To be fair, a lot of people pay their ISP for a modem/router combo and connect to something like "Xfinity" at their house. So to them, there is no difference.
Meta just released an internet connected camera disguised as eye wear. That makes this situation quite different. If a person wants to reject being photographed, they move away from the person holding the camera, or avoid public places that have surveillance systems. The expectation has now been increased: to reject being identified, a person must avoid people wearing glasses.
In basically any public space, there are tons of people on their phones, and the sense that these people could easily be turning a camera towards me is, for me at least, constant. I don’t think this is very new.
I understand the practical difference of angle, but in terms of how it affects public places for me, I mean that I already feel constantly surveilled. I really don’t feel like it makes much of a difference for me.
Do what I do and turn off "allow multi-device." Problem solved -- even if your phone number is stolen, they can't recover your 2FA because it's locked to the device too.
I just did some quick research on these IDs. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like each user account would be tied to one device. It also seems like the user, at least on Apple devices, has to opt into advertising tracking in order for your app to even get access to this.
Ignoring the security pitfalls of phone numbers, it really doesn't seem like these advertising IDs are a drop in replacement for using phone numbers.
Here's the lifecycle of defense. I work in this sector.
Small company invents shit that works.
Pentagon loves it.
Big defense contractor buys them by making a offer they can't refuse.
Big defense contractor also owns the politicians and DoJ review process.
Small company product ultimately stagnates.
and completely intertwined with lawmakers. even civilian work like the SLS is tainted by those relationships.
maybe andruil will get there one day too, but it'll be a win for everyone if the incumbents and elected officials end up a bit less cozy in the meantime.
I think a much more fortunate way is to reduce how much money is spent on the the military industrial complex by simply buying less weapons.
That is a win for everyone, except the major players in the military industrial complex
It's also not a win for people who depend on those weapons for safe. Would the Ukrainians be better off if we didn't have any Javelins and artillery shells to give them? Would Taiwan be better off if a rusted US Navy is no longer sufficient to deter an invasion by the mainland?
