know, poisons (every medicine is poison in the right amount).We can, and should, expect legislators to step in and regulate the IT industry.Market will not solve it.
(DIR) Post #2907025 by hansbauer@fosstodon.org
2019-01-12T18:44:05Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@rysieksoftware is different from food, chemicals, medicine. these can immediately kill or cause great harm. even so, just the most clear and obvious cases came into legislation. dangerous compounds are still being added to food and water, harmful medicines are still being sold etc. legislation did not really solved this problem.@retrohacker
(DIR) Post #2907161 by rysiek@mastodon.social
2019-01-12T18:49:26Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@hansbauer @retrohacker tell me again how this can't immediately kill or couse great harm:https://www.wired.com/2015/07/hackers-remotely-kill-jeep-highway/And then tell me how the above is not an obvious case that should come into legislation?By saying "legislation did not solve the food and water safety issues" are you saying it's completely useless? Or can we agree that it did improve food and water safety measurably and in a very concrete way?
(DIR) Post #2907240 by hansbauer@fosstodon.org
2019-01-12T18:55:07Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@rysiekif you trust legislators and government, it is ok. but i find pretty dangerous to give more power to them because, asking them to protect us. if they do form an advisory tech board, who do you imagine will be there? the same big corps. it is even possible they decide only approved software and hardware will be lawful in some use cases, and you can be certain, it will be from big corps.@retrohacker
(DIR) Post #2907314 by rysiek@mastodon.social
2019-01-12T18:58:59Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@hansbauer @retrohacker nobody is giving them power, they already have that power.I have been on a number of advisory boards, including one to a minister in a government. I have been also involved in grass-roots actions, including against ACTA (which, you know, worked).And you have not answered my questions from the previous toot:1. how is bad software/hardware not able to do immediate harm?2. are food and water safety standards useless or not?I would appreciate your answer.
(DIR) Post #2907345 by hansbauer@fosstodon.org
2019-01-12T19:00:17Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@rysiekwell it was not an issue before 2016 or so. this is what i mean. it will be only something when it is too obvious. furthermore this is some completely different problem from what was being discussed legislators gave only shitty responses to it.@retrohacker
(DIR) Post #2907438 by rysiek@mastodon.social
2019-01-12T19:04:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@hansbauer @retrohacker what was not an issue? Software/hardware that can kill people if buggy? Try about 1985 instead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25I would still like answers to my two questions. they are pretty simple questions, here, for your convenience let me repeat them:1. how is bad software/hardware not able to do immediate harm?2. are food and water safety standards useless or not?
(DIR) Post #2907459 by rysiek@mastodon.social
2019-01-12T19:05:31Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@hansbauer @retrohacker furthermore, if the only thing we can get is legislation that only handles the most obvious cases, that will *still* be an serious improvement over the current state of affairs! Let's start with that, please.
(DIR) Post #2907534 by hansbauer@fosstodon.org
2019-01-12T19:08:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@rysiek>how is bad software/hardware not able to do immediate harm?i was talking about privacy issues, tracking software embedded in electronics. you tried to change the subject to self driving cars and what not. i was not having a general discussion.>are food and water safety standards useless or not?never said that. said it becomes effective in obvious cases, just after something big happened.@retrohacker
(DIR) Post #2907564 by rysiek@mastodon.social
2019-01-12T19:09:44Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@hansbauer @retrohacker Okay, can we then agree we should have legislation that covers obvious cases where IT crappiness can physically harm people, and that such regulation can improve things?
(DIR) Post #2907573 by hansbauer@fosstodon.org
2019-01-12T19:10:07Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@rysiekit is everything ok, but i would like to finish this conversation with you.@retrohacker
(DIR) Post #2907603 by rysiek@mastodon.social
2019-01-12T19:11:35Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@hansbauer @retrohacker 👍🏾
(DIR) Post #2907767 by FreePietje@x0f.org
2019-01-12T16:40:26Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@hansbauer @retrohacker "Maybe I should have been more apprehensive, but everyone has your information at this point anyway," she said. "To give out my name and email and what I study does not seem so risky to me.""I have nothing to hide" may be/is government propaganda, a lot of people believe it.As privacy has become a product, various people are not willing or are not financially capable to pay for it.Root of the problem is that privacy has become a product in the first place.
(DIR) Post #2907768 by hansbauer@fosstodon.org
2019-01-12T19:18:30Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@FreePietjewhen privacy issues made the news, they made it into a product, but even so it was not really privacy, it was we "will be less intrusive and will collect less data from you" or "we will collect your data but not sell it, only we will use it".@retrohacker
(DIR) Post #2908186 by retrohacker@fosstodon.org
2019-01-12T19:37:24Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@crlf Yeah, the TV is essentially bricked until you agree to the ToS of the "Smart TV" software (Roku). You can't even use the HDMI inputs until you agree.
(DIR) Post #2908427 by retrohacker@fosstodon.org
2019-01-12T19:48:42Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mydogisahusky I use them as a screen for HDMI inputs that go into a RaspberryPi. It's hard to find a 55' 4K HDMI monitor for $350.
(DIR) Post #2908583 by deejoe@mastodon.sdf.org
2019-01-12T15:43:34Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@rysiek @hansbauer @retrohacker I've found this language helpful for thinking about some aspects of some of these problems:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal%E2%80%93agent_problemThere is some value in having people be the ultimate arbiters of what goods and services they buy. But, to get reasonably safe and good things, we need the support of experts. And we need those experts to do their work on our behalf.
(DIR) Post #2908584 by rysiek@mastodon.social
2019-01-12T15:46:00Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@deejoe @hansbauer @retrohacker oh absolutely. I am not saying people should not be able to make independent decisions.But it is *not* an independent decision if the person is misinformed or does not have enough information to make an informed decision.Legislation is needed (among other things) to create a baseline of quality of information about stuff that matches the baseline expectations of people.
(DIR) Post #2908585 by erosdiscordia@radical.town
2019-01-12T15:57:08Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@rysiekI also want to point out that expecting people to 100% advocate for themselves in terms of tech and privacy is a privileged and even ableist position. Not everyone who gives in, does so out of laziness, convenience, or even ignorance. Some genuinely have few options. @deejoe @hansbauer @retrohacker
(DIR) Post #2908586 by rysiek@mastodon.social
2019-01-12T15:58:51Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@erosdiscordia @deejoe @hansbauer @retrohacker thank you for making this point, yes! This is such an important point that gets missed all the time.
(DIR) Post #2908587 by retrohacker@fosstodon.org
2019-01-12T19:53:41Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@rysiek @erosdiscordia @deejoe @hansbauer I've been planning a post on this for a while... I've been working on taking back my privacy and network security. I'm dozens if not 100s of hours into the project, have several hundred dollars worth of hardware invested, and none of this includes the 10+ years experience I have as a linux sysadmin that made it possible in the first place.
(DIR) Post #2908588 by hansbauer@fosstodon.org
2019-01-12T19:56:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@retrohackerlooking forward to read your post about it!
(DIR) Post #2908721 by retrohacker@fosstodon.org
2019-01-12T19:56:21Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@rysiek @erosdiscordia @deejoe @hansbauer Some folks' threat model is making sure their kids have food. Getting a pi-hole configured to do DNS over HTTPS isn't even on their radar. What does effective privacy look like for these folks? I can't come up with anything other than effective privacy legislation.
(DIR) Post #2908722 by hansbauer@fosstodon.org
2019-01-12T20:03:30Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@retrohackerif they enjoy using facebook, google etc products, or enjoy having the last model of tvs, i guess they have to wait for lawmakers to do something, as they seem to value convenience over other things. i'm not judging it. it is ok to do so.@rysiek @erosdiscordia @deejoe
(DIR) Post #2908829 by erosdiscordia@radical.town
2019-01-12T20:09:20Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@hansbauer Well, the people who choose it for convenience are obviously in it for convenience. The people who don't have alternative choices without a huge pricetag or investment of time (which is money) are secondarily preyed on in that scenario, and they're a good enough rationale for legislation. Like, I hate Google. My phone uses it. I hate Apple worse, can't afford a Purism, don't know how to root my phone, and need a bus app to help me get by with no car. @retrohacker @rysiek @deejoe
(DIR) Post #2908835 by FreePietje@x0f.org
2019-01-12T20:09:38Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@hansbauer @retrohacker The news/media is at fault here too. It is constantly presently as isolated incidents instead of a constant pattern.The same with security issues.Because of that those are considered PR issues. So Zuck periodically says "I/We're sorry, we'll do better". And then continues on as always.And that repeats ad infinitum.Same with your examples.People are being lied to constantly. With impunity. So companies have no reason to change their behavior.
(DIR) Post #2908854 by retrohacker@fosstodon.org
2019-01-12T20:10:55Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@hansbauer @rysiek @erosdiscordia @deejoe I feel you are trying to reduce this down to an efficient market problem. It's not. We don't have an efficient market here.
(DIR) Post #2908935 by hansbauer@fosstodon.org
2019-01-12T20:15:34Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@erosdiscordiai'm in a similar situation as you with shitty phones. i know how to root and everything, use dns blocking etc, and even so is not enough. i guess we have to wait for more phones like the one from purism, with a better price tag. i meanwhile we are somewhat screwed. i have no hopes lawmakers will do anything good even if pressured, but it would be good if they did. i'm not excluding that.@retrohacker @rysiek @deejoe
(DIR) Post #2908990 by hansbauer@fosstodon.org
2019-01-12T20:18:34Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@retrohackersorry if i gave this impression. what i'm trying to say is that legislation is not the only thing that will solve this, and from the things that can be done, legislation is a pretty dangerous one to be the main route.@rysiek @erosdiscordia @deejoe
(DIR) Post #2909014 by retrohacker@fosstodon.org
2019-01-12T20:11:31Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@hansbauer @rysiek @erosdiscordia @deejoe It's not just the choice to use Facebook and Google. That is actually irrelevant if you have a cellphone or use an ISP. Your DNS resolution to ISPs servers is being sold. Your location data from cell towers is being sold. Deep packet inspection by your ISP, that metadata is being sold. Simply being connected to the internet with a *stock* consumer device forfeits your right to any sort of privacy.
(DIR) Post #2909015 by hansbauer@fosstodon.org
2019-01-12T20:19:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@retrohackeri completely agree with you.@rysiek @erosdiscordia @deejoe
(DIR) Post #2909115 by retrohacker@fosstodon.org
2019-01-12T20:15:30Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@hansbauer @rysiek @erosdiscordia @deejoe Legislation _creates_ free markets, a free market can not exist without legislation. Legislation gives us the power to correct for inefficient markets. Legislation _creates_ human rights, and gives us the power to ensure they are honored.
(DIR) Post #2909116 by retrohacker@fosstodon.org
2019-01-12T20:16:19Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@hansbauer @rysiek @erosdiscordia @deejoe The last few generations of the private sector have worked to create an ineffective government. This may not have been the intention, but it was definitely the result.Now the private sector is promoting the idea that you can't trust your government with these problems because it is ineffective. Don't drink that kool-aid, they are the ones who fucked our system of self-regulation up in the first place.
(DIR) Post #2909117 by hansbauer@fosstodon.org
2019-01-12T20:25:13Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@retrohackeri don't trust it, because big corps are inside it. they have perverted the whole thing. i'm not saying legislation is bad, but that in the actual scenario, it is really bad to ask for more. at the end of the day, if we ask for. more legislation today, we are asking big corps to do it. @rysiek @erosdiscordia @deejoe
(DIR) Post #2909143 by retrohacker@fosstodon.org
2019-01-12T20:27:09Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@hansbauer @rysiek @erosdiscordia @deejoe I think the point I'm trying to make is that effective legislation is the _only_ thing that can actually get us out of this. The logistics of making that happen w/ government surveillance and lobbying included. If we can't navigate that, we are lost.
(DIR) Post #2920880 by Matter@fosstodon.org
2019-01-12T11:20:00Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@rtwx @grainloom @retrohacker Actually... some TVs require an initial set up at least 😭
(DIR) Post #2920881 by rtwx@fosstodon.org
2019-01-12T11:21:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Matter @grainloom @retrohacker wtf. So no net connection and you can’t use it?!?
(DIR) Post #2920882 by retrohacker@fosstodon.org
2019-01-12T19:41:02Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@rtwx @Matter @grainloom Yup! In this case, the entire machine was essentially bricked until I agreeded to the ToS. Couldn't even use the HDMI inputs.
(DIR) Post #2920883 by rtwx@fosstodon.org
2019-01-12T22:00:43Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@retrohacker @Matter @grainloom surely you could accept TOS without a connection.... that seems ridiculous for a TV a non-tech person might get and use without a net connection.
(DIR) Post #2920884 by grainloom@cybre.space
2019-01-13T05:36:54Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@rtwx @retrohacker @Matter well, Windows 8 needed a Microsoft account when I last installed it (years ago), so having to sign in is not that new.I remember my friend having to register their legal copy of Crysis online when they had no internet at home, and had to bring their PC to their parent's office.DRM follows no logic and is not there to make things easier for buyers.
(DIR) Post #2924545 by lilo@mastodon.technology
2019-01-13T08:48:43Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@hansbauer @retrohacker Impossible for lawmakers to understand new technologies? That's a very derogatory view of lawmakers who at least in my country come from different backgrounds.And even with a non-tech background: The only person I know in RL who had a linux smartphone is a lawyer...
(DIR) Post #2925476 by doliu666@mastodon.technology
2019-01-13T09:39:41Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@grainloom @rtwx @retrohacker @Matter Even Windows 8 and 10 give the option to create a local account (in tiny letters, off in the corner, and will try and convince you not to)... if any TV flat out requires an internet connection before you can even plug an HDMI cable or antenna into it, that's some goddamned bullshit right there ay
(DIR) Post #2957518 by paco@infosec.exchange
2019-01-12T15:40:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@rtwx @Matter @grainloom @retrohacker "Smart TV with no smarts" == HDMI computer monitor. A "TV" these days is an HDMI monitor with some tuning hardware built in. The "non-smart" choice is buying the monitor and the tuner separately. Something will have to have some smarts, a TV receiver, and a network connection. E.g., a DVR. But there's no need to put those smarts into the screen.
(DIR) Post #2957519 by retrohacker@fosstodon.org
2019-01-12T19:49:53Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@paco @rtwx @Matter @grainloom market segmentation (and a few other factors) has made computer monitors incredibly expensive. It's hard to find a 55' 4k computer monitor for $350.
(DIR) Post #2957520 by paco@infosec.exchange
2019-01-13T14:38:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@retrohacker @rtwx @Matter @grainloom I agree. Fundamentally the business value of spying on customers is subsidising the cost of really big screens. If you accept a screen with surveillance tech and a bunch of "smarts" you can't disable, you can get it cheaper than if you don't.
(DIR) Post #2957521 by paco@infosec.exchange
2019-01-14T08:49:14Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@retrohacker @rtwx @Matter @grainloom And here’s the article explaining why TVs are cheaper than ever. With smart TVs, the profits aren’t in the purchase price, the profits are in the data smart TVs collect on you. https://nordic.businessinsider.com/smart-tv-data-collection-advertising-2019-1
(DIR) Post #2979571 by starbreaker@pleroma.site
2019-01-12T20:25:32.383998Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@retrohacker @hansbauer @deejoe @erosdiscordia @rysiek Making privacy an individual responsibility is what the tech industry wants. They know damn well that most people have more pressing concerns than surveillance capitalism.We should be forcing opt-in everything, mandatory informed consent with policies written in fourth-grade English, and outright banning the use of CRM tech that isn't HIPAA-compliant. Any consumer data that isn't deleted after the product warranty period should at least be stored with as much care as medical records.
(DIR) Post #3137160 by alexis@tilde.zone
2019-01-19T11:07:26Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@hansbauer @retrohacker @rysiek @erosdiscordia @deejoe Could be they value their social lives. I made the “principled” choice re Facebook, and lost an entire social circle because Facebook is so good at being sticky that people will genuinely forget you exist. Reminded, they feel bad about it, but then forget again. Others have seen the same. Calling it a mere matter of preference fails to reflect the reality.