Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

It is. Because this data does not need to be transmitted for this to work.


sort by: page size:

That's if there isn't a "bug" where it sends that data anyway.

Also, it's closed source.


Yep - and it's not whether data transmission is necessary for what you want to do; it has to be necessary for what the user wants you to do.

There is no exfiltration of data from the client device. Unfortunately I don't know of a technical way to prove that though.

Yes, but that's an online protocol. The problem here is data at rest...

That data is already sent to the server. This doesn't give the server control over the user's hardware.

It seems to be. It can use up to 500mb/month of data, and is more than just for tracking something with tiny payloads of anonymized data.

But it doesn’t seem to be sharing your internet like a lot of people seem to claim. I guess the fear is that there’s some security vulnerability that makes that more possible?


If (it's not) it were true it wouldn't have to be sent in clear text or even at once though. There's tons of ways they theoretically could send data that wouldn't be obvious from looking at network traffic.

No, some of the data could be sent via the company's back end.

That's assuming it's not encrypted. A lot of the data coming in is transmitted in plain right now, (comms, images, telemetry, ...) because it's just not worth encrypting, or simply could be of interest to other parties. But if anyone wants to put encryption on the data, you're not going to find out much.

That said... it's passing right over me in a few minutes, so I'll be out monitoring the 4xx freqs :)

Edit: in case anyone was wondering - nothing exciting happened. No sign of new signals during a perfect pass: https://i.imgur.com/rMC6gIE.png (at least not at those freqs they used previously)


Maybe they are. But they would still have non-content timing, location and connection data. That is just as useful as message content.

To be clear, the reasoning is sound on this argument. I'm skeptical due to it never having delivered data, though. :(

I want it to be true. I expect that someone should be able to show this with data. I've never seen it done, though.


I'm surprised the data was transmitted "live", instead of being copied down and then re-transmitted.

Transmitting that small amount of data is probably not worth tracking. Or is zero rated.

Depending on how often I use it and the audio formats, it could be. Maybe not for someone with a 300GB/mo cap, but I'm stuck with 15, so every megabyte counts. Either way, my point is that there's no reason for it to use any data at all to control devices on my own local network.

It would be even better if that data was not collected to begin with. Alternatively, that this data would not leave the local hardware. But no.. everything has to be connected.

>It could easily send way more data than any care company at any time including over WIFI.

Except that it isn't, and even Karpathy said the quantity doesn't matter, it's the data quality.


Maybe, but what does it changes about it having no data to share ?

Unless they transmit that data in the clear between their servers.

No, that's just the medium used to transport the information.
next

Legal | privacy