4 ms·

There are two backdoor potential you know. The software, which on my Huawei I prevent with a whitelist firewall which works so insanely well that it doubled my

There are two backdoor potential you know. The software, which on my Huawei I prevent with a whitelist firewall which works so insanely well that it doubled my battery life, and the radio chip. Sadly, whatever you do, on all phones manufactured in China or designed in the US, you risk a hardware backdoor you can never inspect. What do you know of the radio chipset, taking electricity to connect to the remote antenna: it can probably ping, get signal from the mic and gps, or the camera etc. If you re going to be paranoid, because you attack children or sell drugs, why the hell do you buy phones in the first place !?

sodality2 5y ago
IMO, the risk of a hardware backdoor is always there and perhaps less damaging if the country is across the world, depending on the threat model and damage model. realistically you're right, and I probably would deeply consider my options before thinking about it. But we can go down the list of lower and lower firmware that we cant verify (hell, I just reread Reflections on Trusting Trust this morning). Every device has Chinese-made chips. I suppose it's more risky than an American company but to me it seems like rearranging chairs on a sinking ship, which is why I never keep anything sensitive on my phone.
3np 5y ago
> If you re going to be paranoid, because you attack children or sell drugs, why the hell do you buy phones in the first place !? While the rest of your comment is accurate, this is disingenuous. There are plenty of valid reasons to have concerns over this besides those drilled by the powers that be. Besides, it's still reasonable to want to reduce your potential attack surface. Sure, federal agencies may root you if they really want but that doesn't mean it's pointless to avoid OS-level preinstalled backdoors from the manufacturer.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
mdp2021 5y ago
> If you re going to be paranoid, because you attack children or sell drugs, why the hell do you buy phones in the first place !? If you are going to joke, kindly mark it, so we do not misunderstand you, and so you do not cause internal damages to those who are not trained to always keep neurovegetative and limbic on guard while reading - you know, that occasional moment in which you trust what you read and the physiological reactions start, before the prefrontal goes "wait a moment, that may be not serious". People have -- a privacy to defend as a principle («privacy to defend», what times!), -- absurdity to keep at bay (interrobangs have a cost - the paragraph above is relevant), -- security to ensure (information which ends up in weakly protected repositories is basically public), -- safety to strengthen (sociopolitical systems can make people pay for any minor trait) and more?
- lloydatkinson 5y ago
  One of the most absurd things I’ve read recently. Not being able to understand a joke is hardly on joker.
  - mdp2021 5y ago
    /If/ it was meant to be a joke. It can easily have not been one: it can easily have been unaware and/or insensitive of the expressed four points and more - many people are (see the diffusion of the "nothing to hide" stance). The content you called "absurd" is pretty literal. The unawareness of the importance of privacy even as a cautionary stance is spread even in the learned, some convinced that we live in a riskless fair world of free thought and expression without consequence - there are people of prominent intellectual profile vocal against online pseudonyms, for example. There are political representatives proponents of the end of online anonymity. So, no, when somebody makes those statements about child abuse and drug trafficking, they may not be joking.
    - lloydatkinson 5y ago
      Did you swallow a dictionary?
bluecatswim 5y ago
What firewall do you use?
meowster 5y ago
> If you re going to be paranoid, because you attack children or sell drugs, why the hell do you buy phones in the first place !? Because innocent people can be persecuted too. Just ask many of the ethnic groups across the globe, or other abuse victims. Privacy protects innocent people from criminals, more than it protects criminals from the good guys.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

sodality2 5y ago

IMO, the risk of a hardware backdoor is always there and perhaps less damaging if the country is across the world, depending on the threat model and damage model. realistically you're right, and I probably would deeply consider my options before thinking about it. But we can go down the list of lower and lower firmware that we cant verify (hell, I just reread Reflections on Trusting Trust this morning). Every device has Chinese-made chips. I suppose it's more risky than an American company but to me it seems like rearranging chairs on a sinking ship, which is why I never keep anything sensitive on my phone.

3np 5y ago

> If you re going to be paranoid, because you attack children or sell drugs, why the hell do you buy phones in the first place !? While the rest of your comment is accurate, this is disingenuous. There are plenty of valid reasons to have concerns over this besides those drilled by the powers that be. Besides, it's still reasonable to want to reduce your potential attack surface. Sure, federal agencies may root you if they really want but that doesn't mean it's pointless to avoid OS-level preinstalled backdoors from the manufacturer.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

mdp2021 5y ago

> If you re going to be paranoid, because you attack children or sell drugs, why the hell do you buy phones in the first place !? If you are going to joke, kindly mark it, so we do not misunderstand you, and so you do not cause internal damages to those who are not trained to always keep neurovegetative and limbic on guard while reading - you know, that occasional moment in which you trust what you read and the physiological reactions start, before the prefrontal goes "wait a moment, that may be not serious". People have -- a privacy to defend as a principle («privacy to defend», what times!), -- absurdity to keep at bay (interrobangs have a cost - the paragraph above is relevant), -- security to ensure (information which ends up in weakly protected repositories is basically public), -- safety to strengthen (sociopolitical systems can make people pay for any minor trait) and more?

lloydatkinson 5y ago
One of the most absurd things I’ve read recently. Not being able to understand a joke is hardly on joker.
- mdp2021 5y ago
  /If/ it was meant to be a joke. It can easily have not been one: it can easily have been unaware and/or insensitive of the expressed four points and more - many people are (see the diffusion of the "nothing to hide" stance). The content you called "absurd" is pretty literal. The unawareness of the importance of privacy even as a cautionary stance is spread even in the learned, some convinced that we live in a riskless fair world of free thought and expression without consequence - there are people of prominent intellectual profile vocal against online pseudonyms, for example. There are political representatives proponents of the end of online anonymity. So, no, when somebody makes those statements about child abuse and drug trafficking, they may not be joking.
  - lloydatkinson 5y ago
    Did you swallow a dictionary?

bluecatswim 5y ago

What firewall do you use?

meowster 5y ago

> If you re going to be paranoid, because you attack children or sell drugs, why the hell do you buy phones in the first place !? Because innocent people can be persecuted too. Just ask many of the ethnic groups across the globe, or other abuse victims. Privacy protects innocent people from criminals, more than it protects criminals from the good guys.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]