Do they make them with LiPos? Everything I’ve ever owned had sealed Lead/Acid batteries. Really hard to cause any damage with those.

Ok now we know why their alignment team quit.

The fingerprinting I’m talking about gets encoded in the screen recording too. Subtle pixel changes here or there over the entire length of the video. It’ll be lossy when it’s transcoded, but over the whole video it’s there enough times it won’t matter. Even scaling to lower quality won’t fix it and then it’ll also be lower quality.

It’ll be like DRM, there will be people trying to remove it like anything else. They’ll break one thing and another will come along. There would still be a black market, but most people can get an unrestricted copy in exchange for money so there’s one less reason to pirate.

Unless you’re actually pointing a camera at the screen, then OK, you do you.

They could offer a way to download a copy and steganographically tag it to hell with your id so that they know if you distribute it. You can “loan it out” by letting friends stream off your Plex or whatever. If you start selling that streaming service or it shows up in torrents, it has your ID on it.

Boom, you own it forever and you’re incentivized not to over share.

Or you know sell DRM free versions and let people do whatever, but that probably has a snowballs chance in hell.

I got curious. It’s at least partially the government regulation thing. They’ve been working on standards that get inforced soon around data privacy and updates to software. So they can roll their own Chinese version of the software with in-country servers, privacy compliance, surveillance compliance, etc. or pay Baidu/Tencent.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/chines-mandatory-standards-vehicle-cybersecurity-icv-data-振强-焦-qupec

This coincides with Kia/Hyundai announcing the same thing. Either they need Baidu tech to compete with BYD in the Chinese market because it’s just that good or locally desirable. Or the countries regulators require it. Given they all announced this at the auto show at the same time, seems too coordinated for competing car companies.

Wow that’s literally the whole article in the headline.

Your ISP is doing it wrong, which I guess you already know. I get a /64 net via DHCPv6 for my LAN which is pretty standard.

+1 to dual stack. Too much of the internet is v4 only, missing AAAA, or various other issues. I’ve also had weird issues where a Google/Nest speaker device would fail 50% of the time and other streaming devices act slow/funky. Now I know that means the V6 net is busted and usually I have to manually release/renew. Happens once every few months, but not in a predictable interval.

Security is different, but not worse IMO. It’s just a firewall and router instead of a NAT being added in. A misconfigured firewall or enabling UPnP is still a bad idea with potentially worse consequences.

Privacy OTOH is worse. It used to be that each device included a hardware MAC as part of a statelessly generated address. They fixed that on most devices. Still, each device in your house may end up with a long lived (at least as long as your WAN lease time) unique IP that is exposed to whatever sites you visit. So instead of a unique IP per household with IPv4 and NAT, it’s per network device. Tracking sites can differentiate multiple devices in the house across sites.

This has me thinking I need to investigate more on how often my device IPv6 (or WAN lease subnet) addresses change.

App updates must specify a target SDK of >= 31 which has been out for 2 years. There are lots of reasons around security and privacy mostly. https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/11926878?hl=en

You can still have a minimum of API 21 (Lollipop from 2014) and ship to those older devices.

To get that warning, they’d have to have a target of <=30 and less than your device. I don’t know what phone you have, but 30 is 3 years old.

The app publisher needs to step up their game.