It is google Android but they do not pay for the name so they call it ‘FairphoneOS’.
That’s not how that works, they call it FairphoneOS because they added their own customizations. Default Android is pretty barebones nowadays so nobody uses that. You dont have to pay Google to use the Android name
Using the promoted /e/ results in loss of support (you habe to flash back FairphoneOS). Maybe this has changed as they are sellig phones with preinstalled /e/ by themselves
I have the fp5 and flashed e/os myself. Im very happy with it. You need to flash it back when you want to sent it in (they have the instructions on there own page). Build Quality is nice. Repairs are simple. The price for spareparts is reasonable. And they really try to make a difference here and that is why i support them. Are they perfect? No? But who is? And you need to start from somewhere i think.
They really need to sponsor graphene to get it officially supported on fairphone. Cant recommend fairphone when you are stuck with google tracking everything you do on stock android.
Heads up, the bootloader cannot be unlocked if you buy a pixel through Verizon. You have to buy it straight from Google if you want to install anything custom.
Source: I have a pixel 6 pro from Verizon that I got originally thinking to try out grapheneOS.
And if your bootloader is unlocked, VZ is likely to lock you out of VoLTE/HD Voice/WiFi calling/etc.
I mean, you could go to T-Mobile who don’t currently play these specific games with devices, but then you’re trading coverage for features/freedom.
All carriers, wired and wireless, need to be regulated as DUMB PIPES. Title 2 for everyone. That’s what we’re paying for: Not “the Verizon experience” or “the pride and accomplishment of being an AT&T customer.” Let me buy a phone, and do with it whatever it is technologically capable of doing on your network. The network provider doesn’t need to provide any Android/iOS tech support if they keep it simple and stay out of the customer-fuckery business.
Using Signal with disappearing messages set to a really short time is probably the closest thing you can get. You can use a VOIP number from Cloaked behind a VPN to sign up anonymously.
People that don’t actually know this or just accept it. Look at how many people use ring cameras and you can tell them that Amazon will hand the video footage to law enforcement , and they will say “oh yeah I have nothing to hide” or “Oh yeah but the camera is cheap”
No one is reporting this, ford certainly isn’t putting it in their press material, and no one gets a copy of the manual to review before purchasing a vehicle.
Right but this is not an issue that’s in the public consciousness yet. No one thinks to read the manual or go to the website and check on how their privacy is going to be invaded by a fuckin car.
Also all these things he talks about you can just turn off lol.
Don’t want the car to send data? Turn it off…
Don’t want the speed limiter to be on? Turn it off…
Edit: lol why am I being downvoted? I’m right. Both are in car settings you can just turn off. Connectivity and speed limiter + traffic sign recognition.
Can you point to evidence that you can disable the speed limiter? I couldn’t find anything except in a Mustang forum that said the only way was through a hardware tuner.
I have the GT parked in my garage. The options to turn off the sign recognition and change the cruise control limiter are under vehicle settings in my sync menu.
Have you actually verified whether you can turn this connectivity off? I know on other new cars it’s embedded in the electronics with no on/off button.
Yeah, it’s a setting in the car infotainment system under connectivity.
You have like 4 options. One for each of the data types (so you can turn off cellular data but leave on GPS), and one to turn it all off. When it’s all off there is no data being sent to or from the car at all.
Love how lemmy just downvotes cause they don’t like that answer.
In any scenario the brand of smart TV is irrelevant as thet all impair your privacy. Cost and effort are sadly now a feature, but not too much of a challenge. Never connect your TV to the internet directly. The easiest step is a Chromecast. I recently needed to replace my dumb TV with a smart TV. For me I just bought a TV at a price point that allowed me to also buy a used old PC box plus a wireless keyboard a touchpad. You could alternately use a Raspberry Pi. Either way, you ultimately have control of what is shared or escapes for your privacy.
Nobody will be able to give you a definitive answer. Google's ways are unknowable. You are running the risk of losing your Google account by having a Google account.
I believe no. I’m running Firefox with arkenfox user.js and when I take this test www.bromite.org/detect it shows a new and different fingerprint if everytime i close and reopen the browser. Feel free to try it for yourself.
And while Brave may be private from outsiders, it is far from private from Brave Software themselves and I wouldn’t trust them if I was honest with you. If you want an alternative chromium based browser, check out Vivaldi. They don’t have aaaas many privacy features built in as Brave does but you can still get very private and obviously tack on Ublock origin and a customized DNS block list like you normally would with any other browser. And they are significantly more trustworthy than Brave
Maybe Cromite (the main bromite fork) would be better. Vivaldi isn’t great, but it also isn’t brave. It allows for blocklist importing and user scripts, and is on desktop Windows as well.
If I understood correctly the Sunbird solution is basically setting up an account on a virtual computer and then relaying imessages? That has all kinds of red flags associated if true.
The obsession with blue bubbles is really silly from all sides of it. Ironically I think Apple intended it to allow people to understand when a message was secure or not, I don’t think they thought it would become a social status marker. Don’t get me wrong, they could have put effort in to better integrate once this all started and clearly they’re leveraging the situation to retain customers - I’m one of them, I gave up and went to iOS because 99% of my family is there and I can’t convince them to adopt Signal, etc.
Having said all of that, trying to build third party middleware at the expense of user security just to fake having an iPhone app is equally silly.
I think Apple intended it to allow people to understand when a message was secure or not
I don’t even think it’s security; It meant the messages are free. A large part of the early marketing for iMessage was that it bypasses the sms network entirely and that you could text as much as you want even if you didn’t have unlimited texting on your plan, as long as you were talking in blue bubbles.
Yeah, its just stupid on all angles. Nearly all security benefits of using iMessage over something like SMS go out the window entirely when using middleware like this. The only thing you gain is the color of your bubble and maybe some extra features. Overall its useless. If someone seriously thinks lower of a person or their social status of whatever because of the COLOR OF THEIR MESSAGE… that person has issues and I could care less about what they think of me, some self reflection could be nice.
ooh no problem I despise android auto and glad it doesn’t force my phone to connect every time I start driving the way it did at the beginning, I had to dig into the settings and figure out how to disable it.
I can’t imagine ever needing it. What is it even for? All it ever did for me was instantly answer spam phone calls that I would have rejected, doesn’t let me use my phone until my GPS indicates I’ve reached my destination, and it would automatically answer texts telling them that I’m driving. Like leave me alone big brother ugh!
What are you going to use if you are driving somewhere new and don’t know where you are going though? I used AA for the maps and directions only and I miss it alot.
You don’t want a randomised fingerprint, as that is relatively unique among a sea of fingerprints [1]. What you want is a fingerprint that’s as similar to everyone else (generic) as possible; that’s what Firefox’s resist fingerprinting setting aims to do, and what the Tor browser does.
[1] There are many values you can’t change, so the randomisation of the ones you can change could end up making you more unique … think of it like having your language set to french but are based in the USA — that language setting can’t uniquely identify the French in france, but will stick out like a sore thumb if set in shitsville Idaho. It’s likely the same if you use firefox but have your user agent set to chrome; that’s more rare and unique than not changing the user agent at all.
No, that’s absolutely incorrect. You want a new fake fingerprint every single time someone asks your browser for your information. You want it to lie about your plugins, user agent, your fonts and your screen size. Bonus if you use common values, but not necessary.
The randomized data they’re providing isn’t static and it isn’t the same from session to session.
100% White noise is a far better obfuscation than a 40% non-unique tracking ID. Yes, your data is lumped in with 47 million other users, but used in conjunction with static pieces of your data you become uncomfortably identifiable.
Yeah… I don’t know why a bunch of privacy bros think they know better than the CS and cryptography PhD’s of the Tor project; the most advanced and complex privacy and anonymity preserving project in computing history.
But isn’t randomization supposed to give you a different unique fingerprint each time? So yes, you would be unique and easily tracked but only until your fingerprint changes
That was addressed above, you ever see “identical” twins? They look exactly the same if you see then once, twice, 3 times, but if you see both of them constantly, you’ll start seeing the small difference in them and then be able to identify who’s who. Same exact thing.
I don’t think there is any proven results, but I think the reason the EFF prefers Braves decision is the philosophy that there are so many data points that it could be possible to link you to it using the ones not standardized by anti fingerprinting.
Like ways to incorrectly describe someone. One describes a guy correctly but generically. One describes a guy with a lot of detail but the wrong race and two feet too short.
This can be an effective method for breaking persistence, but it is important to note that a tracker may be able to determine that a randomization tool is being used, which can itself be a fingerprinting characteristic. Careful thought has to go into how randomizing fingerprinting characteristics will or will not be effective in combating trackers.
In practice, the most realistic protection currently available is the Tor Browser, which has put a lot of effort into reducing browser fingerprintability. For day-to-day use, the best options are to run tools like Privacy Badger or Disconnect that will block some (but unfortunately not all) of the domains that try to perform fingerprinting, and/or to use a tool like NoScript( for Firefox), which greatly reduces the amount of data available to fingerprinters.
So the EFF seem to recommend generic over randomisation…
Maybe ask yourself why the Tor project decided against randomisation?
privacy
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.