Oh no! No logging into Microslop!

I hope the killbot drones running on Azure weren’t impacted…

Thankfully they are probably vibe-coding a solution as we speak!

What? Really? That allowed other states to extradite those in the state specifically for GAC?

This is unfortunate and is a really bad PR move. It feels too big tech.

Even if Andy Yen were actually right about everything, and it’s his company, it’s just more bad PR.

I think Andy Yen is probably a logic and math genius who needs to hire an emotional intelligence coach or a PR advisor or something. High IQ does not always mean high emotional intelligence and it’s better to accept when you don’t have both.

Alternatively, perhaps some evil government has forced Yen to install a universal back door, there’s an order saying he can’t disclose this, and so he’s acting strange to try to warn users the only way he can. If I’m right about this, I hope he makes the background of proton.me bright green. He can always deny reading this if he does that.

I think you underestimate how much the right wing media has demonized her. I like her, you like her, but a lot of people think she’s a dumb waitress.

Give her the podium to debate a Republican on national TV. No one will think that anymore. It’s easily dealt with, even an advantage. They don’t know her yet, so Republicans think many USA Americans hate her. But she is great, middle America just doesn’t know yet.

I have had that happen before with Proton and wondered to myself: How are they assessing this? Whether they were right or not, it required a lot of analysis that in theory wasn’t supposed to happen. I’m not saying anti-fraud systems are inherently bad, but how can you have an anti-fraud detection system in a privacy email service without reading emails or using javascript to try to measure a user’s machine information?

deleted by creator

I have little idea who this is mostly, but I know he came sort of out of nowhere and has been pushed relentlessly in the media, and that make me suspicious. Why him? Why now? Does he have more corporate-friendly moderate-conservative Democratic views that people with money prefer as the alternative? I genuinely don’t know. I really wonder if conservative money interests are scared of AOC and so they are pushing a more moderate Democrat. I don’t know his policies at all though, so maybe I am wrong?

Fighting against a billionaire’s tax, hating on trans people, and sleeping with your best friend’s wife? Count me out! If he’s the candidate, I wouldn’t vote for him.

I agree with you. Things don’t always have nuance and sometimes correlation does equal causation. There was lots of stuff going on, but that was the main thing.

I feel like she could win anyway. She’s just a natural star politician. It’s a mix of things: the model looks, the clear explanation of policy, the fact that she is relatable in a way so many are not. I think she’d easily win. I think she’d even do okay with the racists… she’s just that likable. Why not have 2028 be her year? If not 2028, when? There’s always a reason among corporate elite conservative Democrats to avoid someone too helpful to the poor and middle class, isn’t there?

A pile of dirt? I don’t get it. How could someone not like AOC? I am not being sarcastic and mean this literally. She’s extremely likable.

Her honesty and directness are so refreshing. I wish I could be more like her, just a totally good pure person. It also seems like she genuinely tries hard, like her success is not without extreme effort.

They make it essentially impossible to check using wireshark because conversations and other ad tech data leave the TV encrypted so it’s harder to sue the company. So it’s not like you could attach another pi and run wireshark on it before it goes to OpenWrt.

I am guessing the hard drive is not removable, because if they did that people would poke around into their ad tech, which could be doing illegal/questionable things, and they probably don’t want that.

I don’t know if there’s a technical way to figure this out. You would likely have to have electrical engineering or electrical circuitry experience and sauter the drive off the board, and if Samsung is smart, they will make it so the drive no longer works if it’s not interfacing with some proprietary motherboard chip. Samsung is pretty smart, there’s a lot of money in ad tech and smart TVs, so I don’t think there’s an easy way to do this.

Really, the only way to find out would be to sue them, saying the TV is defective, and also possibly add a claim for a tort like intentional invasion of privacy (which they would try to get dropped) and then subpoena their engineers for depositions and also try to get a court order that forces Samsung to provide a method to enable reading the internal hard drive (and I’m not sure if a judge would do that). But they would probably ignore such a court order unless there was a contempt order or try to settle to avoid decrypting or showing what the files are. It’s also hard to make a claim of intentional invasion of privacy (if that tort or something similar is available in your jurisdiction) when there’s mere suspicion that such a thing is going on. If there are other Samsung models that have been shown to invade privacy, you could probably say that shows Samsung is engaging in invasion of privacy and is why the message is showing up and let Samsung try to justify why that doesn’t make sense in a dismissal motion.

There’s probably a binding arbitration clause you agreed to, but you’d have to sue them and then when they argue the claim should be dismissed for binding arbitration, you would say you paid prior to a binding arbitration agreement and you never personally agreed to such an agreement (ie, you didn’t see it and were just clicking forward, someone you hired on craigslist to set up the device clicked through it, etc.) if that’s true or, if it’s not true, admit that you paid for the tv and subsequently signed the agreement because otherwise the TV wasn’t usable and argue it’s unenforceable. Depending on the case law and where you are, that argument may or may not work. I don’t know the law in this area (post-sale binding arbitration contracts) and if there are any ways around it ever.

I don’t know if a lawyer would take this on a contingency. On the one hand, it’s sort of iffy: they are providing a number for repair and so filing a defective product lawsuit is sort of questionable. On the other hand, why should a consumer have to spend time rebooting a smart TV because it’s ad tech is collecting so much data? Isn’t that inherently defective? You could file it yourself pro se if you had the time. Filing fees are really expensive, like 500 dollars or something. If you’re indigent it’s free. If this were my TV, I’d probably just file a pro se federal lawsuit, but it’s easier for me to do something like that than most people.

A lawsuit and just demanding depositions of people would be easier if you can get past an motion to dismiss based on binding arbitration claims.

No you fuck off!

But yes, your point that the wrong price point may create the illusion of no demand for privacy, hurting the ability to make lower cost non-spyware devices, is a good point. I simply hadn’t thought of that and only saw later comments about that idea.

deleted by creator

I’m not sure of the answer. There are some good suggestions other people gave.

I’m not bootlicking anything. I have no relationship with the Graphene project and the only time I tried to find out more about the project I was quickly banned for some reason. I think being pissed at open source developers who give away software for free is crazy as fuck.

So many of you are being so irrational and ungrateful. Do you know how much work the Graphene team likely did to make this happen? This means Graphene is less dependent on Google hardware in order to exist (ie, if Google decides to lock bootloaders in future Pixel models it won’t end the project). An expensive high-end phone brings along rich people and corporate users who will hopefully donate to the project. The engineers at the Graphene project work so much and it would be nice to see more appreciation.

No one is being forced to buy this highest end model. There are plenty of Pixels they support and will continue to support and they likely they will support other models that will be much cheaper over time. If you don’t want to buy a $2K phone, don’t buy this model. Problem solved! Or wait for more people to be selling this phone used and buy a used version of this model. Also, having this much RAM means that it’s more likely this can run virtualized ARM operating systems and can work like a desktop when plugged in, although I am not sure if it can do that.

https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/cbc-tutanota-tuta-is-a-honeypot/14978/9

Why would a government employee, being charged with a crime, randomly make up lies about tutanota, now Tuta?

The likely answer is he didn’t make up lies and wanted to expose an operation as revenge for them charging him with a crime, which he thought he would likely be convicted of.

Cameron Ortis did actually get 14 years in prison. So if this were merely a disinformation campaign, why did he end up in prison?

For this accusation to be false, you need it to be true that Ortis randomly decided to lie about Tutanota (now Tuta) during a trial or had some incentive to lie during trial to spread misinformation about Tuta. However, there was no plea deal in this case. He was granted day parole in September of 2026, but I don’t know that much about Canadian prisons or law and if this would be considered unusual.

The fact that Tutanota rebranded to Tuta nearly immediately after this (to make it harder for regular people searching for this to discover it) is also suspicious.

This is a good point. AI vibe-coded stuff that hasn’t been pentested being pushed in a product promising security and privacy is genuinely terrible. Perhaps that one thing is so terrible it should rightfully overshadow everything else because of the risks involved.