[-] 0x0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 3 weeks ago

The code is speaking to me, but it's just word salad.

[-] 0x0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 3 months ago

They aren't invading the privacy here.

Yes they are, they're forcing you to disable Private Relay.

They are preventing a malicious actor from running an attack via VPN and ssh tunneling in addition to IP address, device, etc.

This makes no sense. I could walk outside the store and do any of those things on my 5G connection. Private Relay does not enable these attacks and blocking it doesn't prevent them.

At worst they are associating IP with browsing at competing stores.

Wut? They are the ones assigning IP addresses. Not sure what you mean.

At worst, they're using your IP address to join your walmart.com session cookie with complete time series data on your store position, data from store cameras, etc. to build a creepy profile without consent.

Preventing the VPN was likely required by a lawyer and auditor and a risky attack vector for a billion dollar company.

It's not a problem for Starbucks. As long as the public facing network is separate from the internal store network, e.g. with a VLAN, what is the concern?

If Walmart was breaking https and inserting man in the middle games it would be in their policy.

Regardless, it would be shitty behavior.

If they were cracking crypto schemes and were decrypting your traffic, it's entirely possible this violates a "hacking" law in the US.

Other commentators went off into fantasy land edge cases where traffic is being decrypted. And it still doesn't change my expectation of privacy on a public hotspot.

It was a hypothetical to explore the extent of your "their house, their rules" viewpoint.

[-] 0x0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

You're conflating the individual practice of having a pessimistic threat model with a corporation's entitlement to behave badly.

Of course I assume the worst from Walmart or any other public network — I just think they should have some class and provide a public good to their customers without creepy privacy invasion. Somehow they manage to provide free water in fountains without requiring me to scan my driver's license.

If they published a white paper explaining the Differential Privacy properties of their customer analysis tech, I might revise my opinion.

[-] 0x0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Wireguard uses UDP which you definitely can block without breaking HTTPS (just QUIC aka HTTP/3). And its default is port 51820, I believe.

[-] 0x0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 3 months ago

This resume is far from a little silliness. It punched through silliness and came out the other side, making you question wtf the creator is thinking. Are they sabotaging their own job application intentionally? Are they so deep into the pony stuff that they think it's normal?

[-] 0x0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 3 months ago

Did you mean to cite a different paper? I looked it up, but I'm not sure what I was supposed to get from it.

[-] 0x0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 4 months ago

Instead, he's spinning in his office chair

[-] 0x0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 5 months ago

What kinda Jack? We got Nicholson, we got Black, we got White, and even Chan.

[-] 0x0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 5 months ago

It's about accountability

[-] 0x0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 7 months ago

I'm not young enough to know what "cap" and "no cap" mean

[-] 0x0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 8 months ago

I'd be concerned if you could see it

[-] 0x0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 8 months ago

Fax it, scan it, and shred it, and baby you got a stew going

view more: ‹ prev next ›

0x0

joined 1 year ago