thanks_shakey_snake @ thanks_shakey_snake @lemmy.ca

Posts

4

Comments

687

Joined

2 yr. ago

Algebra is OP

No, no, they have a point: The original native population DID do a better job... But then Republicans and Democrats.

Small typo: You spelled "ad buyer" wrong.

Yeah, someone should definitely do that. I think this is written from the perspective of a security researcher communicating with others in the security world about a discovery they made, so it's a) dense to read, and b) not thorough as a consumer guide.

Hopefully someone follows up with a resource like you describe.

AFAICT, keeping the TV offline (i.e. not connected to any wifi) and plugging in a laptop/Chromecast/etc. via HDMI would eliminate both sides of the problem. You can still use streaming services on the laptop, but the TV would be unable to phone home.

There's always the yar har option as well, which is also effectively implemented with a laptop.

Amazon is not an ISP though...? In this scenario, Amazon Prime Video is a server that is receiving a series of HTTP requests. User agent spoofing absolutely would work in that scenario.

Or scattered across many menus in this case

Yeah I feel that way sometimes too. They won't even go bankrupt, they'll just have to settle for less line go up.

Table 1 describes the settings that you need to configure on LG and Samsung TVs to stop ACR behavior.

Well, have a nap

THEN FIRE ZE SAMSUNG & LG CEOS!

That looks really cool. It will help me live out my fantasy of having a handful of ants in my pocket that I can deploy at any moment.

Paywall :(

EDIT: Oh you can just open in a private tab to circumvent lol

Poor server-side error handling is a big turnoff for me, unsubbed.

That's super interesting. How do you get started at something like that? Or where would a newcomer start to learn more about it?

Really? I haven't heard anything about that.

From a carrier, but unlocked.

Yeah, that's the main blocker for me, too.

"So just uninstall Facebook."

You literally can't on the last two Samsung phones I've owned.

Probably because it seems to mostly be targeted at Chinese-Canadians on Chinese language platforms that are often hosted in China. Like good luck regulating what happens on Weixin/WeChat.

For stuff like radio and print based in Greater Vancouver, yeah maybe there are some levers to pull, if we could ever decide what exactly is not allowed.

It's hard to tell exactly what to think about this... Like the story doesn't mention anything about uncovering a CCP-sponsored media agency, or radio ads paid for by the CCP or any kind of credible threats against voters who vote "wrong..." It just says "These messages were amplified through repetition in social media, chat groups, posts and in Chinese language online, print and radio media throughout the [Greater Vancouver Area]."

Okay? Amplified by whom? Amplified how? It sounds like just normal run-of-the-mill political propaganda, and it isn't even clear (from the article) that the CCP is even involved.

But then:

"According to Chinese Canadian interview subjects, this invoked a widespread fear amongst electors, described as a fear of retributive measures from Chinese authorities should a CPC government be elected," the report says.

"This included the possibility that travel to and from China could be interfered with by Chinese authorities, as well as measures being taken against family members or business interests in China."

So still, it's kinda like... Well were threats actually made? But that's the thing with authoritarianism-- People don't need an explicit threat. They just need to know that somebody has tools of oppression and an opinion about how you should behave, and they might be paying attention to you.

Like how a mobster can get away with "that's a nice family you've got there." That's not a threat, merely a friendly observation.

So it seems like the conclusion of the article just amounts to "well whatever it was, it doesn't seem to be illegal," which feels a little... Unresolved.