General > General Technical Chat

China spying using common car battery monitor?

<< < (4/7) > >>

Infraviolet:
"20 years ago blocking stuff from the internet was easy but now it's a nightmare."
A virtual machine perhaps, isolate not-entirely trustworthy programs within it? Then cut off internet access from/to that VM in VirtualBox/VMWare's settings. The programs would run slower, but with modern hadware usually not even enough to be noticeable.

abeyer:

--- Quote from: edpalmer42 on June 01, 2023, 05:12:06 pm ---When Google introduced BLE, they designed it to enforce that requirement.  The responsibility for this situation ultimately lies with them.  I'd like to see them justify this in front of a Congressional committee.

--- End quote ---

You say that like google is somehow to blame for the privacy situation... but if anything their choice on this was more disclosure than there otherwise would have been. BLE by design is fairly short range and allows enumerating unique ids of nearby devices. Companies have abused this by planting networks of BLE beacons and have databases of their geocoded locations... so any app developer with access to BLE data on your device and willing to spend some money for access to that geocoding data or use one of the frameworks that's already linked to these systems can effectively get your location data, even if you hadn't granted that permission.

edpalmer42:

--- Quote from: abeyer on June 01, 2023, 05:56:09 pm ---
--- Quote from: edpalmer42 on June 01, 2023, 05:12:06 pm ---When Google introduced BLE, they designed it to enforce that requirement.  The responsibility for this situation ultimately lies with them.  I'd like to see them justify this in front of a Congressional committee.

--- End quote ---

You say that like google is somehow to blame for the privacy situation... but if anything their choice on this was more disclosure than there otherwise would have been. BLE by design is fairly short range and allows enumerating unique ids of nearby devices. Companies have abused this by planting networks of BLE beacons and have databases of their geocoded locations... so any app developer with access to BLE data on your device and willing to spend some money for access to that geocoding data or use one of the frameworks that's already linked to these systems can effectively get your location data, even if you hadn't granted that permission.

--- End quote ---

What I said is that Google linked location services to BLE.  You can't have one without the other.  Without this apparently arbitrary linkage, you could use BLE while denying permission to access location services.  Then, if a BLE app refused to run without location services, the fault would lie squarely with the app developer.  Now, an unscrupulous app developer can just shrug and say that he doesn't use location services but Google forces it.  Then he just does what he wants and hopes nobody catches him.  Ethical developers are caught in the same trap.  They don't use location services, but their apps won't run without access to the unnecessary and unused service.

Ed

abeyer:

--- Quote from: edpalmer42 on June 01, 2023, 06:10:47 pm ---
--- Quote from: abeyer on June 01, 2023, 05:56:09 pm ---
--- Quote from: edpalmer42 on June 01, 2023, 05:12:06 pm ---When Google introduced BLE, they designed it to enforce that requirement.  The responsibility for this situation ultimately lies with them.  I'd like to see them justify this in front of a Congressional committee.

--- End quote ---

You say that like google is somehow to blame for the privacy situation... but if anything their choice on this was more disclosure than there otherwise would have been. BLE by design is fairly short range and allows enumerating unique ids of nearby devices. Companies have abused this by planting networks of BLE beacons and have databases of their geocoded locations... so any app developer with access to BLE data on your device and willing to spend some money for access to that geocoding data or use one of the frameworks that's already linked to these systems can effectively get your location data, even if you hadn't granted that permission.

--- End quote ---

What I said is that Google linked location services to BLE.  You can't have one without the other.  Without this apparently arbitrary linkage, you could use BLE while denying permission to access location services.  Then, if a BLE app refused to run without location services, the fault would lie squarely with the app developer.  Now, an unscrupulous app developer can just shrug and say that he doesn't use location services but Google forces it.  Then he just does what he wants and hopes nobody catches him.  Ethical developers are caught in the same trap.  They don't use location services, but their apps won't run without access to the unnecessary and unused service.

Ed

--- End quote ---

In that scenario you propose, you could agree to allow bluetooth but not location, and any untrusted app could still get your location even though you never agreed to it. That's the fundamental problem: it isn't really possible to give full access to use bluetooth while not making it possible to extract your location even without GPS. So, what's the value in separating them?

In theory I could see maybe a hierarchical permission system, where you gave permission for location and then could specify which specific mechanisms to allow eg allow location only via bluetooth and not via GPS... but that would be a pretty big departure from the existing permissions model, from what I know.

.RC.:

--- Quote from: AndyBeez on June 01, 2023, 08:41:09 am --- Look down to the bottom of your Google search results. Freaky, eh?



--- End quote ---

My location given by google, many many many hundreds of km away, I might as well be on the moon.

I thought someone use starlink is also going to show up as being in the USA?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod