Android does the same MAC rotation that Apple does, both on WiFi and Bluetooth. Working with IoT sniffing solutions at home, I've found it's reasonably easy to detect when a single MAC is randomly changed: it'll be broadcasting its presence, suddenly go dark, and then another mac with same first 3 bytes starts broadcasting with a very similar RSSI. This works with BLE adverts pretty well and allows me to filter out MAC noise from household devices while I'm trying to sniff something on my bench.
It’s a shell script. You can download and read it before you run it. Piping it directly to the shell is reckless.
I’m not sure how your machine is configured but mine has permission boundaries and security policies that make sure programs are behaving properly. I don’t run everything with my personal user context.
There is a flip side to this - is vim encrypting this data it keeps forever? If I delete something I consider sensitive, I might unwittingly be recording that presumed-deleted piece of data to my user profile somewhere to be deleted never.
How could you possibly encrypt it in a way that holds water? Any attacker who cares enough to get your undo file can also get your undo keys, unless you want to wire a whole system of undo-now-requires-password-auth-with-MFA
For a while they had a paid program, I had a Windows Mobile app I could run with an external GPS dongle that would record wifi APs and location, upload to skyhook, who would occasionally cut me a check for my trouble. I made tens of dollars!
The two reasons the author lists for not sharing their source code now were both true pre-AI. Open sourcing allowed others to review your software for their own nefarious purposes and (as anyone who has ever maintained a reasonably popular repo knows) results in a lot of PRs that may be of low quality.
I contribute to open source because open source is how I learned to do what I do and it only seems fair to give back. AI changes absolutely nothing about this for me.
The flip side is that the Anthropic researcher is clearly pushing the case against Open AI and one might have reason to suspect their motivation and version of events for the same reasons.
> The flip side is that the Anthropic researcher is clearly pushing the case against Open AI and one might have reason to suspect their motivation and version of events for the same reasons.
I haven't seen any evidence of this. Much of the anger is coming from the unaffiliated researcher. levent (the anthropic employee) has mostly constrained his comments to basically "I would have been happy to collaborate w/ folks from OAI"
> the Anthropic researcher is clearly pushing the case against Open AI
Things like the nytimes interview are with Buckmaster, who works at NYU, not Alpöge. I saw a couple of tweets from him over the last week. Any chance of clarifying what makes you think he's "clearly pushing the case"?
I think people are too reserved in their unwillingness to operationalize ambiguity. Ambiguity is constantly being thrown in our face, with internal audits and other laughable attestations of virtue that amount to a pantomime of transparency / good faith.
Why should I care if a company claims they find no evidence of wrongdoing? Is that the threshold for privacy/trust? “We don’t care if it appears that we’ve been dishonest unless there’s hard proof.” They can simply design proof keeping to terminate at the places their dishonesty is implemented.
For me, when there is a clear motive to be dishonest, a corporation should be assumed to be dishonest unless there are robust transparency measures and a regulatory environment shown to be providing a cost to dishonesty. Without it, all you do is burden yourself while the powerful entity moves ahead with its selective dishonesty and the rewards there reaped.
reply