This Week in Privacy | Transcript: Would You Pay $1600 to DeGoogle?

The long-awaited Motorola phone that can

support Graphene OS has been unveiled.

Apple will begin scanning shared photos

from iCloud and a new way of geolocating

online videos.

All this and more coming up in This

Week in Privacy, it's seven to eight,

so stay tuned.

Welcome back to This Week in Privacy,

everyone.

This is our weekly series where we discuss

the latest updates with what we're working

on within the Privacy Guides community and

this week's top stories in the data

privacy and cybersecurity space while we

answer viewer questions.

I'm Jonah,

and with me this week is Jordan.

How are you today, Jordan?

Doing good.

Really excited to jump into some big

stories this week.

Yeah, we should move on to that.

If you have any questions or thoughts or

anything in the chat viewers,

be sure to leave them in the chat

and we will try to address them throughout

the stream.

We try and get to things right away.

But Jordan,

why don't you start us off with our

first story here?

Yeah,

so this is the highlight story for this

episode,

and it's definitely one that a lot of

people in our community have been

discussing quite thoroughly on our forum.

So make sure to leave questions there as

well if you want us to get to

that.

But firstly,

there's a story here from Ars Technica.

Motorola's new Signature XXVII has it all

if you can stomach the sixteen hundred

dollar price tag.

The Signature XXVII is a new take on

flagship smartphones from Motorola,

leaving behind the middling legacy of the

Edge series.

However,

you'll still immediately clock that this

is a Motorola device due to its

distinctive use of materials and Pantone

colors.

The phone is metal ceramic and glass,

and the backs are textured polycarbonate.

The device comes in Coal Smoke Black or

Capulet

olive green colors,

and the former has a tactical weave finish

inspired by automotive design,

and the latter is textile inspired.

The device will include the Snapdragon

Eight Elite Extreme Gen Six,

the most powerful mobile chip Qualcomm

offers right now.

While some smartphones have flirted with

sixteen gigabytes of memory,

that's less common these days,

and the Signature twenty seven will have

twelve gigabytes like Samsung's base model

flagships.

However,

that's not going to be an upgrade option

for more.

You will, however, get a generous, uh,

five hundred and twelve gigabytes of

storage.

The phone is fairly thin in most places,

but it tapers outwards near the camera

module.

It's easy to see why Motorola needed a

little more space up with four image

sensors.

that's not four cameras there's three

standard cameras and effect a fifty

megapixel primary a fifty megapixel ultra

wide and a two hundred megapixel three

times optical zoom one hundred times

digital zoom joining the cameras is an

event based vision sensor or EVS to power

feature called action shot

The phone sports a sizable six point eight

OLED display with one hundred and twenty

hertz refresh rate.

And this is a tandem OLED panel which

uses stacked pixels to increase

brightness.

Motorola claims that the Signature twenty

seven can hit an impressive twelve

thousand nits of peak brightness,

which is four times higher than the iPhone

eighteen

Pro Max,

and the highest of any smartphone.

A possible drawback is that Tandem OLEDs

tend to have a somewhat uneven appearance

at low brightness with solid colors.

We haven't seen the Signature in person

yet to say whether or not that is

the case here.

The battery is a seven thousand milliamp

hour silicon carbon cell,

and it's the largest of any mainstream

smartphone,

a thousand milliamp hours larger than the

Samsung Galaxy S twenty six ultra Motorola

claims that it could last two days on

a charge and it won't take long to

refill with a compatible USB charger,

which isn't included.

The signature twenty seven can reach

speeds up to ninety watts.

Motorola claims up to twelve hours of

usage

in twelve minutes of charging.

The Motorola Signature-XVII will ship with

Android-XVII and Motorola's Hello UI

customizations.

The company promises up to seven years of

OS updates on par with Samsung and Google,

but what if you don't want any of

the other AI stuff?

The Motorola Signature-XVII will offer

an uncharacteristic level of choice.

This is the first Motorola phone covered

under its partnership with Graphene OS.

Motorola does not intend to ship a version

of the Signature at twenty seven with

Graphene OS preloaded,

so it'll be up to buyers to install

it.

Details on the process will come at a

later date,

but it should be similar to Pixel phones.

Unlock the bootloader,

flash the software and enjoy.

Motorola hasn't announced any carrier

partnerships yet.

So you'll have to buy the device directly

from Motorola,

Best Buy or Amazon when it goes on

sale on November, November, November,

November, November, November, November,

November,

November

yeah this is really something i mean the

price tag is very steep here um hi

everyone in the chat jordan i think

they're on to us a bit that uh

this whole thing is pre-recorded um they

found us out but hopefully that doesn't

affect things too much um it's i i

guess yeah it's it's wild um and it

makes me wonder if that sixteen hundred

dollar price point is something that

like is just too high or if it's

kind of going to be the new price

of phones going forward,

because people compare this to like

flagship phones from Apple and Samsung.

And even compared to Apple,

this is a very expensive phone,

which is tough to do historically.

But Motorola probably doesn't have like

the economies of scale that Samsung and

Apple do,

and their contracts may run out soon.

And I wonder if

when Samsung and Apple are kind of up

for renewal on all of that stuff,

if they're not going to be able to

get quite the same deals as they're as

they're used to.

I'm really curious whether people in the

in the chat are interested in getting this

found like said that Motorola phones tend

to drop in price pretty quickly after

launch, which is tends to be true.

I don't know if they drop in price

too much,

but they tend to have a lot of

sales I've seen.

And also certainly Android phones in

general

tend to not hold their value as much

on the resale market.

So I would not be surprised if like

a year or two from now,

you could get this phone for quite a

bit cheaper use,

which I know a lot of people who

use Graphene OS already do with used

pixels.

So it's good to have this hardware out

there, but I think it's pretty tough to...

justify spending this much on a brand new

phone for Motorola right off the bat,

especially because you said that they

promised seven years of OS updates.

But unless they've changed this since

yesterday,

they kind of have a weird wording around

this,

which is they promise up to seven years

of updates,

which is a very strange way to phrase

it,

because up to seven could be literally any

number between zero and seven.

Also, they're only promising

bi-monthly updates, I believe,

so every two months instead of monthly

updates, security patches,

which some people are probably going to

find concerning.

I don't know if GrapheneOS is going to

be able to update more frequently than

that,

if they're going to get those patches from

Motorola right away or how that'll work.

So if anyone has seen GrapheneOS Comet

with that,

I'd be really interested to see.

But

yeah it's the pricing is just it's it's

tough i will say um i don't know

what do you think

I guess the thing that I would say

about this is, like,

let's do an actual comparison to, like,

other devices, right?

So if you wanted, you know,

a similar device that's, like,

got the same display size,

similar storage capacity and stuff,

you'd probably be looking at, like,

an iPhone

which if you select the ATEM Pro Max

and you put it with five hundred and

twelve gigabytes of storage,

which is what this comes with,

the price ends up being

close to, not the exact same price,

but it's fifteen hundred USD,

which is a lot of money, but also,

like, you know, it is,

I think this phone is kind of pretty

extreme in a lot of ways, like,

it has,

the specifications are kind of ridiculous,

um,

and a little bit overkill for basically

anybody, so, like, I would be a little,

you know.

I think it's, um,

I think the iPhone would be thirteen

hundred, would it not be?

The ATEM Pro Max?

Yeah.

With five hundred and twelve gigabytes of

storage?

Well,

the Motorola starts at two fifty six,

doesn't it?

starts at five twelve so oh i thought

it offered two fifty six at five twelve

okay my bad then i believe it starts

at five twelve uh i believe that was

in the notes let me just double check

um yes five hundred and twelve gigabytes

of storage so yeah if you want to

say something but i guess that is is

i don't know whether that's really that

worth it but like you know we're talking

about kind of ridiculous phones that are

like extremely premium right as well

you're getting like the the basically the

best

consumer CPU in any smartphone like a

really good display I think like all this

stuff is kind of pretty unheard of I

know there's one other phone I believe

it's made by

Huawei, I believe.

And it has a similar display with twelve

hundred nits.

But like there aren't many phones that

have tandem OLED.

So especially with that amount of

brightness as well and the battery size as

well.

Just like it's just kind of ridiculous.

Like even if you look at the ATEM

Pro Max,

like the battery on the ATEM Pro Max

is like

not that big.

Um, so it's kind of,

it is kind of a ridiculous,

I feel like this, like the, the iPhone,

pro max has five thousand milliamp hours

and this has seven thousand.

Like it's, it's a little ridiculous,

but like,

Again,

I think it does come down to like

this being basically the most expensive

phone that they sell.

So is it worth spending that much money

on a phone?

Probably not.

But is it like,

is it that ridiculous to ask for that

much?

I would say maybe not.

I don't know.

That's my take at least.

I know you definitely have some thoughts,

right?

Yeah.

yeah sorry i was just trying to fact

check uh because somebody else said it

starts at two fifty six i don't know

if that is a regional variant or what's

going on with that i thought i saw

it yesterday but i don't see it in

the article here and of course on

motorola's website for some reason they

don't just have pricing for some reason

interesting okay i was just reading off

the notes that we had here so maybe

the maybe the ars technica article is

incorrect possibly um but

Maybe they don't have all the details at

this point and maybe there is a version

of it that comes with less storage.

In the US,

there is not a lower version.

It seems like in some...

places it could be lower.

I don't know if this is true.

It's hard to say.

If anyone can find exact storage and

pricing somewhere, let me know.

It seems like there might be variants,

but not in the US.

In the US,

you're stuck with the five hundred twelve

gig model, it appears.

So, yeah,

I guess yesterday I saw the the headline

and I kind of had like a gut

reaction of like,

this is really expensive.

But then I looked up

the prices of things lately because I

haven't bought electronics in a while.

I haven't had to buy RAM in a

while.

And I looked up like,

two hundred fifty six gigs of RAM because

that's what I would buy in a server

a few years ago.

And it's like two thousand dollars now,

which is crazy,

which is absolutely insane.

So, you know,

everything is just nuts at the moment.

But at the same time,

if you think about, like,

which components have gone up in price

RAM for sure,

but but the signature twenty seven does

not have spectacular RAM.

It just has twelve gigs and storage has

to some extent,

but not quite as much as RAM.

Everything else is like

It's cool.

It's certainly a flagship phone,

and people who want all of these specs

are going to be happy with this phone,

I would imagine.

I have to wonder what the overlap is

between Graphene OS users,

a lot of whom I see buying the

Pixel A series because they don't need a

lot out of their phone,

and they want it to be as secure

as possible,

and then the overlap with flagship phone

users.

I think a lot of Graphene OS users

probably weren't

going to buy the iPhone.

So it is quite a big jump and

a big price to pay, I think,

to de-Google if you just want to get

away from Pixel hardware.

But I do think it'll make sense for

a lot of people a few years from

now, because like I said,

a lot of people buy those used devices

and it's good to have more options.

And I would also hope to see

Graphene OS support come to other phones

in Motorola's lineup.

It doesn't seem to need like any special

hardware additions other than processor

support.

So somebody asked in the chat here if

I could find it.

Yeah,

they got overhaul asked how its security

ship compares to the Titan M two and

the Motorola Signature twenty seven

doesn't have a dedicated security chip

like the Titan M two.

It's based on

the secure the secure element in the

Qualcomm SOC that that Motorola is using.

And so since it is kind of built

into that chip,

I think it's only built into this latest

model,

which is why previous phones

couldn't be supported by Graphene OS,

but that stuff tends to make its way

into the rest of the lineup over time.

And so we could certainly see the security

features in the ship brought to cheaper

SOCs from Qualcomm and that they can make

it into cheaper Motorola phones.

And if Motorola is going to continue to

work with Graphene OS,

we could see more device support in the

future.

So I think that that would be cool.

That's probably going to be the best

outcome of this whole thing.

But

Yeah,

I think it's a pretty tough buy because

I don't think there's a lot of significant

downsides to buying Pixel devices at the

moment,

especially if you're going to be buying an

A-series or off the used market.

The price savings of just buying an

A-series,

even if you buy it directly from Google,

I mean, it's crazy.

And it makes a lot more sense,

I think,

to do that now and wait for other

Motorola options in the future if an

A-series Pixel is going to work for you.

But if you wanted to buy, like,

the pixel eleven on launch date,

and then you found out that it doesn't

support MTE in all these features,

but you want a flagship phone.

I think it's a cool it's a cool

option,

but it makes me it makes me sad

how expensive things are getting.

It's it's just crazy to me.

Yeah,

it is definitely kind of unfortunate that

it's the Snapdragon Eight Elite Extreme

Gen Six that has the specific hardware

that they need because, you know,

that's only going to be in like the

most expensive phone, right?

Which happens to be sixteen hundred

dollars at this point, which is...

Like you said,

kind of a little ridiculous.

I think there's one comment here we got

from Dag Overhaul.

I wonder how well it resists Celebrite.

That's another thing that we don't really

know is we don't really know,

especially with pixel hardware,

we kind of know that it has become

kind of like the gold standard.

Like we haven't seen issues with security

with Google's like SOCs.

Like we haven't seen...

major security issues with that yet.

But with Qualcomm, you know,

they're kind of new to this,

at least with the secure enclave and some

of the extra security features that

they've added with the latest generation

of chips.

So it'll be interesting to see.

And it isn't something that we know for

certain that it will be as resistant to

these sort of attacks as Google's ones,

because we just don't really know at this

point.

But...

I guess, to throw it back to you,

are you going to get this?

Yeah, I'm certainly not going to get it,

personally.

I would wonder who in the chat is

going to get it.

But I would say,

I don't think it makes a lot of

sense to recommend right now.

Because exactly like what you said,

it's the first generation product from

Motorola that's going to support all of

this.

And you simply,

we're not going to know any of these

things for a while.

Whereas the Titan M.II and all of these

Pixels has been

in the pixels for quite some time and

we kind of know all the security

properties of it and the pixels haven't

really changed in a very long time like

they're probably pretty much the same

between the eight nine ten um so it's

kind of a stable platform um and i

think for people who just want a phone

that like works and they know it works

and they know it's secure i think it

makes a lot more sense at the moment

but

yeah like i said i think it'll be

cool in the future and if anyone is

gonna test it out graphene os on this

motorola pixel i mean motorola pixel on

this motorola phone um i think that would

be uh that'd be awesome

I did want to we did get some

comments on our forum thread about this,

which we're going to try and get through

all of those.

But there was one specific comment that we

got from someone who was mentioning

basically how GrapheneOS made basically

the decision to make empty support part of

their minimum requirements,

which kind of makes sense because Apple

has also done the same thing basically at

this point.

Right.

They have the same hardware support.

Basically,

they mentioned that a condition for the

hardware partnership between Motorola and

Graphene OS was basically getting Motorola

to convince Qualcomm to actually bring

memory tagging enforcement to their

processors, right?

There's interesting stuff because they

said that apparently the Elite Gen V had

issues with memory tagging enforcement,

and that's why it was delayed to the

Gen VI Extreme.

So it will be interesting to see if

the implementation in the Gen VI Extreme

is...

good enough.

I assume that GrapheneOS probably have

tested the devices already and know that's

the case.

But again,

there hasn't really been that much

communication from the GrapheneOS

developers about whether this is something

they've had access to before or like,

you know,

any additional confirmation about things.

So it will be interesting to see that

as well.

But they also mentioned one important

thing was if they can convince Motorola to

add MT support

in other processes, not just the extreme.

That means that it's possible that the

Razer flip phones, the Motorola Edge+,

which is their more like mid-range series

of phones,

and the Razer foldable and their Moto G

also could support Graphene OS at some

point if they can convince Qualcomm to add

MTE support,

which would be good because the Moto G

is usually the more budget one for people.

So...

It would be better if there was something

cheaper than a pixel that was available in

more countries because Google pixels

aren't available in every country.

They're only available in specific places

and it becomes kind of a pain if

it's not sold in the country where you

live.

So that's another thing that Motorola can

kind of get around because they do have

that extra, they have just,

they're just in every market.

Um, and they have a larger, uh,

like user base and then Google pixels.

Yeah.

And.

I think to be fair,

this is something that we knew was going

to happen.

It was going to come to the flagship

first,

and that's typically true for for a lot

of things.

It's going to come to the flagship and

then make its way down to things.

So I think people who are complaining like

that,

it's crazy and that they're really

disappointed in this and really wish that

there was a more affordable option,

I think.

Well,

I think those more affordable options are

certainly going to be coming.

But

Yeah,

it's really tough because you mentioned

like having an option cheaper than the

Pixel.

I think that is a complaint that I

see from a lot of people.

It's like even the Pixels right now,

even the A series,

I think some people consider to be like

too expensive of a phone.

And that's the main complaint with the

Pixel that they have.

It's usually like if I see people

explaining why they don't have a Pixel,

it's either because they don't.

trust Google,

even with Graphene OS for whatever reason,

or that it's too expensive or that it's

not available in their country.

And I think that Motorola probably isn't

really solving a lot of those problems

right now.

But I'm pretty hopeful that a lot of

this will make it to the rest of

their lineup.

So yeah, check back a year from now,

I think, for a lot of people.

That'll be the better move.

Definitely.

I really hope we see clarification on that

up to seven years of updates, too,

because, you know,

if we don't see seven years of updates,

I think that that'll be pretty bad for

everyone who's buying this phone,

especially for security reasons.

And maybe that's something we won't truly

know until seven years from now.

But hopefully,

hopefully they can they can clarify that

or commit to something.

It seems like Motorola is pretty

noncommittal about about all of their

promises around this phone at the moment,

which is unfortunate.

Yeah, definitely.

I guess we'll see.

Someone said,

I'll wait until someone gets arrested with

one and see what happens.

It is like kind of one of those

things, right?

Like we see real world scenarios where

like we have this issue in Toronto.

I'm working on a video about Graphene OS

right now.

And there was something that happened in

Toronto.

I'm not going to mention what,

but the person had a...

had a graphene OS device and the police

couldn't get into it.

And it was like a whole issue because

they couldn't crack it.

Right.

And that's like a real world scenario

where, you know,

law enforcement are having issues getting

into something that kind of means that,

you know,

if someone was to steal your phone,

they definitely would not be able to gain

access to it, at least at that time.

So, yeah, we don't really know

Again, it's kind of scant on details,

and we also don't really know what the

security is going to look like in that

aspect, too.

So, yeah.

Sixteen hundred dollars.

Crazy stuff.

But you know what?

Some people in the chat are saying they're

going to get it, so good for you.

I think let's take a look at our

next story here.

But yeah,

if anyone has more questions about the fun

stuff, definitely leave them in the chat.

This one comes from The Verge.

Their headline is The New York Times sues

brave web browser for AI scraping and

bypassing paywalls.

According to a complaint filed by the New

York Daily News, the Chicago Tribune,

and the Orlando Sentinel,

Brave's software has monetized its index

of scraped websites by, in part,

providing AI companies with paid access

to, quote,

real-time online content from the Brave

index.

The AI companies then use that index to

train their models,

access content to respond to specific user

queries, or both.

Brave has allegedly provided stolen

copyrighted content to many AI companies,

including Anthropic, Perplexity, Mistral,

XAI, and Cohere.

They also say Brave also promotes hundreds

of top publishers as being accessible

through its paywall blocker feature in the

browser.

The complaint says, quote,

Brave has never asked for the publisher's

permission to access their websites,

much less to copy the material and provide

it to users or other AI companies.

On the contrary, as noted above,

Brave allows its users to bypass the

publishers' paywalls without their consent

and has taken other steps that prevent the

publishers from blocking Brave's access to

the publishers' websites.

Brave has never compensated the publishers

for the unlawful use, copying,

and distribution of the publishers'

copyrighted content.

AI giants are now desperate to...

AI giants are now desperate to avoid

getting caught red-handed stealing news

from publishers,

so Brave Software is selling them behind a

backdoor to the journalism they know they

have no right to, says Steven Lieberman,

the attorney who filed the lawsuit on

behalf of the three other publications.

Buying stolen goods secondhand doesn't

make them legitimate.

Brave must be held responsible for

laundering pirated reporting to the AI

industry."

Brave, Anthropic Mistral, SpaceX AI,

and Cohere did not reply to a request

for comment on this Verge article.

So, all of that out of the way.

Interesting stuff.

A lot of stuff with Brave.

What do you think about paywalling

journalism in general and this whole

situation, Jordan?

I think people have to get paid, right?

Journalism is one of those things where

it's like,

I feel like we're in a bit of

a weird situation right now where

journalism is something that people need

to be paid for,

but then there's like no revenue stream

because the internet is basically

fundamentally shifted from paying for

things to just giving your data and like

looking at ads to,

that's basically how the whole internet

functions at this point.

Right.

So like,

I feel like the journalism is kind of

becoming like,

it's a bit stuck where it's like, wait,

people don't want to pay for this anymore.

People just want this for free and they

just want to see ads.

And that just doesn't really pay for,

all that well in that case.

So I feel like this is one of

these issues where should there be

paywalls?

I mean, yeah, but also...

How would people get access to the news

if everything was paywalled?

So I'm not really sure.

It is kind of a tricky situation.

I think Brave being a little on the

nose, though,

and promoting that they have hundreds of

publishers being accessible through its

paywall blocking feature is a little much.

I probably wouldn't have done that,

but that could be something that they

could get in trouble for.

But, you know,

having a having a paywall blocking list is

one of these things.

I don't know if someone if anyone here

has tried to find the paywall blocking

filter list, but it constantly gets DMCA.

It constantly gets legal threats and all

sorts of stuff.

So it was originally on GitHub.

It got taken down.

It was on Git.

It was on Codeburg, I think,

at some point, and it got taken down,

and now it's on some separate Forjo

instance because publishers were not happy

about it because it was allowing people to

access their articles without paying,

which I guess if the law was to

say,

is that stealing by bypassing the paywall,

by modifying what your computer is seeing,

like what data is being shown on your

computer, then...

I'm not really sure.

That could be a gateway to something much

worse, possibly.

I did...

fact check this claim, though,

that Brave is supposedly claiming access

to hundreds of top publishers in their

site.

And I can't find any brave marketing

materials saying this.

And I've never seen Brave advertise this

paywall feature at all.

I think it's because it's a third party

list in there and their ad blocker like

it's available for you block origin as

well.

It's not even like if I'm looking at

my brave settings,

Right now, it's not even like a switch.

If you click the Brave Shields icon,

you can't like turn on paywall blocking or

like you can like you can block trackers

or ads or you can block scripts.

That's not like a that's not like a

thing.

And it's just one of like many third

party lists that Brave supports in their

browser.

And maybe this will lead to Brave like

removing that from the from the list of

like default community

lists that they include.

But I don't think that Brave is really

positioning Brave Browser in the way that

the New York Times is claiming.

I think there's also certainly an argument

that there are many things that the New

York Times could do to prevent people from

accessing this content without an account,

without

without requiring these client side checks

that can be blocked by the browser in

the first place.

This is an argument that I think has

been going on for a long time,

especially with DRM content.

where it's like,

if the New York Times is,

if you're going to their site that they've

made publicly available,

and they're delivering you the entire

article,

but then they're also labeling it,

you can't do this.

You have that data in your possession at

that point.

They've already delivered it to you.

And typically...

in like the real world how that works

is you can do whatever you want with

it like if you buy a book from

the store or If I mean even if

you get a book for free,

let's say let's say the author gives you

this book But says don't open it like

you you have the book in your possession

It's not illegal to do whatever whatever

you want with it if you if you

like own this this copy of it and

so the New York Times is essentially

like granting people access to all of this

data.

And then they're relying on on these

client side checks to implement this

paywall when instead they could just have

a server side check that says, like,

is this person logged in?

No,

then we're not going to send this data.

And Brave couldn't do anything about that.

I've seen comments on this article,

this reporting on Ars Technica reported on

the same thing in comments.

It's kind of victim blaming to say like,

oh,

the New York Times wouldn't have known in

advance that they need to add all of

these protections.

But this argument about whether ad

blockers can block ads at all,

because it's the exact same thing, right?

websites are delivering all this content

to your site and then you're choosing to

kind of block different elements on it,

that's a right that you have as a

browser.

And they shouldn't make that content

available to you if they don't want it

to be modified like client side.

And it's an argument that we've seen a

lot.

And I think that the New York Times

and the technical people behind it would

certainly be aware that this is possible

for quite a while.

It's not like a secret

thing that ad blockers work on the

Internet.

And so I don't know if this is

a very reasonable lawsuit, to be honest.

It doesn't it doesn't make a lot of

sense to me.

And I don't know what Braves response is

really going to be about it.

But The New York Times is involved in

other lawsuits

I think they were one of the first

news organizations.

They might have been the first news

organization to sue AI companies like

OpenAI over scraping all of their content

and using it for AI training in the

first place.

It's tough,

but I read this and I think the

lawsuit misrepresents Brave's role in all

of this.

I don't know if

you know,

all of this is true about brave,

like passing on all of this data to

AI companies.

And, um, maybe that is,

maybe that'll come out in the,

in the lawsuit.

I don't know how that works,

but I don't think that any of brave's

technologies from having used brave work

the way that the New York times and

these other publishers are describing.

Um,

They might have used to.

I remember when Brave came out many years

ago,

they used to replace ads on people's

websites with Brave ads,

and that's how they made money.

But Brave has not done that in years

because of a complaint like this,

where they were like,

you shouldn't be just substituting your

ads for their own.

So now Brave ads,

they're on the new tab page.

They show up as notifications on your

computer, but they're not...

like just banner ads on the websites

you're visiting and stuff like that.

And, you know,

that's that's completely separate from

like serving web content now.

As far as I know,

they're not doing yeah,

any any really any of this stuff being

claimed in this in this lawsuit besides

bypassing the paywall with this paywall

bypass filter list for the ad blocker,

but that's available for any ad blocker

because it's a community list that's used

for like uBlock Origin.

And it's a known risk, I think,

for web publishers to be doing this.

So I think that it just makes a

lot more sense for the New York Times

to be implementing a stronger paywall if

they want to make sure that their articles

are paywalled, basically.

Yeah, it's a pretty tough sell to me.

I'm probably not on their side.

I would side with Brave on this one,

but... Yeah,

it's exactly like Rocco's Life just said

in the chat.

If the argument that it's either criminal

or a civil tort to modify packets

transmitted to you or the rendering of web

traffic also served to you by them using

local methods... Yeah,

that's exactly the problem.

And it's like... It's kind of a battle...

that we lost when Mozilla decided to give

up on that battle and implement DRM,

unfortunately, in twenty fourteen.

And so maybe we'll end up seeing DRM

for normal websites and the New York Times

will use that and it'll be terrible.

But there's really nobody standing up to

to Google or the New York Times or

anybody to prevent that from happening,

because I'm sure Mozilla will be like,

well,

people want to read the New York Times,

so we have to add it to our

browser.

We have no choice because that seems to

be their position on everything.

I'm notably not a fan of Mozilla in

general.

And I think that it's certainly possible,

but that would be a very unfortunate world

to live in.

But it's not the world we live in

now.

And I don't think that legally this makes

any sense.

I mean,

if Brave is really using all of the

browsers to scrape websites that people

visit,

even if they're logged into those websites

and then provide that data to AI

companies,

that might be a different story.

But as far as I know,

that's not what's going on with Brave at

all.

Yeah, exactly.

And I think, you know,

if worse comes to worse,

Brave removes the paywall filter because,

you know,

they're getting slapped with a lawsuit.

But it seems like currently it's still

integrated into the browser.

And yeah, like you said,

I also tried looking at that right now,

like to see if, oh,

does Brave actually brag about this

anywhere on their website?

Or do they actually say that this is

something that Brave can do?

No, no.

no it doesn't it's not mentioned anywhere

maybe you could assume maybe like brave

news might be something that that they

could be saying is like uh saying that

it's you know accessing news websites

without looking at a paywall but they

specifically mention like literally in

quotes here uh

You know,

it's paywall blocker feature is the

feature that they're bragging about.

And as far as I'm aware, yeah,

like you said,

you literally can't find that anywhere on

their website.

They don't mention it.

It also could be that they've removed

mentions of it as well.

But I'm not sure if that is also

the case because of the lawsuit.

But again,

I think there was kind of a funny

quote from it was kind of a funny

quote from perplexity who did respond.

The New York Times is overpaying its

attorneys and underpaying its journalists

who could have easily identified the

disinformation in this lawsuit.

I can't believe I'm like saying that

perplexity were actually kind of a little

right on this, but a little bit.

It does seem like this is not particularly

based in reality, at least.

in my opinion, of course.

But yeah, no,

it's definitely an interesting story to

see.

And I think it is, you know,

if hopefully this does get like struck

down and it doesn't become like a

a precedent because people being able to

control what parts of content displays on

their own computer is kind of a

fundamental right.

And it would really suck to see websites

move towards DRM.

I think that would be the worst possible

direction for anything to go in.

So hopefully that does not happen.

But it is certainly possible,

especially considering everything now is

becoming...

like we talked about it last week,

but Reddit is kind of moving towards this.

Lots of social media websites are like

moving towards locking content behind

stopping to try and stop AI scraping to

stop like, you know,

content that they own being slurped up by

AI companies.

So I think it's basically always going to

be like a sort of back and forth

between the AI companies and

and the uh and the publishers so this

is interesting to see how it goes yeah

the ai stuff is just crazy i mean

it's not profitable for anybody involved i

i heard recently that like google is

losing an insane amount of money because

of these ai summaries because not only are

they paying for ai summaries to show up

and be generated for every single search

but also people aren't clicking

the ads they serve, the sponsored links,

literally the main way Google makes money

because they have these AI summaries that

don't don't make them don't cost any money

for people to use and don't make Google

any money at all.

So, you know,

I think everybody involved in the whole AI

sphere from search providers like Google

to these AI companies to publishers who

make the content that this AI is using,

nobody is making money.

So it really doesn't make any sense for

anybody.

It's a strange direction that we've gone

in.

Taking a look at the New York Times

complaint here,

it seems that they're referring to the

Brave News page.

Brave News is basically an RSS reader that

says you can get private personalized news

from hundreds of sources right in your

browser.

I think it's kind of grasping at straws.

a little bit on the New York Times

as far as I mean,

more than a little bit, to be honest,

that like a browser advertising that you

can access the New York Times website

alongside a bunch of other websites is is

evidence that they are pirating this

content.

Brave News is basically an RSS reader like

any other RSS reader or just a web

browser that lets you follow all of these

stories from the New York Times,

basically.

And they don't advertise like paywall

blocking or anything like that on this

side.

They're just advertising the fact that you

can read the news in Brave as you

can in any other browser.

I think the New York Times should be

happy about that.

Yeah,

I was just going to say Microsoft's yellow

clip, they should say thank you.

I mean, this is something that like

The New York Times is putting this out

there and they want to drive traffic to

it.

And Brave is probably driving traffic to

the New York Times.

And I would imagine people like brave

users aren't all using this paywall

blocking feature,

especially since it's off by default.

To be honest with you,

I didn't personally know that it could do

that.

So it's kind of news news to me

that all that was in there.

I guess I don't look at my brave

filter with settings enough,

but

Yeah, it's totally, I think, all of these,

the New York Times seems to be just

connecting a lot of unrelated things that

Brave does in trying to paint this picture

of piracy that I think doesn't really

exist.

Vincent Knightley says Reddit lost about

fifty percent of its share price in the

last month.

I mean, I would believe it.

I don't understand how anybody is making

money anymore.

It makes no sense to me.

I guess on that topic,

I guess we can move on to this

forum discussion.

We did have this forum post about Reddit

becoming increasingly inaccessible.

So what are some other forums we like

to check out?

I guess I'll also just, yeah,

there was some people that suggested

stuff,

but I guess I'll throw it back to

you, Jonah,

because I feel like you might have more

experience with this.

That's a great question.

I like to browse the Privacy Guides forum

to stay up to date with privacy and

cybersecurity.

Oh, really?

Yeah,

go to discuss.privacyguides.net if you

have never checked out this website

before, folks.

It's great.

I mostly read discussions and news on

Mastodon nowadays more than anything else

because most of these sites are

inaccessible.

Yeah,

it's a bad situation that we're in right

now with websites in general.

Everyone is just trying to lock everything

down and consolidate everything as much as

they can because everyone... I mean,

AI is clearly replacing a lot of websites

in apps for a lot of people,

unfortunately.

And so the apps that are around...

like they're they're trying to this is the

only way they can kind of protect

themselves against this i mean even like

as google destroys its own search engine

website i think that in google's mind

they're probably fine because they will

they have they have youtube i think

youtube is going to be like the main

place a lot of people get information out

because it's i mean even that's filling up

with ai slop right but it's you know

it's more

It's more of a source of being able

to find real people's opinions.

You can actually find them on YouTube,

whereas there aren't a lot of open web

spaces where you can just find the

thoughts of real people anymore and get

people's opinions on things, like Reddit,

for example.

All of these sites are just going

downhill.

quite a bit.

So yeah, specific forums,

I think there's probably going to be like,

niche forums,

like we have the privacy guides forum,

for example,

where we can talk about digital privacy,

cybersecurity,

but that's like a very specific topic.

But there's probably other communities

like that for other for other topics.

But what those are,

I don't know off the top of my

head really depends on what you're

interested in finding.

Yeah, no,

there was definitely some good suggestions

that people were posting,

but I find personally, yeah,

I'm pretty similar.

I'm just checking Mastodon, like,

the Explore page or just, like,

people that I follow.

Oh,

we just got a donation from Microsoft's

Yellow Clip.

Thank you so much for the ten dollar

donation.

Thank you.

Panisha is the decentralized web bring

back forums.

Yeah.

So true.

And this is why I'm, like,

a fan of Mastodon as well.

Like, you know,

it's a social media platform that can

never...

It can never be taken down or it

can never go badly.

I mean,

it could go badly for a lot of

people on it if like Mastodon.social

decides to do something crazy.

But there's like a whole network of other

sites and like Mastodon can't force all of

these server owners to implement things

that they disagree with because people can

stop updating or they can fork it or

they can run whatever they want on their

servers, basically.

And so there's definitely security in

decentralization if your goal is to

kind of maintain things and keep things

the same and however you want it to

be.

And so decentralized forums,

like we talked about,

or decentralized platforms like master,

I think,

are a very good defense against all of

the stuff going on on these mainstream

apps and websites.

But it's always tougher because it's

always a bit more of a

niche tool, people, people,

people like to have everything in one

place, right?

And so, you know, losing losing Reddit,

it's hard to replace that for a lot

of people.

yeah it's a little frustrating whenever

people are moving to you know they'll be

like oh there's reddit and now there's

this other reddit alternative it's also

centralized and it's just like this is

just going to have the same problem every

time can we please use something that's

like you know has some sort of security

like you said um the fediverse is

definitely a good one um some people also

suggested like lemmy as well which uh is

part of the fediverse as well so you

know

There's like all sorts of different

alternatives to that as well.

Some people suggested like Hacker News,

which is again, it's the same problem,

right?

It's run by Y Combinator, which is,

you know,

there's issues with them as well.

It's a huge AI, huge AI VC.

Yeah.

Yeah,

very much AI coded tech bro sort of

place.

And again, it's a centralized community,

which they get control over what people

say.

They can remove comments,

all sorts of stuff like that.

Tilda's not particularly familiar with

that one,

but that's one that was suggested multiple

times.

I know we have some people on the

Privacy Guides team, like Freddie,

who used that quite a bit more.

I've never really used it either,

to be honest,

but it could be a good option.

But it is centralized, yeah,

like you were saying.

It does look interesting.

Some people also suggested RSS, which is,

yeah,

that's the main way that I keep up

with stuff.

You can just subscribe to a bunch of

news websites and also stuff on Lemmy,

stuff on Mastodon,

you can do that through RSS as well.

you know,

all sorts of news stuff has RSS feeds.

At least currently,

everything has RSS feeds.

I hope that doesn't change and people

start, you know,

removing that from their websites because

that would be a real problem.

That would actually be a problem.

So...

Microsoft's yellow clips that Hacker News

mentioned.

I would say, honestly...

If I'm looking at tech stuff like what

I was previously using Reddit for,

it's common to just append Reddit to your

searches and then find a bunch of people

talking about stuff.

And Hacker News tends to have more of

that nowadays in my searches.

But the Hacker News community is...

It's really something that I would take

everything on Hacker News with a grain of

salt.

And it's a lot of like discussions on

Hacker News, like about a topic.

But there's not a lot of like guides

or how to things from from what I've

seen, which Reddit was pretty good about.

Like you could find in the comments on

a lot of Reddit threads,

like how to how to do something or

how to like fix a problem or like

people would chime in with stuff.

Whereas Hacker News is more of like a

comment section on

on just different news sites and blogs,

like it said,

which which Reddit a lot of like content

on Reddit is original to to Reddit.

And I haven't seen a lot of like

sites replicate that as much as just being

like a news aggregator,

like what Reddit originally was.

I think Reddit has evolved into more of

a social media platform,

and that's probably what people are

looking for,

which is why Hacker News and Tilda's and

even Lemmy, I think to some extent,

aren't really the replacement that people

are looking for.

um but but also yeah it's it hasn't

been super useful uh honestly besides like

social media like mastodon i'm i'm mostly

just reading like news articles about

things and not reading a lot of comments

and getting people's opinions anymore

unfortunately that's fair um

There was a question here.

Question for me is how to prevent the

services from becoming inaccessible.

I'm thinking mostly about activism.

It's a big question.

And I'm not saying a single community can

have such impact on big platforms like

Reddit, but at least think about it.

I mean, like Jonah said,

like with the Fedibus,

like if you're running your own server,

like there's not really much that someone

can do.

Like they, you know,

we've seen like organizations get taken

down.

Like I think we saw Autostecy got taken

down by the US government,

but that needed like the entire force of

the US government to get it taken down.

So I don't,

I would hope that that's not the scale

of threat that you're looking at.

But again, like,

there's there's reasonable protection if

you're running it yourself right and

you're doing it in a jurisdiction where

they don't have silly walls where they can

get stuff removed for no reason so yeah

or not even like only running it yourself

but um finding something that like

somebody else runs in like a smaller group

if you have like a trusted i think

a lot of like smaller decentralized groups

of like people

helping each other out and hosting things

for their own local communities or their

own communities online,

like smaller communities.

Just specific to that group,

I think would be ideal.

And that's probably the direction that I

think a lot of people in the tech

space are going to go in if they're

not going in the AI

centralize everything on AI direction,

it's going to be either that or this

decentralized self-hosting federated

stuff.

I think that those are the two logical

outcomes for a lot of people.

And I think that if you want to

maintain that community,

I think that decentralized stuff makes a

lot of sense.

But it is more work, which is annoying.

But yeah,

it takes work to keep good things,

I guess.

I guess with that being said,

I guess we can move into the site

updates here.

What are we looking at this week?

Yeah.

Let's take a look at some of the

stuff we're working on here.

I know I was working on the last

up just today and other people have been

site activities kind of picking up.

So that's a good thing.

Before I talk about all of this,

I'll just remind everyone,

if you do have any questions about stuff

we just talked about or stuff we didn't

talk about,

but you want us to talk about,

you can leave them in the chat now

or any comments you want and we'll get

to them

in just a moment.

We've released a new version of the site

recently,

which contained a lot of changes that were

overdue.

So we have the change log on our

website.

You can check it out.

Some highlights,

including we removed language tool if

you're using that as a grammar checker,

basically.

There were some issues with that you can

read.

read the issue on that.

Otherwise, a lot of different changes.

One of the biggest ones I think that

we made is we removed Mali as a

signal client alternative,

at least as a recommendation.

I know Mali has not been updated in

quite some time.

People are very concerned about that.

And

Signal is continually updating and making

future improvements and security

improvements,

and I think it's over three months of

no updates or something like that,

which is kind of unacceptable at this

point for a Signal client.

I think even the official Signal client

would not allow clients this old to

connect to the network at all.

They force expire it and tell you to

go update.

So it's a big concern,

and it doesn't make a lot of sense

to continue using it, I think.

We also opened up new language translation

options.

If you want to help translate the site,

we would appreciate it.

Daniel Gray kind of coordinates a lot of

that,

but you can ask about it on our

forum or you can get more information

about it on our website,

but that would be awesome.

As usual,

we've been continuing to publish news

updates on privacyguys.org slash news.

So Frio publishes these.

Nate, of course,

publishes the Data Breach Roundup every

week.

So one just came out today with all

of the data breaches of the week.

Of course, there are many a week,

and we kind of published that just to

point out how...

many there are and how prevalent this is

because people you don't hear a lot about

a lot of the smaller ones unless they

affect like millions of people.

And that's just because like the volume of

these data breaches is so high because

these companies are not taking security

seriously.

that we're just calling attention to that

a bit so you can check that out

you can get subscribed to that if you

want to stay informed um especially if any

of them might apply to you uh we

publish that every friday and of course if

you are concerned about that you can

protect yourself with

password manager and other security tools

we recommend on our site.

But Free has also published articles

about, for example,

European supermarkets facing another wave

of refrigerator cyber attacks,

which is crazy.

I don't know why people are connecting

their fridges to the Internet.

Trezor receiving a report about an implant

in one of their wallets,

which is interesting.

Apple introducing selfie age verification.

Reddit announcing the migration to a

logged in experience like we just talked

about.

SystemD adding support for Rust and all

sorts of other stuff.

We can't talk about every single story we

see here on the podcast every week,

but we

publish a lot of interesting articles at

privacyguides.org slash news.

In addition to just the news being shared

in the news category on our forum,

I think that it's all a great place

to stay informed and all of our news

articles do get published to that category

on the forum as well.

So you can go follow that if you

want to stay up to date with all

sorts of news that we don't cover here

every week.

Um, yeah,

I think that kind of sums it up.

I'm working on some stuff on the site,

other people that we hope to see some

more PRS merge soon.

So maybe we'll have more to talk about

next week.

But that's kind of it.

Jordan,

why don't you tell us about the video

side of things?

Yeah, definitely.

So I guess some exciting stuff.

We still have that Obscura video,

which we're waiting on a couple of final

checks to make sure that before that goes

live.

So that will be available at some point.

Just need to do some more checks for

that.

There's also, like we mentioned,

there's a Graphene OS video in the

pipeline,

which is

I'd say it's about halfway done at this

point.

So that's looking good.

Hopefully we'll have that out next week

for everybody.

And again,

there's an Octanium tutorial that we've

worked on,

which is looking to be quite a bigger

project.

So that will also be something that's

starting next week.

And yeah, look forward to that.

It definitely looks really good from the

script that I've read and the footage I've

looked at.

So be ready for those things.

But apart from that,

we've kind of just been...

working on stuff in the background,

working on the graphene video and getting

that ready.

So all of this is made possible by

our supporters and you can sign up for

a membership or donate at

privacyguides.org or pick up some swag at

shop.privacyguides.org.

Privacy Guides is a nonprofit which

researches and shares privacy related

information and facilitates a community on

our forum and matrix where people can ask

questions and get advice about staying

private online,

and preserving their digital rights.

Now let's talk about this story about

iPhones and lockdown mode.

And just remember to leave your questions

in the chat and we'll get to them

in between stories.

Absolutely.

Let me pull that up here.

And speaking of supporting us,

thanks again to Microsoft CLO Clip for

sending that super chat earlier.

Very appreciated.

Let me see if I can share my

tab here.

This was reported by MacRumors.

An iPhone jailbreak gets past lockdown

mode and survives an update.

So this is from Calif,

who we've talked about in a previous

episode here,

but they shared a video of a jailbroken

iPhone eighteen pro with lockdown mode

enabled.

From there,

iOS gets installed and the jailbreak

remains in place after the update.

It isn't clear at this time whether the

jailbreak could be installed on a device

already running .

I'm guessing it probably cannot because

they would probably just have shown that

in the video instead of requiring this

update.

the video shows a malicious pdf sent to

the target iphone using airdrop to

initiate the jailbreak with the file

accepted by the user uh caliph hasn't

shared any additional information in the

exact jailbreak steps are unknown um so

yeah it's it's i i think we had

this issue with another uh security

exploit that they publish,

but they don't publish a ton of useful

details to go off of.

And I'm sure this is something that they

would report directly to Apple.

So they're probably waiting for some sort

of response there.

But at the same time, it's concerning.

It's concerning to see like a persistent

jailbreak through through reboots and

updates at all.

And then also

it still functioning in lockdown mode is

kind of crazier.

I will say it's not clear to me

in this video whether lockdown mode was

enabled when they made the jailbreak in

the first place,

or if they just jailbroke it and then

turned lockdown mode on.

I think that would make a big difference.

So yeah,

a lot of details I haven't really seen

about this, unfortunately.

Yeah,

I guess I would ask all of you,

how many people use an iPhone?

Do you use lockdown mode?

Let me know in the chat.

Is there anything you wanted to talk about

with this, Jordan?

Yeah,

I do feel like this isn't one of

these stories where we can't really add

much to this, right?

It's just like, oh,

there's a video of it getting jailbroken

apparently.

Like, apparently.

Like,

we don't really have a lot of information

about how this works or anything like

that.

I will say, like, it is probably, like,

the best case scenario here, right?

Like, the iPhone XIII Pro has, you know,

the memory tagging enforcement and also at

least...

It appears in the video that they have

lockdown mode enabled at the time of the

jailbreak.

There didn't seem to be any cuts,

so I'm not really sure if that's the

case as well.

We kind of don't really know.

And again,

this was like a somewhat interesting way

of...

jailbreaking a phone,

this video showed that they were getting a

malicious PDF via AirDrop, which again,

Apple has kind of hardened AirDrop quite a

lot now because people were using it to

distribute malware.

And as far as I'm aware,

if you're in lockdown mode,

you can't enable everyone AirDrop for more

than ten minutes.

So basically,

you would need to toggle this on,

then also accept a PDF.

There's quite a few steps involved for

that to actually, you know, be an issue.

Again, though,

it could just be that it's the PDF

itself and it doesn't matter that it's

through AirDrop, but...

I would think they would have demonstrated

that if that was the case.

Typically,

you would see this demonstrated through a

file sent over iMessage, for example.

Lockdown mode disables that kind of stuff

in iMessage,

a lot of the stuff that would be

used for an exploit,

which is one of the reasons you should

enable lockdown mode.

And that's probably why they had to use

AirDrop in the first place.

So it is more of a...

I guess like you were saying,

a one-click situation,

like you have to accept this file.

You could accept it unknowingly or

thinking it's a legitimate file,

but it still involves one action or maybe

a bit of social engineering on somebody's

part,

like who's in your physical proximity.

It doesn't seem to be an issue that's

going to affect everyone right away.

Yeah, and I think someone also said, like,

what level of jailbreak is this?

Like, is this completely, like, pwned?

Like, do they have full access?

It just showed a picture of a dancing

anime girl, like, on the screen.

So I'm not really sure what level of

access they actually have in this specific

circumstance.

And again, yeah, like you said, like,

airdrop, this could be a situation where,

you know,

it's just another thing for Apple to close

off,

like disabling airdrop in lockdown mode or

doing something...

limiting the functionality of airdrop even

more to get that sent, right?

Because, yeah, like you said,

lockdown mode definitely does.

You'd think PDF exploits were solved by

now.

I mean, you'd think so,

but it just keeps happening.

They'll never be solved.

Seems like anything Adobe creates, right?

Flash, all sorts of problems with it.

There was a comment here from Microsoft's

Yellow Clip.

I use an iPhone.

I treat it like every other piece of

proprietary software.

I assume it's not as protected as they

say.

As usual,

the person in the chair is the biggest

threat, most likely.

Yeah, again, like, you know,

you would have to toggle on AirDrop for

ten minutes to everyone.

Also, accept the file.

So...

I think just like a basic level of

caution is something that could protect

against this.

And again,

it is a little frustrating that Caliph

keeps posting these Twitter clips and then

we just never see anything.

It's cool that they post them, but again,

we need to see a little bit more.

information about these sort of things

before we can comment on them more.

They do seem relatively reputable,

so it's not like they wouldn't,

but it is one of these situations where

I guess we do need to see.

Yeah, like I don't think it's fake,

but I don't think,

like we just don't have details that are

like how to protect against it,

or also like what Apple's gonna do about

it,

or like

when they're going to patch it or anything

like that, unfortunately.

Rocko's Life asked,

any thoughts on the Magnet Forensics Gray

Key lawsuit?

That was back in July, I think.

If there's been an update since then,

let me know.

But...

In that case,

for people who hadn't heard of it,

there's basically this lawsuit between

like one of these exploit developing

companies, Pagan Forensics,

suing another one for like stealing the

details of an exploit that were like trade

secrets.

They developed some exploited that this

other company stole it and used it.

I think it's a really interesting

And I mean,

I definitely don't agree with this

sentiment that having knowledge of an

exploit in somebody else's software is

itself intellectual property.

I don't think that is really true and

probably shouldn't be an intellectual

property case.

So I don't think the trade secret stuff

should apply.

But yeah,

I haven't heard any updates on that

lawsuit.

But I think it's crazy to be like...

selling exploits and trying to treat them

as like copyright and stuff.

You're exploiting somebody else's

software.

It's nuts.

Yeah, but we keep seeing it, right?

Like there'll be like zero days for like

iPhones that sell for like millions,

like they cost millions of dollars that

people will buy.

A hundred percent.

Whether we like it or not,

they are treated like that, unfortunately,

which kind of sucks.

But yeah.

Yeah.

I guess we kind of covered most of

that.

I guess we can also talk about this

other story about Apple.

This one is from Cybersecurity News,

and it's...

Apple to scan for every photo and file

shared through a public iCloud link for

harmful content.

Apple will begin checking photos and files

shared through public iCloud links for

harmful content with version twenty seven

point three or later of iOS, iPadOS,

MacOS and VisionOS.

Apple is not announcing checks of every

private photo or file stored in iCloud.

It's notice targets content that users

make available to anyone holding a sharing

link.

The separate people you choose option,

which limits access to invited or a few

users,

is not described as part of these checks.

Apple says an item shared through anyone

with the link is no longer protected by

end-to-end encryption.

This applies even when the owner or other

participants have even enabled advanced

data protection,

making public sharing an important

exception to that protection.

When sharing content stored in iCloud,

users can send a copy or share a

link.

Link sharing then offers two access

settings.

People you choose restricts access while

anyone with the link lets people open the

item without individual approval.

Apple says that the latter also makes the

content accessible to the company.

According to Apple's support notice,

public link content will be checked for

harmful material.

However,

the document does not define harmful

content or explain the detection process.

It does not identify scanning tools,

describe human review,

or state whether checks happen before

recipients can open a link.

Apple says it reserves the right to move,

refuse, modify, remove,

or delete harmful content at any time.

Possible action extends beyond removing a

shared item.

The company may block or disable the

associated Apple account and prevent new

accounts from being created with the same

email address or phone number.

The notice also allows Apple to involve

law enforcement when necessary.

However,

it does not explain review standards,

appeal options,

or how users would challenge an incorrect

flag.

For sensitive documents and personal

photos,

the practical step is to review sharing

permissions before distributing a link.

Choosing people you choose limits access

to approved participants.

Public link sharing should not be treated

as private storage simply because advanced

data protection is enabled.

Apple also leaves unanswered whether links

created before version twenty seven point

three will face checks under this policy.

So I'm a little confused by this,

actually.

I feel like this is a little bit

too far to go with this and actually

removing the end-to-end encryption from

files that are shared this way is a

little bit too far.

I think it would be reasonable if perhaps

Apple obtained a link to an end-to-end

encrypted file and they found that it was

containing harmful content and they

removed that content.

That would be definitely fine.

But I think stripping the end-to-end

encryption is...

probably a little too far in this case.

How do you feel?

This is something I think Apple has

probably always been doing.

I think like the article says they leave

unanswered whether links created before

twenty seven point three are going to face

checks.

I think certainly at the very least,

those links are not encrypted because I

would imagine they aren't making this

change now.

And that's just how iCloud is designed to

work.

Could they design it to work differently?

Yeah, they Apple could certainly

make it possible for somebody to share a

link and it remain end-to-end encrypted.

We see platforms like Mega, for example,

will include the encryption key in the

link itself so that they don't have access

to it,

but whoever you share it with does.

That's the same way that private bin works

or other end-to-end encrypted sharing

tools, paste bin, stuff like that works.

So I guess I'm saying it's not a

question of whether it's possible for them

to do it,

but it is just a thing that they're

not doing.

I think it's a tricky situation.

I'm really curious how the end-to-end

encryption works when you share documents

with people who...

who don't have advanced data protection

enabled, or even if they do,

how sharing works in general.

I'm not super familiar with iCloud sharing

tools,

since I just use it for some file

storage and photo storage, basically.

The article says that the people you

choose option is not described as part of

these checks, but I'm not sure whether...

those are unencrypted when you share them

and they're just not scanning for them or

if they are still encrypted i think i

would have to look into that more um

rocco's life said i thought they said they

weren't doing this um they said that they

weren't doing client side scanning which

was a huge win for privacy because that

was crazy um they also said that they

aren't going to like weaken advanced data

protection for like the data that you give

them.

And like you said,

like they just don't offer it in places

like the UK where they can't offer this

at all.

But I think, you know,

sharing information like intentionally

with other people,

especially making it public is it's kind

of a different situation.

And I think Apple faces like a lot

liability, I guess,

if harmful content is shared on a forum,

for example,

that goes to an iCloud link without their

knowledge.

And I can see why they would want

to try and prevent that from happening.

At the same time,

it would be nice if you could just

share things encrypted and not have people

scanning them.

I think publicly sharing and hosting

information is a whole different story

from privately hosting or storing

information for people,

and I think that you can do both.

But I think this is very important to

keep in mind.

And

Certainly,

if you were relying on iCloud to share

things securely with people,

you definitely want to rethink that.

I think we don't have any specific details

about iCloud sharing on our website or

anything like that.

anyone wants to submit a PR and add

more details about that.

So people know about this,

I think that would be very appreciated.

Or we can,

we can work on that sometime.

I'll try and put that in a to

do list somewhere because I think it's an

important note.

But yeah,

I definitely just wouldn't treat really

any of these like,

major providers as a as a sharing or

publicly hosting sort of solution.

Because that's really just not what

they're intended for, I think.

Definitely.

I guess going to Apple's support page,

they also aren't super clear as well.

Security implications of sharing and

collaboration.

In most cases,

they start the sentence with in most

cases,

when users share content to collaborate

with each other, for example,

with shared notes, shared reminders,

shared folders in iCloud Drive or iCloud

shared photo library,

and all users have advanced data

protection turned on,

Apple servers are used only to establish

sharing,

but don't have access to the encrypted

encryption keys for the shared data.

So it's only accessible by participants

trusted devices.

So I'm not sure.

It's strange that the article mentions

they

Say that Apple says an item shared through

anyone with the link is no longer

protected by end-to-end encryption.

Like, it was protected originally,

and they have removed that feature,

which I'm not really sure if that's the

case or not, or if this is just,

like,

a clarification of how the feature works.

But it does say on the page,

selecting anyone with a link option when

enabling collaboration will make the

content available to Apple servers under

standard data protection.

So...

there's that they've updated the

documentation.

So I don't know.

It's a little, it's all interesting,

but yeah, uh,

we definitely recommend people to use

providers that we do recommend.

So on the site we recommend proton drive

and treasure it, which, and peer goes.

So if you use any of those,

if you need encrypted storage and you need

to share

a public link with someone,

those would probably be better options

that do have end-to-end encryption instead

of, you know,

especially if it's something sensitive.

But again, if it's something sensitive,

you should probably be sharing it directly

with the person using the shared feature

instead of just doing a public link

because that's less secure.

But yeah,

it's definitely interesting that Apple is

changing the way that they do that.

Yeah, sorry,

I missed the very first part of what

you said.

But Apple Apple says that they maintain

end to end encrypted for shared content.

Like I think you said,

for all participants,

if they all have advanced data protection

enabled,

I think that indicates they probably have

not been doing this for publicly shared

content this whole time because like the

article that they have that details iCloud

data security,

this was last updated in January.

So that hasn't changed since this

announcement.

And if you're sharing it with anyone with

the link,

they like

not everyone in the world has advanced

data protection enabled.

So like, clearly,

that would not be that would not be

the case.

So I think it probably is always the

case that that it was always unencrypted.

And I think that the change now is

just that they are beginning to scan that

that content, which is a shame.

And it's it's

You know,

but I think I think it makes sense.

I think we've always at least I've always

kind of thought that, like,

if you're going to be doing scanning for

content like this,

it makes a lot of sense to do

it server side like what they are doing

here.

And I think that that is valid if

you're going to be hosting a lot of

like unencrypted content,

because if you're a host and

redistributing that stuff,

it could be it could be bad.

But if you're doing it with encrypted

content,

Or if you're like sending software to my

phone to force my phone to scan all

of my stuff and report back to you

with the client side scanning,

I think that's a huge issue.

And so, yeah,

I think as long as you know,

like any data that's unencrypted in the

cloud,

I think you should just assume that this

stuff is already happening.

It's nice in a sense that Apple is

at least telling you that this is now

specifically going to be happening with

things that you share via a link,

because I think a lot of other companies

would just do that.

I think most other companies just always

scan everything that's on their servers

that's not encrypted.

That's why end-to-end encryption is so

important if you're concerned about the

privacy of your data.

Yeah.

I mean,

it's just something to be aware of.

Rocco's Life said iCloud is a sharing

feature built into it.

So maybe that's,

I think that's the only issue in this

case.

I think it's just content that is shared.

So your other iCloud data shouldn't be

impacted by this.

Anyways,

I don't really have much more to add

about that.

But again, if anyone has any questions,

feel free to leave them here.

I'm going to move on to this article

from Gizmodo.

If I can share my screen again, sorry.

This is the headline is a youtuber figured

out how to find almost anyone using

airplane sounds actually when this video

came out Like a few hours later.

I shared this on the privacy guides forum,

and then I haven't been on the privacy

guides forum Today or much of yesterday,

so I don't know if there were a

lot of comments on it But I thought

it was a really interesting video Take a

look at

What Kizumoto said about it first,

the method described by this YouTuber,

it works by looking at Doppler curves,

which plot the way a plane's sound changes

as it passes overhead because of the

Doppler effect.

It's the same Doppler effect that causes

the frequency of a siren to rise as

it approaches and then fall as it passes

by you and moves away.

So early in the video, Koso...

Colstow brings up a map of the flights

that were in the air at the time

the video he's tracing was recorded.

Much of that data is publicly available.

Aircraft equipped with automatic dependent

surveillance broadcast, or ADS-B,

transmit data about their position,

velocity, and altitude,

which many flight tracking services online

will collect and make available to the

public.

It doesn't track

every plane out there,

but the system provides an enormous amount

of information about aircraft movements

that people can access.

So if you live in a country where

a large number of planes flying this day

is accessible, then at any given moment,

there's likely to be a plane somewhere

around you.

And you don't even need to hear the

planes.

In a lot of these cases,

Well,

they say propeller aircraft produce

distinctive low frequency sounds that can

travel very long distances and they can

too faint to be noticed by human

listeners.

So the basic idea of the video is

to use this ADS-B data to match the

planes heard in the recordings to planes

that are in the sky and then use

that information to figure out the video's

location.

it sounds sort of simple but it's of

course extremely difficult to do but it is

also very effective and he can in the

video if you go watch it which i

would recommend you do because it is

interesting um you can really pinpoint it

to a very a very very specific point

um basically kind of using

It's kind of just like using

triangulation,

but with the sounds of planes in the

sky, which is crazy.

To demonstrate the idea in the video,

Kulsov starts with a video whose visual

component is a simple low resolution still

image of some trees.

All you know is that the video is

filmed on September eighth,

somewhere in the continental United

States.

And then he pulls up a spectrogram of

the audio in that video and scans it

to see if he can find what he's

after.

You literally can't hear anything plane

related,

anything at all in this video besides

ambient sounds and like birds.

But when you zoom into the spectrogram of

this video,

you can find two innocuous looking streaks

that are Doppler curves from passing

aircraft.

The first nine hundred

Yeah, the first one is like,

nine hundred twenty seconds before the

second curve.

And that's kind of all the data that

he needs to identify these flights and

track the location of this video down.

So this is certainly a technique that

has been around a while and there are

actually like reports of this being used

going back even decades in some cases to

like track like high profile criminals or

terrorists down based on like videos that

they publish or something.

So I think it's

It's not a total secret or surprise that

this exists,

but it's also not something that I think

a lot of people know about or would

think about.

And I don't think it's ever been really

explained exactly how it works in a video

like this, which is very cool,

which is why I like the video.

I think it's a really good explanation of

how that stuff works.

And also,

if you publish really any information,

audio, video,

it can reveal so much about

about like your surroundings where you are

it can reveal a lot more information than

you're intending to share which is really

important to keep in mind and be careful

um what you upload so some discussion

topics here uh nate mentioned nate nate's

kind of an audio professional and he said

this could likely be fixed with a basic

high-pass filter nate personally

recommends anyways to reduce ear fatigue

for your listeners unless you're like

mixing music so

I don't know enough about audio,

to be honest,

to tell you how that would work,

but I would imagine it's something you

could do if you're publishing video.

I found this video incredibly fascinating,

actually.

And it's funny that you mentioned the

high-pass filter because he actually does

talk about the high-pass filter being an

issue as well in the video.

And he says, like,

even if you have a high-pass filter,

it can...

still be detected um so it's not always

the case as well like even like the

scary thing that i saw from the from

the video was actually the audio quality

required for this sort of tracking um he

used like recorded phone audio and was

still able to detect like a doppler curve

in there uh which is a little bit

creepy right because you know you would

assume that that level of like audio

quality would not contain that level of

information but again apparently it is

possible

um i guess this is one of these

things where it's like is there really a

way to protect against this

Apart from not living anywhere near any

planes.

It's a little wild.

The first comment on our forum,

what can you do to protect yourself from

this?

Inject a bunch of random Doppler curves

throughout the video to drown out the true

ones?

Maybe.

That might be an effective solution,

actually.

I wonder if you can do that.

This is a really interesting and I think

a very clear way to demonstrate how this

works,

especially because a Doppler curve is very

obvious in the spectrogram.

You can see it in the video.

It looks exactly like this curve and you

can really visualize what's going on.

Again, I like this video a lot.

I think there's a lot of other stuff

that's going to be revealed in a video

similar to this,

but that might be even less obvious

that...

It would be extremely,

extremely difficult to fully OSINT-proof a

video.

There's just so much data involved in just

your ambient surroundings,

what a microphone can pick up,

that sort of stuff that if somebody's

super dedicated could use this

information.

I was just watching a video about...

fourchan and gamergate and all of that

stuff a while ago and like how fortune

tracked down um some guy who made a

youtube video like based on a still image

of like his his bedroom or something like

in the background you could just find all

this information online like real estate

listings and stuff like that so like it's

just the amount of information that's out

there is crazy if you really um

if somebody's really dedicated to checking

you down.

But also I don't know if this stuff

is going to be like,

it's not like a huge threat to most

people, right?

It's a cool thing to be aware of

though.

Definitely.

I'd also recommend to everyone maybe go

check out this person's channel.

They do all sorts of videos like this.

I think they did a video of finding

someone based on the thunder that they

heard in the video.

So like all sorts of wild stuff.

that is possible but again I feel like

someone would have to be incredibly

dedicated like if you look at this video

like it takes a significant amount of work

to find this sort of uh just to

find this sort of information so um I

do I do think it is it would

require someone spending quite a lot of

time and effort to be able to get

that sort of information yeah and M in

the chat said they also checked over a

phone call not just recording yeah I mean

Pretty much any audio is probably

susceptible to this.

Microsoft's Yellowclip,

thanks again for the super chat here.

Microsoft's Yellowclip said,

with AI finding exploits so quickly,

it's changed how we patch things in the

enterprise.

We now push patches immediately.

Of course,

with the ample backups if things go bad,

all of you update now.

I mean, this week has just been crazy.

It's like every day you wake up, oh,

there's another CVE being exploited.

All sorts of stuff.

The Alpine Linux.

SSH stuff that just came out is

particularly crazy to me,

but also all of the PHP stuff,

the HTTP to shell exploit.

It's hard to keep track of it.

You just got to be on top of

these updates now.

And I think this is going to be

the case for a while.

Hopefully it's leading to improvements.

I guess I don't really...

know what the overall situation with that

is.

Because at the same time,

AI is discovering all these problems and

people are patching them,

but also AI is contributing to more code

than ever.

And

is susceptible to, at the very least,

we know that AI can introduce as many

bugs as human contributors can.

And obviously,

humans can make a lot of mistakes.

A lot of people, I think,

would argue that AI will introduce more

hard to find bugs in all of these

programs.

But we're not in a state where people

are writing perfectly secure code

nowadays.

what whether like the rate of

contributions to things that is

outstripped by I think it's certainly

outstripping the rate of security

vulnerabilities being solved.

So I don't think we're really getting out

of this any time soon.

Unfortunately,

Microsoft was saying Bantu taking a month

to patch.

That is also the craziest thing to me.

I cannot.

This is why I really

cannot recommend against using Ubuntu

Linux enough.

It's just,

I'm really not a fan of Canonical.

They have not been on the right path

for quite some time.

I think I heard,

I don't know if this is true because

I don't keep up with Ubuntu stuff,

but I think I heard that this has

been patched with Ubuntu Pro,

their subscription.

So I guess if you pay to get

security patches that everyone else gets

for free on,

then you can continue using Ubuntu.

But also,

I think it makes a lot of sense

to just

I mean, on servers,

I really like Debian as a good choice.

On desktop, Fedora probably,

which is in line with our recommendations

for desktop Linux.

I think those are going to be a

lot better options for you if you're

looking to switch.

But I think that if you are using

Ubuntu, the fact that they have taken...

Is it even patched yet?

I should look this up.

It probably still isn't.

And I think...

It's a very good reason to stop or

switch away.

Switch to something else, please.

Do you want to expand maybe a little

bit on that?

What is this specifically that they

haven't patched?

Is this the app's vulnerability or is this

something else?

Let me find the...

their page on this quick vulnerable work

in progress.

Their page still says for all of these

versions going back to sixteen point four

to the current twenty six point ten

release.

This is CVE twenty twenty six dash nine

eight four three two.

If anyone wants to look that up.

But it's a vulnerability that they found,

which affects the IPV for TCP handling in

the Linux kernel.

So this affects

pretty much all networked Linux devices.

It's been rated nine point eight critical.

So it's a very prevalent,

but it's pretty much any any Linux machine

that exposes a TCP port to the Internet,

which any like web server or anything

would do is going to be susceptible to

this issue.

You can work around it.

And as far as I know,

This would be very difficult,

from what people are saying, to exploit,

to gain remote code execution on these

servers,

which is why I think Ubuntu and Red

Hat have both kind of downplayed the

security of this vulnerability a bit,

because it hasn't really led to any

servers being hacked.

But certainly there are...

many proof of concepts even today of like

denial of service attacks against servers

so even if they can't hack into your

server and get all of your data they

could shut your server down basically or

crash stuff which is obviously its own

problem and that's a huge security problem

i mean availability is certainly a big

part of security it's not just like

preventing data reaches or being hacked

you want to keep your stuff online um

so it's

I mean,

I think it's completely unacceptable that

Ubuntu still hasn't patched this,

because it's been quite a while.

Debian patched this extremely quickly.

I think most distros patch this pretty

quickly.

I cannot imagine what is possibly taking

them so long.

It makes no sense to me whatsoever.

I guess then my question to you would

be, if Debian's fixed it,

then why hasn't Ubuntu just copied the

change and applied that themselves?

Is there a reason why they haven't just

copied what everyone else is doing?

Yeah, I don't... I mean,

Ubuntu develops their own kernel.

Ubuntu's pretty separate from Debian.

One of the only things they have in

common is they use the same package

manager, but as far as...

everything else,

they do everything in-house.

So it's sort of like a separate project,

basically.

I think that there's certainly plenty of

resources out there or open source

contributions.

They get patches pretty quickly.

I mean,

I don't think the patch is extremely

challenging to implement,

but I think that Ubuntu just doesn't have

their priorities in order.

And I think that

it just really demonstrates a lack of

commitment to security that I think a lot

of people should be concerned about.

Microsoft's Yellowcliff said too focused

on snaps to fix it in a snap.

I mean,

this is one of the biggest problems I

have with Ubuntu is the whole snap

software stuff and them trying to lock

everything down into this centralized

marketplace instead of the repositories

that they've always used and the package

managers that all these other Linux

distros use.

There's certainly some arguments for

containerization,

but

like Flatpak can do this in a

decentralized way.

There's other ways to distribute

containers that don't require all of the

nonsense that Ubuntu is doing.

They've really lost their way.

I mean,

I haven't used it in like a decade

probably now because they have not been

doing anything that makes sense to me

lately.

So it's unfortunate.

But Microsoft's yellow clip also said,

came out yesterday,

we had to take a server offline.

I don't know what you're...

referring to what came out yesterday.

The vulnerability, I think they mean.

Well, the vulnerability, I mean,

I patched this on my servers like a

while ago.

So I know the vulnerability didn't just

come out yesterday.

Oh, okay.

The SSH one on Alpine Linux did,

I think.

I think that was yesterday.

This one that Ubuntu published, I mean,

yeah, even on their page,

the publication date of the vulnerability

was the fifteenth of October.

And let me see the timeline for when

Debian patches.

I think it was like two days later

or something.

I mean, everything else that I saw,

they responded pretty quick.

Yeah,

Debian patched this in the current version

on October sixteenth, so a day later,

and then they patched it in their the

previous Debian twelve on the on the

seventeenth.

So.

Yeah.

I don't really know.

I don't think there is any excuse

whatsoever that

It would take more than like two days

to patch this.

Especially if Debian can do it.

They're not like as well funded as

Canonical.

Canonical is a huge enterprise.

They could do this if they wanted to.

That's really concerning then,

if they still haven't fixed it.

It says in progress,

so there's not even a fix available at

all.

Yeah, they just haven't fixed it.

It looks like Red Hat fixed it on

November first, which is also pretty slow.

So I guess if you're really into this

enterprise stuff,

that's kind of too bad for you.

But at least they got around to it.

True, yeah.

I guess we could have a look at

some of the questions on our forum.

We did have some comments that we had

on the thread there that we could probably

dive into a little bit.

Some people were talking about reading

through the article.

They got the impression that this was sort

of like an AI phone for AI usage

because of the massive battery and stuff.

I mean, well,

I think all stock Android phones are AI

phones now.

I think that's just what Android is.

If it was local AI,

I think there would have been a lot

more emphasis on RAM,

which obviously they're kind of skimping

on if they're skipping on any of the

specs.

You know, not that like,

like going to be horrible to use,

but it's not like what they could be

providing, especially for this price.

And especially if they wanted to do like

local AI.

So I don't think that that'll be a

huge marketing point, but Gemini, sure.

That's,

that's the thing that always confused me

about Google because like, you know,

they put six gigabytes of Ram in their

phone and then they just use Google like

AI on their service and they don't

actually run anything like barely anything

is run locally.

It's just, it's just,

it doesn't make sense in a lot of

cases anyway.

Um,

Yeah,

broken left a good comment on the on

the warm thread for this chat.

They said,

I think looking at the bigger picture is

in order.

The validation that graph, you know,

this will achieve from having a big name

actually announce a partnership with them

is worth more than anything else,

because the agenda being spread by

government's law enforcement in the media

is that graph, you know,

this is an OS for criminals.

And that's absolutely true.

I mean, this is great.

It's always good to legitimize privacy and

security tools the best we can.

I think Motorola is a well-known household

name, at least,

in the fact that they are working with

this company.

It's not like a... A lot of the...

fake or honeypot criminal phones,

like they're obviously very shady things

that no normal person would ever buy.

Like even if you saw a non phone

marketing,

like you would never buy that unless

you're a criminal, obviously.

Whereas with Graphene OS,

there's so many legitimate use cases for

the for the product,

and it does really validate that.

And again,

I think they point this out in the

comment.

But like I was saying,

all of this tech

trickles down to these other devices.

And I think that the other benefit we'll

see is a lot wider device support in

the future,

even if it's limited to this flagship now.

So I think the Motorola phone is very

cool, even though, man, it's expensive.

It's crazy.

I don't think anyone should buy it,

but it is cool.

I think the other thing that would be

really good to see at some point,

I know this is probably less likely in

consumer devices because like you said,

you know,

there's all these AI features that people

kind of expect, I guess, in a phone.

Whereas if they were going to sell a

phone with Graphene OS on it,

it would be kind of weird.

to people, like they'd be like,

wait a second, where's all the features?

It doesn't have any features.

So I feel like if they did that,

maybe that would be another thing that

could legitimize it even more.

But again,

I feel like that might be kind of

a hard sell to people just because it

is kind of quite bare bones in terms

of,

You know,

even the stock apps that Graphene OS

includes are definitely much,

at least at the current point,

definitely inferior to Google's apps that

they include.

But it would definitely help to legitimize

it more.

So hopefully we can see that at some

point.

Microsoft's yellow clips said wires

crossed, but they patched it today.

But that is definitely not what their

security site says.

So I would be interested to see a

source in that I could also just look

it up, I guess.

But yeah, I mean,

their their website says the current

version is not

available.

There's test stage kernel fixes available

in the opt-in proposed pocket.

So if you installed the proposed version

of the kernel, I guess it would work.

But on most of it,

including their long-term support ones,

it says vulnerable work in progress.

Concerning.

They did update this.

It says updated on November first,

so that is yesterday.

They have a mitigation on here,

so I guess you could mitigate it

yourselves with some config changes.

I mean,

you can disable this whole feature that's

being exploited right now,

so it's not like it's impossible to patch

this,

but it's crazy to me that they wouldn't

just update with a patch.

And I don't know why...

They just don't seem to care about it.

I've seen comments saying,

I don't know if this is true because,

again,

I don't keep up to date with Ubuntu,

but I've seen people say that Ubuntu has

a track record with being very slow to

patch CVEs that are discovered in the

past.

So I'd have to look into the history

of other recent things and see how long

it takes for them,

but it doesn't sound like a very good

situation on their end at all.

Sounds crazy to me.

Dag Overhaul mentioned,

doesn't Pixel reserve four gigabytes of

RAM for local Gemini?

It does.

I'm not sure if it's four gigabytes,

but it definitely dedicates like

specifically some portion of RAM towards

like the Gemini Nano model that runs

locally.

But again,

that like that model doesn't really,

it's not used for a whole lot of

stuff.

And a lot of the AI features that

like Google is promoting as like really

cool and like

interesting features that people might

want to use it uses google servers and

requires an internet connection so you

know all this ram on the device and

it's still it's still not really that

useful in in terms of the ai features

at least so that's kind of what i

was trying to say but hopefully you got

what i was trying to say

Oddbyte also mentioned here,

Google certification program with device

manufacturers prohibits them from selling

Google certified phones with non-Google

certified OSs.

Well, there you go.

I guess that's the reason why they weren't

able to include it with the device itself

because...

So I guess there's not really any way

that that could be bypassed in the future.

So maybe this does just end up being

something that people have to do after

they've purchased the device instead of

something that's included by default.

Did you see any other questions that we

could cover before we end the show?

No.

Yeah, just looking through the chat here.

Going back to Brave, Rocco's Life said,

there isn't a tournament for this.

What do they actually want?

The sum of all ad revenues blocked by

Brave users?

That is one of the things they're asking

for.

I mean,

they're asking for punitive damages

that...

wasn't like a hundred million,

but they're also asking for profit sharing

from Brave, which again,

does not make a lot of sense,

as Dag Overhall also pointed out in the

chat earlier.

It's not even really piracy,

it's just having your device not do

something that somebody else told it to

do,

which is a completely different situation.

And I think that, again,

the New York Times has tools to prevent

this stuff from happening.

Uh,

not sure if I saw any more questions.

Microsoft's yellow clip also wants a

hundred million dollars.

I agree.

That would be nice.

Um,

I guess you just have to see something.

Yeah, I'm not seeing anything here.

I guess you can take the outro if

you want.

All right.

Yeah.

Well, we'll wrap this up here for today.

But thanks, everyone, for joining.

Last chat here.

If they can get punitive damages for

someone not running their code the way

they want it to run,

does that mean I can sue if they

misimplement some web standard?

That's a great question.

Maybe you can be the one to get

that hundred billion dollars.

You can figure that out.

Thanks, everyone.

All the updates from this week in privacy,

we share them on our blog every week,

so you can sign up for the newsletter

there with your favorite RSS reader or

with email if you want to stay tuned

and get links to all of the sources

from this episode.

We emailed out the...

article for this episode,

right when the episode began,

as we normally do.

So you can use that as a notification

tool,

but also to follow along with the links.

So if you want next week's,

you can sign up for email.

We also offer this as a podcast,

which is available on all podcast

platforms and RSS,

which now includes video podcasts on

supported platforms.

And we sync this video to PeerTube,

which you can find on our website under

the

the videos tab.

Privacy Guides is an impartial nonprofit

organization that is focused on building a

strong privacy advocacy community and

delivering the best privacy and consumer

technology rights advice on the internet.

If you want to support our mission,

then you can make a donation on our

website at privacyguides.org slash donate.

You can also make a donation on any

page on the website by clicking the red

heart icon,

located in the top right corner of the

page.

You can continue using standard fiat

currency via debit or credit card,

or you can opt to donate anonymously using

Monero cryptocurrency or your own,

whatever your favorite cryptocurrency is.

Becoming a paid member unlocks exclusive

perks like early access to video content,

exclusive video content,

and priority during our Q&A.

You also get a cool badge on your

profile on the Privacy Guides forum and

the warm,

fuzzy feeling of supporting independent

media.

So again, thank you all for watching.

It's been a great week and we will

see you next week.

See ya.

Would You Pay $1600 to DeGoogle?

Subscribe