Thankfully we can federate bot posts to make that easier :P
Aka csm10495 on kbin.social
Thankfully we can federate bot posts to make that easier :P
I live in the USA and can confirm never seeing this before.
Though I’d try it tbh
This reminds me of when a coworker wrote a protocol around sending encrypted messages back and forth inside of gchat to control another PC.
The reason was that: our company firewall doesn’t let stuff go in directly, but we have internet.
I thought that was a nutty tos violation.
Each system had a Google account and would login and listen for messages from the controller.
A Google search later: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/privacy-and-control-over-your-recall-experience-d404f672-7647-41e5-886c-a3c59680af15
All local. Nothing sent. You can choose to not believe it, but it’s deceptive to imply they don’t say it’s local.
If you don’t believe them it’s one thing but they said what they said.
Lots of comments in here saying this sends stuff to Microsoft and yet that isn’t true. It’s an offline local feature.
I personally look forward to giving it a try.
Probably bureaucracy. Also an inability to pivot even when things make no sense. Everything is a giant freight train that has very little ability to change direction or stop.
Oh and of course a healthy taste of not being transparent or honest.
Source: I used to work there years ago.
‘in the 10s’
… man I feel old now lol.
That you have multiple fish tanks and a shrimp tank.
It’s exciting, but man there are lots of assumptions in native python built around the gil.
I’ve seen lists, etc. modified by threads assuming the gil locks for them. Testing this e2e for any production deployment can be a bit of a nightmare.
Remember how Google’s Find My Network was supposed to be as good or better than Apple’s. We put a tracker in a checked bag. Couldn’t track it from once we lost sight till when it was 10 feet from me.
It’s a bit odd, but isn’t it equivalent to forking and putting up a fork elsewhere?
I guess I don’t see the problem.
In theory this could be beaten by using a link to a timestamp at 1 second in. If it starts at 0, it’s an ad.
I pay for premium… but also like my sponsorblock… and 3rd party clients. Let me have it all momma Google.
Kind of sounds like a landline
IIUC it wouldn’t be able to be automatically started then, right? I mean I guess you could drag it to startup but it would need the password to start. From a security minded perspective that’s good, but from a user perspective kind of sucks. I already unlocked the computer: as a user id just want it to ‘work’.
There is always a tug of war between best level of security and user experience. I guess the best security is to get rid of the human element though… so eh.
Always forced to foreground makes it even less convenient and kind of odd. I dig the status tray control though. I don’t see this functionality as being useful if you have to remember to turn it on. If I remember what I was doing enough to turn it on, I’d write down what I’d forget. To me it’s about allowing the user to pick their comfort level.
I figure the cryptfs could be a bitlocker volume with a different key than the base C drives key to get similar protection. In theory it could also be based on the C drives bitlocker for a less secure, but still hardware level secured middle ground. Id have to think about it more.
The other stuff mentioned is basically what it does locally in terms of OCR and recognition… just with proprietary local recipes.
Thanks for your thoughts.
GDPR has little to do with this. People use site cookies to remember sessions and not have to login again, etc. I’d guess most browser users use and want to use this functionality. If you’re fully opting out to not even have persistent sessions, I’m guessing you’re in the far minority of users here.
I’m not aware of any non-trivial readily available built-in encryption for cookies. There are easy to find libraries that exist to just pull out cookies (stored locally including session tokens).
To clear up a bit more misinformation from your response: this is an offline feature. The data doesn’t go back to Microsoft. It works even if your computer is disconnected from the internet. If you consider their word to be a lie on this part, that’s you’re right to believe, but until proven, isn’t a fact.
I tend to agree with a lot of what is said here. Though it is (assuming they’re honest) local only to be clear.
If it was an opt in feature with robust configurations including encrypting the db based off your login session and was auto locked up on log off/reboot (until login again): is that good enough, or would folks then say we should assume the account is also compromised?
I’m trying to disambiguate between generalize ai dislike, Microsoft dislike, windows dislike, distrusts, etc. to consider a world where this exists in Windows and people who would use the feature would feel comfortable
In other words, consider an app that did the same thing. What security constraints would be expected?
So if they had a ui with buttons to ‘pause for X length (could be forever)’, buttons to 'forget last X length (once again could be forever), but everything else stayed the same, would it be acceptable?
Like I’m genuinely curious here.
Iirc chrome stores your local cookies/session in a place malware could also attack. Probably the same idea for other browsers.
I’m not sure I fully understand the issue here. If we’re ok with that info being trivially retrievable by a bad actor, why isn’t this ok?
Like I get you may not like it, and it’s a target, but there are already lots of targets that have gotten a pass based on user permissions. Is it just the breadth of potential info? With the cookies you could potentially log into someone’s bank account.
What? I have winco down the block… I’ll check for it next time I’m there.
Edit: confirmed not at our WinCo