[HN Gopher] Intel's GPU Drivers Now Collect Telemetry, Including...
___________________________________________________________________
Intel's GPU Drivers Now Collect Telemetry, Including 'How You Use
Your Computer'
Author : mikro2nd
Score : 280 points
Date : 2023-08-09 09:01 UTC (14 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.extremetech.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.extremetech.com)
| aboringusername wrote:
| One question I don't see asked in the various threads covering
| this: why does windows freely offer such data? At least Intel
| does give you an opt out (should be opt in really), but other
| applications can freely collect this data without you knowing.
|
| Windows needs to have much better control maybe a "telemetry"
| setting to control each apps access to the data, but that would
| most likely require some serious reengineering.
|
| Just use an app like Simplewall and block outbound connections,
| you should be doing that anyway as windows sends so much data off
| to the NSA anyway.
| Dalewyn wrote:
| A big part of what makes Windows so free and powerful is that
| it was architected during a time when security simply wasn't a
| concern. This is good because it enpowers users to use their
| computers as they see fit, but also bad because with great
| powers come great responsibilities that are often thrown to the
| wind.
|
| So to answer your question of why, the answer is simply that
| Windows doesn't care.
| AnonCoward42 wrote:
| > A big part of what makes Windows so free and powerful is
| that it was architected during a time when security simply
| wasn't a concern.
|
| Wouldn't that be true for BSD and Linux as well? Windows
| seems to be slow with implementing meaningful
| security/privacy features to the end user. Windows also has a
| good track record with backwards compatibility (compared to
| Linux at least), but that might also be the underlying
| problem here.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > Wouldn't that be true for BSD and Linux as well?
|
| Depends on how it's done, I think. The security story in
| the unices is better than in Windows, but you can't lock
| down any system too tightly or it becomes unbearable for
| most to use.
|
| But if we're talking system-level drivers, they are in
| effect extensions of the kernel and largely have
| administrator rights, whether we're talking Windows or
| *nix.
| SpaghettiCthulu wrote:
| Windows is architected such that any app running as a given
| user can spy on that user because operations like listing
| running processes and accessing other processes memory (when
| run as the same user) are completely unrestricted.
| api wrote:
| Even if it had better isolation a video driver is going to have
| system permissions.
| pptr wrote:
| I don't understand the need to include "the types of websites you
| visit" in GPU driver telemetry.
|
| AMD's telemetry doesn't seem to include that:
| https://www.amd.com/en/legal/privacy/user-experience-program...
|
| I couldn't figure out what telemetry is collected by Nvidia.
| Dalewyn wrote:
| >I don't understand the need to include "the types of websites
| you visit" in GPU driver telemetry.
|
| Do you visit Youtube and Twitch other streaming services often?
| Focus on video decoding.
|
| Do you visit sites that heavily utilize graphics[1]? Focus on
| 3D acceleration.
|
| There are reasons this data can be useful, especially since
| Intel wants to unfuck their otherwise imperially fucked
| drivers. Websites aren't just plain text with window dressing
| anymore, they are entire programs unto themselves.
|
| [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37026592
| AnonCoward42 wrote:
| > Do you visit Youtube and Twitch other streaming services
| often? Focus on video decoding.
|
| > Do you visit sites that heavily utilize graphics[1]? Focus
| on 3D acceleration.
|
| This is almost cynical. Why not track your user's eyes and
| record the screen to see where or if visual fidelity at
| certain parts is necessary? You know, to optimize the
| architecture.
| fooker wrote:
| > Why not track ...
|
| Coming soon to software near you!
| yomlica8 wrote:
| Isn't this already a part of meta VR headsets?
| veave wrote:
| What's cynical is saying that there is no value in knowing
| if users watch video in browsers and comparing it to
| eyeball tracking.
| daneel_w wrote:
| Though that wasn't their statement. Of course there's
| value in it. The question is if it's value _for the
| customer_ or just plain abuse.
| Dalewyn wrote:
| If the product improves quality of life for the user, yes
| there is value for the user. Everyone likes better
| software, right?
|
| The problem is, of course, that products seldom improve
| with use of telemetry, but that is beside the point.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > If the product improves quality of life for the user,
| yes there is value for the user.
|
| "Value" can only be properly understood as "Benefit -
| Cost". If the cost is greater than the benefit, the value
| is negative.
|
| > Everyone likes better software, right?
|
| But does everyone have the same definition of "better"?
| AnonCoward42 wrote:
| What is the point then? Justifying telemetry? Because the
| value for the user is at least very close to zero, but
| the privacy implications are not.
| Dalewyn wrote:
| The question posed was why Intel would want to track what
| websites you visited for their video drivers. I answered
| why.
|
| That was followed up by asking if telemetry has value for
| the user. I answered it can.
|
| The reality of products generally not improving with
| telemetry is beside the point. That is a problem with the
| people using the telemetric data.
| olyjohn wrote:
| You're just making up reasons why you think they are
| collecting this data. You haven't even verified this or
| actually know anything about why they are collecting it.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > I answered why.
|
| I don't think that you did, though. The data that is
| gathered by monitoring what websites you go to can be
| obtained without monitoring what websites you go to. So
| why do they feel the need to monitor what sites you go
| to?
|
| My answer to that is "marketing purposes".
| JohnFen wrote:
| Surely they don't need to monitor the websites you visit to
| get this information. They can see what the GPU is being
| asked to do, after all, which would tell them everything they
| need to know.
| hn92726819 wrote:
| I've noticed an influx of awful takes that seem like
| astroturfing like the one you replied to... Anyway, if you
| open task manager, they _show_ you what the GPU is doing
| https://imgur.com/a/gM1pgoI
| HeckFeck wrote:
| Do they need telemetry to know this? I could ask around, but
| I don't think _anyone_ exists who doesn 't game and also
| watch video on the same system.
|
| Should Creative also track my listening habits, to determine
| whether soundcard development resources need pooled into
| system sounds or MP3 decoding? Wouldn't that be a tad silly
| of them?
|
| It seems a bit post-facto to me.
| jlarocco wrote:
| That's BS. Intel needs spyware to know people are visiting
| YouTube? Give me a break.
| api wrote:
| You could gather that information by just reporting anonymous
| internal telemetry about what kind of computational work the
| GPU is doing.
| drowsspa wrote:
| I know we're supposed to assume good faith here, but it's
| very hard when we read justifications like this.
| el_duderino wrote:
| Previous discussion from a couple of days ago:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37033475
| mastax wrote:
| I know that Nvidia does extensive telemetry with GeForce
| Experience (the optional but heavily pushed companion software to
| the driver) but do they do it in the driver package also? The
| article makes no distinction and says there's no opt out. I
| thought choosing to not install GeForce Experience was the opt
| out (though that is not communicated to you at all during
| installation).
| Eisenstein wrote:
| You can use NVCleaninstall to remove the telemetry package.
|
| * https://www.techpowerup.com/download/techpowerup-
| nvcleanstal...
| WirelessGigabit wrote:
| And it's the only way to get auto software updates.
| TimeBearingDown wrote:
| NVCleanstall linked in another comment will also notify you
| of updates.
| daneel_w wrote:
| Microsoft provides updates for just the GPU driver through
| Windows Update if you tick the box for that.
| daneel_w wrote:
| I never install it myself, since I don't need it for anything.
| Would love to get a confirmation that tossing "GFE" disables
| their telemetry drone.
| junon wrote:
| Intel is never going to save itself at this rate...
| opan wrote:
| How will this affect GNU/Linux? They mention an installer and a
| yes/no prompt, which to me implies Windows. If it can be
| disabled, I suppose distro packagers will likely make the choice
| for the user when they create the package. Or is this a driver
| that would be included in the kernel itself?
| ladyanita22 wrote:
| It will not affect Linux
| anotherhue wrote:
| Six months later: Our analytics show very little uptake in
| Linux use so we are reallocating investment towards windows
| users.
| steeleduncan wrote:
| While AI companies are buying high end GPUs by the
| truckload to run on their Linux fleets this is unlikely to
| be a problem
| steeleduncan wrote:
| Intel provides open source drivers GPU drivers for GNU/Linux.
| As long as that remains true it is unlikely they'd try to
| collect telemetry through those drivers. If they do, it would
| get stripped out long before it reaches the kernel.
| dangus wrote:
| My takeaway from this was that Nvidia is the only GPU
| manufacturer that doesn't even have an opt-out for telemetry and
| seems to be the least transparent about it.
| amelius wrote:
| This kind of thing should be opt-in not opt-out. And not the kind
| of opt-in where you can still accidentally press "OK" in an
| inattentive moment.
| Espionage724 wrote:
| Yeah that kind of silly selfish behavior is exactly why NVIDIA
| buries the telemetry deep in their drivers and doesn't offer an
| option.
|
| Most people have no reason to limit or even be concerned with
| this. Intel is adding telemetry to improve the GPU drivers. Who
| would be against improving GPU drivers? Why are you considering
| Intel hostile?
| timw4mail wrote:
| I guess I'm glad I noticed this when it appeared on a driver
| update.
|
| Another box to uncheck on each update: arc control and telemetry.
| xuhu wrote:
| How do you turn it off after the drivers are installed ?
| amelius wrote:
| On Linux, can I run drivers inside a sandbox already?
| speed_spread wrote:
| No, because monolithic kernels are unequivocally superior to
| microkernels /s
| fsflover wrote:
| No, but you can do it on Qubes OS.
| nine_k wrote:
| The problem is that the driver is closed-source.
|
| Even if the driver sent data in a format which is easily
| inspectable by user, and with only benign-looking data, it would
| be really hard to _prove_ that something nefarious and
| underhanded is not being sent instead under that guise.
| yeck wrote:
| If you see where the packets are going you might be able to
| block at the DNS level.
| TacticalCoder wrote:
| > If you see where the packets are going you might be able to
| block at the DNS level.
|
| There are many DNS blocklists out there and some of them do
| indeed block domain names from known telemetry (aka "spying")
| services. But if some telemetry directly report to specific
| IP addresses then blocking at the DNS level won't help.
|
| FWIW my firewall blocks some companies' known IP CIDR blocks
| (like FB/Meta) and my DNS (unbound) blocks all known malware,
| porn and telemetry services (among others).
|
| In addition to that the only process allowed to emit ongoing
| traffic to port 443 is the process running my browser.
|
| All hope is not lost _yet_.
| Dah00n wrote:
| Unless they circumvent the system set DNS and use a hard
| coded one, which many that collect telemetry seem to do. On
| Android I see lots of traffic to Google's DNS even though I
| do not use their DNS servers (and it is in fact blocked).
| Espionage724 wrote:
| How is that a problem? Nobody is reviewing open-source driver
| code aside from the people actually working on improving it.
|
| Also lmao; do you really believe Intel is going to sabotage
| their own platform? If you're doing something so "nefarious and
| underhanded" on your computer for that to be a concern, you
| likely have no reason to be concerned since you should be using
| a platform and OS that makes this a non-issue. Only bad-actors
| would be concerned and raise this as a point.
| nine_k wrote:
| Not only bad actors would be concerned. There is a rather
| small but vocal minority that values privacy _extremely_
| high. They make noise, even when a threat of identification,
| or of siphoning out any consequential information, is
| extremely low.
|
| To avoid sabotaging their own platform, Intel should remember
| about that, and give no food for bad PR.
|
| As they write in employment agreements, you should avoid any
| real conflicts of interests, and also any appearance of
| conflicts of interests, because if it gets reported in media,
| but you end up completely clean and conflict-free, the hard-
| to-repair damage to public perception already would have been
| done.
| Espionage724 wrote:
| Yeah there might be one person discussing this in social
| media that legitimately values privacy.
|
| If you value privacy, you aren't using Windows. If you
| value privacy, you should realize that most people only
| care about it to the extent of it just working, and it only
| does so for most people running major Windows and macOS
| desktop operating systems If you value privacy, then you
| know how to read Microsoft's privacy policy to know what
| your data is going towards on Windows. And if you value
| privacy, you can respect why Intel is doing this and also
| read their privacy policy as to how they use the data.
|
| People are fear-mongering that Intel is taking usage data
| as if Intel has some interest in using the data
| maliciously. None of these major companies increasing and
| gathering telemetry have used the data in a truly malicious
| manner, unless you twist the wording for specific
| situations where bad-actors got caught doing bad-actor
| activity and have to comply with legal requests for
| information.
|
| This is only beneficial for the audience Intel is
| targeting.
| Espionage724 wrote:
| Part of that vocal minority is naive and was likely
| manipulated to push views that only benefit bad-actors.
|
| If people were being sincere, they wouldn't be so vague in
| detailing how Intel is going to use this information
| maliciously.
| hasmanean wrote:
| Hard for a human.
| soraminazuki wrote:
| All the more reason to avoid Windows I guess. MS is busy
| crippling the user experience in exchange for short-term profits
| and now this.
|
| I'm glad Linux has good driver support and maintainers who would
| say no to BS like this.
| Espionage724 wrote:
| Lmao. Anyone who cares about this likely isn't using Windows to
| begin with, and has already fallen into some Parabola Trisquel
| rabbit hole.
|
| Microsoft isn't crippling their user experience considering
| that doesn't benefit them; it's bad-actors cultivating that
| idea to push people on less-secure platforms, and/or naive Arch
| Linux first-time installer bros that want to push the idea of a
| worst desktop experience everywhere for no deep reason.
|
| Microsoft doing whatever they're doing to Windows benefits the
| average person who otherwise isn't going to deep lengths to
| improve their security and experience. I want more people to be
| as-secure as possible considering they'll become bot net
| contributors otherwise, or leak data that I share with them in
| some manner.
| GrinningFool wrote:
| > or leak data that I share with them in some manner
|
| Like when their video drivers overstep their bounds and
| gather information on what applications are run and what
| websites are visited?
| Espionage724 wrote:
| No, not like that at all lmao
|
| Just wait until you hear about your cursor being tracked on
| pages and what images and positions on the site you hover
| and stop scrolling over :p
|
| Intel isn't giving my browser data to enemies of the state.
| What do you really think Intel is doing with this
| information?
|
| And yeah, website URLs are important since people want to
| bootstrap and toss WebGL all over the place needlessly; all
| that is GPU accelerated. Blame anyone not using a plain-
| text website.
| olyjohn wrote:
| This guy defends Intel so fucking hard it makes me
| cringe.
| Espionage724 wrote:
| Yeah I defend stuff that works :p
|
| AMD is what you get without telemetry; crap API support
| on Windows (they took their already mangled stack and Jay
| Wilson'd it May 2022), next to no innovation with AI,
| flopped OpenCL, and have to concede with HIP since CUDA
| is too good. They can't even fix their botched TPM
| support that's so bad it had to be disabled globally on
| Linux.
| shrimp_emoji wrote:
| Username checks out ;p
| JohnFen wrote:
| > Microsoft isn't crippling their user experience considering
| that doesn't benefit them
|
| I have to use Windows at work, and have done so for decades.
| From where I sit, Microsoft is absolutely crippling the user
| experience. Every release after Win 7 has been a degradation
| in that.
| shrimp_emoji wrote:
| Compare KDE's Dolphin with Windows's Explorer (tabs, split
| view, dark theme a decade ago, file size/mod date under
| filename...)
|
| Ten Dutch guys can make for free a better piece of software
| than a multi-billion dollar corporation can because better
| UX isn't profitable when you've already captured 99% of the
| market. :p
| Espionage724 wrote:
| KDE is not relevant or even heard of aside from people on
| Arch forums and more isolated communities. Heck the rare
| times I've seen Linux in the wild, guess what DE they
| were using? It's the one that's actually used by
| mainstream Linux distros, and even outside of GNOME, I
| even saw a wild Ubuntu terminal running Unity about a
| week ago. KDE should stop assisting with fragmenting
| Linux, or get the DE up-to-par for mainsream distros to
| use :p
|
| Meanwhile, guess what's the most popular operating
| systems for workstation use is. You're implying everyone
| using Windows willingly is dumb and being inefficient.
| Dolphin works, so does Explorer, Nautilus, and even
| Thunar. Only two of those are relevant for most people.
| acqq wrote:
| This is definitely not what I'd be ready to approve:
|
| "Intel provides a long list of the types of data it collects" ...
| "Those _include the types of websites you visit_ , which Intel
| says are dumped into 30 categories and logged without URLs or
| information that identifies you, _including how long and how
| often you visit certain types of sites._ "
|
| Emphasis mine. I surely don't expect that from a GPU driver
| company. Damn.
| aport wrote:
| [flagged]
| nopassrecover wrote:
| So depending on the categories it would potentially not be
| sensationalist to say "Intel GPU drivers are recording how much
| you watch porn". And this potentially covers a lot of people if
| integrated video is covered by the same drivers. I suspect I
| won't be the only person to adopt a principled position and
| avoid Intel devices from now on after a lifetime of choosing
| only Intel.
|
| How are we 2023 and there still not legal protections against
| this sort of thing. It's basically the tech version of peeping
| tom.
| TheAceOfHearts wrote:
| My understanding is that Nvidia GPUs require GeForce
| Experience to enable all of the advertised features, which
| also includes telemetry that tracks your windows and URLs.
|
| Only one good player remains.
| varispeed wrote:
| I wonder what are those categories and if Intel knows something
| we don't know.
|
| For instance, this information will be useful for the coming
| implementation of CBDC in various countries and form a basis of
| social credit score.
|
| Intel will probably make a ton of money by selling this
| information to governments.
| Dah00n wrote:
| Nvidia would likely have much better data to sell as they
| have collected data for years.
| NekkoDroid wrote:
| I surely wouldn't call Intel a "GPU driver company" (like how
| I'd call American Megatrends a BIOS/Firmware company), but
| rather a Processor company that is also making drivers (but
| that is neither here nor there).
|
| This is still so weird of them (not weird in the sense I
| wouldn't put it past them, but weird in a sense that someone
| even had the idea), even if they make it optional. Like, I
| don't care if you want to use that information to try to make
| better drivers by knowing which sites break the GPU, I will
| report that to you if I feel so inclined to it.
|
| I'd understand if it were "We wanna know what programs are
| using hardware acceleration", but it's not limited to that...
| dmvdoug wrote:
| I was most intrigued by the "collect, use, and combine" language.
| Specifically, I didn't see anything limiting them to combining
| only information they collect. So, what's stopping them from
| purchasing additional data from data brokers to combine with what
| they collect in order to develop an even more in-depth profile of
| you? Nothing in the language quoted.
| kklisura wrote:
| The more these things are happening and the more I read about it,
| the more I understand and agree with Richard Stallman.
| troyvit wrote:
| Right? The world is getting so weird that RS is starting to
| seem normal.
| binary132 wrote:
| "Nonfree drivers are totally fine bro!"
| Espionage724 wrote:
| Great!
|
| I want Intel to improve the driver stack I use on my hardware,
| and if information how I use their graphics stack is useful for
| that, cool. I continue on my usual usage, and Intel gets data on
| how to improve the experience for free.
|
| How does anyone expect software to improve if nobody gives
| feedback? Ya'll know those website surveys, bug report apps in
| GPU control panels? If people used those, maybe secret telemetry
| wouldn't be required. It's easier to complain vaguely online in
| random communities.
|
| Data collection isn't going away. Nor is it inherently harmful,
| unless you feed into the idea you're intentionally using hostile
| hardware and software for some reason.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > If people used those, maybe secret telemetry wouldn't be
| required.
|
| That argument is simple extortion. Secret telemetry is never
| required, period.
|
| If people are unwilling to volunteer such data, then the devs
| simply have to do without. If that means that software won't
| improve[1], too bad.
|
| [1] Which isn't what that means. Software has always been
| improving even back when spying on people wasn't a feasible
| thing to do at scale, so spying is clearly not necessary. It's
| just cheaper than the old ways.
| Espionage724 wrote:
| It's not spying. Spying implies being observed without
| consent, and that the adversary is gaining information to use
| against you. The average person who is using Windows and
| likely the only ones to see this do not fall under this.
|
| People were unwilling to volunteer the data exactly because
| of this fear-mongering. Ya'll act like Intel is sitting in a
| back room watching flowing logcats of your activity and
| cherry-picking ones to target you personally, as if some of
| ya'll are that important lmao :p
| JohnFen wrote:
| > Spying implies being observed without consent
|
| It doesn't imply it, that's what it means. If data is being
| collected about me, my machine, or my use of my machine
| without my consent, it's spying.
|
| > and that the adversary is gaining information to use
| against you.
|
| I disagree that this is required in order for it to be
| spying. The reason it's collected is irrelevant. If I
| didn't give consent, it's spying.
|
| > Ya'll act like Intel is sitting in a back room watching
| flowing logcats of your activity and cherry-picking ones to
| target you personally
|
| I don't think that's what's happening at all, and certainly
| aren't meaning to imply it. What I think is happening is
| that data is being collected without consent. What makes it
| worse is that some of that data is clearly being collected
| for marketing purposes.
| daneel_w wrote:
| While Nvidia's driver installer doesn't ask permission, does
| anyone happen to know if there's a way after installation to
| disable their telemetry collection?
| unknown_user_84 wrote:
| Best guide I found
|
| https://old.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/euud7u/how_to_prev...
|
| I updated their blocks to cover all the IPs in the range,
| windows firewall rules accept CIDR notation ala 72.25.64.0/18.
|
| All the ranges for their backend stuff I've found so far:
| 72.25.64.0/18 216.228.112.0/20 8.36.80.0/24
| 8.36.113.0/24
|
| I leave mapping out the rest of their IP space as an exercise
| to the reader.
|
| Found using `whois` against the IPs and domain from that reddit
| post. Their primary website appears to be on EC2, so nothing
| terribly useful there. I'm personally expecting companies that
| do this nonsense to move all their collection infra to EC2 or
| similar to make it harder to do simple blocks. Those that
| haven't already.
| Eisenstein wrote:
| https://www.techpowerup.com/download/techpowerup-nvcleanstal...
| hvis wrote:
| You won't get this on Linux, though. Unless they manage to bake
| his shit into GPU microcode somehow.
| steeleduncan wrote:
| I'm not familiar with the details of such things, but would it be
| possible to "port" the Intel's open source Linux GPU driver to
| Windows? That would make for a working driver without this junk
| fluoridation wrote:
| Even if you were to overcome the massive hurdle of porting a
| driver between two completely different kernel architectures,
| you would not be able to load it without enabling driver
| testing mode at boot time, or without buying a code signing
| certificate.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > Even if you were to overcome the massive hurdle of porting
| a driver between two completely different kernel
| architectures
|
| Hmm, would that be a massive hurdle? I haven't looked at that
| driver code, but I have done a lot of driver development for
| both Windows and Linux, and have ported a number of drivers
| between the two. Sight unseen, it's not obvious to me that
| this would be a huge hurdle.
|
| The code signing is an issue, but that's a manageable one.
| fluoridation wrote:
| I can't imagine it's easy, but if you say you've done it
| I'll have to defer to you.
| JohnFen wrote:
| Don't defer to me. As I said, I've not looked at the
| code, so I don't actually know. I'm speculating based on
| my experience with other drivers.
| yomlica8 wrote:
| Its the wrong priority anyway. Windows is utterly infested
| with far worse telemetry at this point so it would be like
| fixing pinhole hull leaks in the titanic after the ship had
| snapped in half.
| fluoridation wrote:
| Someone might be comfortable with Microsoft telemetry but
| not with Intel telemetry. That's not wrong. Weird, sure,
| but not wrong.
| iamsanteri wrote:
| Apple was right in moving on from these guys.
| wesapien wrote:
| Hopefully these destination IP addresses or domains or hosts are
| bing added to some lists so it can be filtered. Does anyone have
| these new Intel telemetry destination info.?
| jhoelzel wrote:
| *IP addresses AND domains please
| snapplebobapple wrote:
| I assume I am safe using linux and the linux drivers?
| Dah00n wrote:
| Yes.
| BLKNSLVR wrote:
| The time seems to be getting closer to the ubiquitous need for an
| 'allow list' for outbound internet connections. OpenSnitch or
| equivalent (per device) + Pi-Hole / Adguard (per network).
|
| Inverse WEI. Sorry, this request fails our Web Environment
| Integrity validation, you will not be receiving any data from
| this device.
| WirelessGigabit wrote:
| That used to work in the past with different IPs.
|
| Now an IP might have hundreds of DNS records pointing to it.
| But fine, installing AdGuard works great.
|
| But now we're fighting against 2 things:
|
| Things smashed together on the same domain, so no longer
| separate subdomains.
|
| And DNS of HTTPS, so we can't even get all our traffic to go
| over the same DNS server.
| rolandog wrote:
| > Things smashed together on the same domain, so no longer
| separate subdomains.
|
| We can refine the regexps so that we approve certain
| subfolders within a same address.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > And DNS of HTTPS, so we can't even get all our traffic to
| go over the same DNS server.
|
| I bet there's a market for something like a user-friendly
| mitmproxy variant to plug that hole. It might even be able to
| be a part of pi-hole for pi-hole users.
| type0 wrote:
| > Those include the types of websites you visit, which Intel says
| are dumped into 30 categories and logged without URLs or
| information that identifies you, including how long and how often
| you visit certain types of sites.
|
| Will Intel Arc GPUs be optimized for VR porn?
| tycoon666 wrote:
| Great. The next generation finally gets a dedicated porn
| accelerator
| titzer wrote:
| What is the thought process that goes into _thinking_ such a
| thing is a good idea, then _proposing_ it, _arguing_ for it, and
| then it being _approved_ (presumably) by product managers and
| executives?
|
| It's just a downward spiral at this point as each new generation
| of software and each new year brings a worse and worse privacy
| default with even more self-justification and half-assed
| anonymization.
|
| Drivers need to know website usage statistics. Are we really here
| now?
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| The process that is motivated by profits. Here's the thing. It
| not only got approved but it almost certainly got some people
| promoted.
| BLKNSLVR wrote:
| Add to this a total and utter lack of any interest from any
| political parties with any chance of being elected to govern
| a country.
|
| User-hostility in the privacy realm is open slather. It's
| (more than?) likely to be encouraged by political parties
| because they can buy and use the data for their, inarguably
| worse for society, constituent-hostile political gaming.
|
| The pirates are the corporates and there is no law under
| which the pillaged can seek protection.
| saiya-jin wrote:
| Yeah, you can't say a big no-no to private companies doing
| this and in the same time collect everything on everybody
| without any good law to back it up, even about hobo half
| around the world as long as they leave any kind of data
| trail (or somebody else does on their behalf).
|
| Somebody may connect the dots and uses it against you in
| election campaigns. So we are where we are, all politicians
| are well aware of this topic, all pros and cons, but nobody
| wants to touch it with 10m pole unless they can somehow
| spin it into their advantage. But then again, politicians
| have supporters, donations etc. Can't bite the hand that
| feeds you, can you.
|
| And there is always that cheap argument about 'think about
| the children...' when terrorists don't terrorize general
| population enough.
| Retric wrote:
| <devils advocate> Knowing what websites people visit and for
| how long isn't unreasonable if you want to create a test that
| mimics how a GPU gets used in practice.
|
| Compare your GPU's performance with competitors across the top
| X popular websites looking for outliers. Then start optimizing
| and retest while regularly updating that list with new data in
| case something starts to become popular.
|
| They could get this kind of data from a third party, but
| collecting it themselves is more representative of their
| customers and possibly cheaper.
| titzer wrote:
| This is the role of benchmark suites and top 500 lists.
| Retric wrote:
| I would hope they are looking well pat the top 500, top
| 5,000 or 50,000 perhaps but then the bottom of larger lists
| also vary more.
|
| I think we can all agree the most likely explanation isn't
| so flattering here, but it's possible they really are
| trying to model the real world accurately in their test
| environment.
| magicalist wrote:
| > _I would hope they are looking well pat the top 500,
| top 5,000 or 50,000 perhaps but then the bottom of larger
| lists also vary more._
|
| How are they going to do that if they only know the
| website category? Conveniently useful for marketing,
| though.
| Retric wrote:
| I was considering the reverse. How well can they assign a
| category for a site your visiting if they are only have
| mapping for the top 500 websites to those 30 categories?
| Anything they don't have a mapping for is presumably just
| 'other' which isn't useful.
|
| ARC gammers will likely be spending a lot of time on game
| specific message boards for example, but individually few
| of those websites are going to rank high on global top
| 500 lists.
|
| Having such wide categories seems useless, but it might
| help justify fixing bugs on say pornographic websites if
| a large percentage of users are having issues. Not the
| kind of conversation you want to have with your boss, but
| it's exactly the kind of problem that could harm sales
| without anyone noticing.
| ek750 wrote:
| Sadly yes. I've dealt with product managers that want these
| sort of things, and when I explain why I think it's a bad idea,
| it completely flies over their head at mach 2. They really
| don't get it. At least the ones I've dealt with in this
| context.
|
| As much as I hate to say it, I think trying to push back at the
| individual level in a corp setting is not going to work.
| globular-toast wrote:
| Have you ever worked in a big company? Appeals to ethics or
| even common sense won't get you very far. On the other hand,
| just doing what you're told is expected and rewarded. Like the
| Emperor's New Clothes. You either play along with the narrow-
| minded, often cultish, pursuit of whatever is deemed good for
| "the business", or you leave.
| titzer wrote:
| I have.
| anotherhue wrote:
| It's the "Don't be Evil" rule at work again.
| [deleted]
| rvnx wrote:
| If they would collect what games you are playing, to know on
| which games they have to optimize the drivers / framerate down-
| the-road that'd be ok.
|
| But websites you visit...
| the_lego wrote:
| It would be _useful_ , it would _not_ be ok.
|
| It's still an invasion of privacy, and Intel has no business
| knowing I play (and how much), e.g., a gay dating simulator,
| Postal, Hogwarts Legacy, or any number of other games that
| either are or will be controversial, incriminating, or just
| useful as another data point in a personality profile.
|
| So many of the devil's advocate posts justify it by
| explaining how spying on users can be useful. But the
| complaint isn't that it's "not useful"!
| notaustinpowers wrote:
| Exactly, this information being harvested can 100% be used
| against you.
|
| For example, Texas Attorney General, Ken Paxton, attempted
| to secure a list of every Texan who changed their gender
| within the past 24 months, stating they may need drivers
| license numbers in the future to look up their information.
| The only reason that didn't happen is because the
| Department of Public Safety said they couldn't accurately
| produce that information.
|
| Just imagine a state, or a foreign government subpoenaing
| or hacking Nvidia to get this information they're
| collecting. Now that state or foreign government doesn't
| just have your browser history like if they subpoenaed your
| ISP. They have everything you did on that computer. What's
| on your hard drive, what games you played, what devices are
| connected to your computer, etc.
|
| I try to not go down the slippery slope analogies, but a
| company having this treasure trove of information on 82% of
| desktop users is going to make it ripe for hacking and
| state-sanctioned spying.
| amelius wrote:
| To be fair, websites can also contain games and other stuff
| that might use a GPU.
| Dalewyn wrote:
| Hardware accelerated video decoding for Youtube, Twitch,
| etc. for a very mundane example.
| bogwog wrote:
| I don't think Intel needs telemetry to know their
| customers use Youtube and Twitch.
| Retric wrote:
| The ratios might be important if they want to optimize
| battery life, performance, and video quality.
| pixelpoet wrote:
| A tiny scrappy startup like Intel definitely needs to
| prioritise between YouTube and Twitch optimisation, and
| the best way to get that information is by spying on
| _everyone, all the time_.
|
| I get playing devil's advocate, but come on...
| Retric wrote:
| It's easy enough to slap a top 500 list as your benchmark
| but their size is why they should be aiming higher than
| that.
| rjsw wrote:
| Plus which video formats and resolutions are being used.
| magicalist wrote:
| the _category_ of a website (out of 30 possible
| categories??) seems orthogonal to whether or not it had
| embedded video or webgl, which should be pretty trivial
| to detect from GPU activity without knowing anything
| about the contents of the page that contains it.
| xnx wrote:
| A terrifying side-effect of AI is that everything is now
| potential "training data" and there's financial incentive to
| vacuum up any and all possible data. The situation on Windows is
| much worse than Chrome extensions (which have been attempting
| this for awhile) because of the near non-existent permission
| limits on Windows. I was shocked to learn just yesterday that
| Nvidia drivers were doing this. It feels extremely gross, like
| someone has broken into your home.
| amelius wrote:
| > A terrifying side-effect of AI is that everything is now
| potential "training data" and there's financial incentive to
| vacuum up any and all possible data.
|
| Good thing that extensive user-tracking by advertising
| companies already prepared us for it!
| barrysteve wrote:
| It goes without saying at this time, an internet connected
| computer is a privacy liability.
| pkulak wrote:
| Internet-connected Windows computer.
| yomlica8 wrote:
| I feel like most people just want to pretend the privacy
| respecting alternatives don't even exist so they can give
| up. See the endless parade of excuses about why people
| can't help but use Chrome still.
|
| The battle is well and truly lost on Windows but the line
| is mostly being held on linux still.
| squarefoot wrote:
| > Internet-connected Windows computer.
|
| Plus any Internet connected _and_ proprietary (as in
| closed) device.
|
| AI will be trained on home appliances usage, what fridges
| contain, washing machine cycles, robot lawnmowers cleans,
| and of course phones, TVs and cars usage. Pretty much every
| connected and proprietary device, from vehicles down to
| electric toothbrushes, will phone home usage data that will
| be used to train AI, besides of course users profiling for
| marketing purposes.
|
| An old tagline once said something like "Windows, security,
| networking; choose only two, you can't have them all". Now
| it would be "proprietary, privacy, connected; ...".
| ikekkdcjkfke wrote:
| "Agree to continue"
| jwells89 wrote:
| Desktop software has been a consistent and egregious offender
| when it comes to overstepping bounds for a long, long time...
| especially big corporate desktop software (hi Adobe).
|
| It's honestly kind of shocking that all desktop OSes didn't
| gain something like mobile permissions over a decade ago. macOS
| has some as do a few configurations of Linux, and yeah Windows
| is happy to hand over not only your farm but also a few acres
| from that of your neighbors' farm to anybody who even suggests
| slight interest.
|
| I know there's been much consternation over permissions,
| sandboxing, etc and how they complicate software development
| and power user workflows, but I don't see a path forward where
| they aren't necessary.
| fsflover wrote:
| > It's honestly kind of shocking that all desktop OSes didn't
| gain something like mobile permissions over a decade ago.
|
| Consider Qubes OS if you need to isolate the apps on desktop.
| I'm a happy daily driving user.
| gunapologist99 wrote:
| I wish the advances in Qubes would eventually make it out
| of Qubes and be available in other distros.
| bogwog wrote:
| This might actually be a good thing. For the longest time, very
| few people cared about privacy issues, which is why we live in
| a privacy hellscape today. If AI fears can motivate people to
| start taking privacy issues seriously, then we might actually
| see some strong privacy legislation, or more privacy-focused
| businesses to meet new demand.
|
| _(or maybe I 'm just being overly optimistic)_
| thefurdrake wrote:
| I'm still holding out from the days when basically everyone
| on the internet understood you shouldn't post intimate
| details about your life online (the age before social
| ~~cancer~~ media).
|
| I long for a return to common sense. Maybe AI will do the
| trick, but I doubt it. Plenty of people are happy with
| behavioral prediction if it means convenience without caring
| about the implications.
| JohnFen wrote:
| I agree.
|
| That said, there's a _huge_ difference between voluntarily
| offering up personal data in a public forum and having
| personal data extracted without your consent.
| thefurdrake wrote:
| Maybe this is a bit of a hardline stance, but at this
| point I'd argue that not running extensions like Ublock
| origin and umatrix is implicit consent to have all that
| data collected. Not a strongly-held opinion, but boy does
| it seem like a properly-informed person would use
| protection to interact online with how diseased the
| internet has become.
|
| Mind, neither of those are perfect, but they're Pretty
| Damn Good and everyone should be running something
| similar at this point.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > is implicit consent
|
| I fully acknowledge that I'm a hardliner on this issue,
| but I don't believe that there is any such thing as
| "implicit consent".
|
| Consent must be intentional, uncoerced, and fully-
| informed. Otherwise, it's not consent at all.
| thefurdrake wrote:
| Oh, we're on the same page there. It is unjust and amoral
| that "implicit consent" is assumed when collecting data,
| but that appears to be how things operate.
|
| We're in the Faustian era of the internet, though. The
| only winning move is not to play.
| Terr_ wrote:
| Another aspect--even if the disclosure is voluntary--
| involves channels which go through our evolved human
| social filters (like expectations of how that data will
| spread) and channels that bypass or subvert them.
|
| For example, if I express a controversial opinion to a
| friend, some part of my mind is running a safety
| calculation on that, as well as considering who that
| person might tell and whether that would make next
| Thanksgiving with relatives awkward.
|
| In contrast, I'm not thinking (even subconsciously) that
| some grammar checking software running on the other
| person's computer is going to pick up on the same
| keywords and then somehow ding my credit score.
|
| The company or code isn't even a person present anywhere
| near the conversation. I have a reasonable expectation of
| privacy, and no amount of flim-flam in a ToS is changing
| that unless the code pops up like Clippy to signal its
| presence.
| tivert wrote:
| > I long for a return to common sense. Maybe AI will do the
| trick, but I doubt it. Plenty of people are happy with
| behavioral prediction if it means convenience without
| caring about the implications.
|
| The general population isn't going to care about "privacy"
| in the abstract, that kind of thinking reserved for an
| activist fringe. IMHO, the only way any progress will every
| be made on such abstract things is activists influencing
| government to force the changes.
|
| The general population will respond to realistic fear and
| danger, though (e.g. witness all the rituals people do to
| avoid identity theft). Maybe the best way forward is to
| cultivate fear in people of losing their livelihood to AI,
| and present these privacy invasions as an attack on that
| front.
| xnx wrote:
| > The general population isn't going to care about
| "privacy" in the abstract,
|
| Totally agree. It's better to frame it in terms of
| "Nvidia tracks every porn site you visit and what you do
| there" or "company x knows everything you buy online and
| sells it to anyone who can pay".
| smoldesu wrote:
| Well, be careful how you word it. At the core of the
| problem, _nobody_ has control over their devices. If you
| beat a drum complaining about Nvidia having DMA access
| then you have to go after Apple and Microsoft next, which
| would probably lead to most people getting confused. If
| they found out about PRISM or XKeyscore, they would
| probably feel hopeless and give up.
|
| Treating privacy in the abstract is how you help people
| meaningfully resist it. In the literal sense, we can do
| very little to ensure our privacy on consumer hardware.
| landemva wrote:
| > how you help people meaningfully resist it.
|
| Poison the data wells to such an extent that data becomes
| unuseful. For hardware drivers, submitting plausible or
| random info may be a good start. For handset apps which
| send geolocation, developer mode which spoofs a city
| circle tour may be a good start.
| thomastjeffery wrote:
| It's great that the bourgeoisie are treating workers so
| poorly: maybe soon we can start eating them in public!
|
| I don't feel optimistic about any of this. What we know
| already is that safety should not be determined by the
| boundary of "what people take seriously".
| distant_hat wrote:
| These are really niche issues and most people aren't even
| aware, let alone care about this. The only real solution to
| this is some kind of legislation that makes it difficult to
| carry on with business as usual. I wonder how this data
| collection squares with GDPR?
| landemva wrote:
| > The only real solution to this is some kind of
| legislation that makes it difficult to carry on with
| business as usual.
|
| I have watched the voluntary full body scans at TSA
| checkpoints for years and have concluded people do not care
| to opt out of any data collection. The people don't care,
| or how many people do you see opting out of full body scans
| at TSA? People gleefully pose for TSA's new and voluntary
| facial recognition.
|
| People go along with coercion even by government, so why do
| you think we can rely on government to solve privacy
| issues?
| kube-system wrote:
| > how many people do you see opting out of full body
| scans at TSA
|
| They're all in the pre-check line.
| landemva wrote:
| An airline put me in precheck a few years ago due to FF
| status. Now it requires an application to government and
| fingerprint. And global entry (immigration) wants an
| eyeball scan. Biometric collection to avoid a TSA massage
| is not privacy.
| kube-system wrote:
| If you want to ALL avoid biometric collection when you
| travel, you're pretty much out of luck:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biometric_passport#/media/F
| ile...
|
| https://www.cbp.gov/travel/biometrics
| arcticbull wrote:
| Then of course every country in the world records you on
| arrival.
| arcticbull wrote:
| It basically always required all those things. For a
| brief period they were doing a trial with frequent
| fliers, but it was always the exception and never the
| norm.
|
| But uh, make no mistake, they were only putting you into
| Pre because they had all the data you are being asked to
| provide already. The application is like your tax returns
| - the goal is to see if you provide what they already
| know, not to surprise them with something new.
| landemva wrote:
| That seems reasonable using existing data, but why a
| finger print?
|
| And I thought the checkpoints were to prevent physical
| contraband on planes. TSA facial recognition, while also
| allowing old people and precheck to wear shoes, doesn't
| stop that.
| kube-system wrote:
| Because dactyloscopy has been mature for a long time.
|
| The purpose of trusted-traveler programs isn't to screen
| for contraband, it is to establish an elevated level of
| trust.
| dijit wrote:
| Ha! I get so much shit from my partner because I refuse
| to go through those scanners.
|
| I don't make a big scene about it, but it's fun to note
| how much social pressure there is to just follow.
|
| Most Airports are actually totally fine with the opt-out,
| except the British ones for some reason. "You won't
| always be able to opt out y'know" - yes mate, but then I
| probably won't fly anymore.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > "You won't always be able to opt out y'know"
|
| What a strange thing to say. Maybe not, but you are able
| to opt out right now, and that's what matters most at
| that moment.
| bogwog wrote:
| > These are really niche issues and most people aren't even
| aware, let alone care about this.
|
| Everyone seems to be aware of the protests in Hollywood,
| and I don't think it's too much of a stretch to tie that to
| privacy issues. Those AI models taking artists' jobs were
| trained with data scraped from the internet. Even if you
| aren't an artist, there's a risk that the data these
| companies collect on you will be used to train an AI model
| that will take your job, so you shouldn't be giving it away
| for free.
| barbariangrunge wrote:
| There's no union of people vs surveillance tech to act on
| our behalf
| ollien wrote:
| I do think that's a bit of a stretch. Regardless of your
| opinions on the ethics of AI companies training on
| scraped data, how is scraping publicly available artistic
| works a privacy issue?
|
| Me, personally, I might call it unethical and
| undesirable, but I wouldn't call it an issue of "privacy"
| on its face.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-08-09 23:03 UTC)