Great that someone is taking action! It seems more often then not the GDPR is not taken serious and is violated without repercussions. This is a great case because the data ends up public facing. Sadly a lot of violations of the GDPR are difficult to discover or check.
Not entirely convinced who viewed your profile falls under your personal information
Source: used to handle DSAR requests for one of the big 4 banks, we'd redact all names that weren't the requestors, even names on a joint account they'd obviously know
Potential argument under GDPR you could request LinkedIn to not share who's profiles you are viewing, but thats a separate issue
Actually the GDPR definition of personal data is very wide, a bit to wide in my opinion (one of the reasons GDPR is not always taken serious) but that is a different topic.
IANAL but the way I read it is that any data that can be linked with you as a natural person could be considered personal data.
Therefore if LinkedIn is saving a log in a database similar to: "profile x viewed person y" and profile y has your name that would qualify as personal data in my view.
Especially interesting is the section "Personal data and the purpose for processing" since LinkedIn is selling access to the data of who viewed your profile the perspective of if it is or is not personal data may be shifted.
Aside from screen readers are the input methods and hotkeys those are often not consistent or unchangeable in modern tools. However I guess that is not only applicable to TUIs. For example ctrl+arrow to jump over words is not very consistent in all text fields which is a problem for accessibility also.
Obscurity is the information you need to find the safe.
All security can eventually be broken, given enough time, this is why A very useful measure for the security of a lock is how long it takes to break. The same is true for cryptography.
Obscurity can add a buffer before you can start breaking the lock and it can act as a deterrent for opportunistic attacks. Additionally it can help with signal to noise and monitoring of the lock.
This is why you have a lock on your front door and don't tell anyone you meet where exactly in your house you store your valuable jewels (preferably out of sight). You also want to monitor anyone in your garden more closely than on the road passing by.
the implication of the "don't be acquired" and "don't be penetrated" is some sort of anti-air or anti-tank missile.
"killed" in this case would be equivalent to having something penetrate and hit sensitive systems. at that point it's basically just a function of what the penetrator is trying to do -- if they just want $$$ they ransomware. if they want exfil or DoS or making critical systems do naughty things that is also a kill.
> the implication of the "don't be acquired" and "don't be penetrated" is some sort of anti-air or anti-tank missile
not necessarily - this model is also taught for army/marines type ground combat operations, in how to effectively camouflage, how to manoeuvre.
the "don't be penetrated" is more of an equipment choice and engineering decision specific to armor and active kinetic counter-munitions systems, like anti-drone shotguns, tanks with active protection systems, chobham armor, etc.
If a munition has been fired by you, first try to not get penetrated by it at all, and if that fails, try to prevent something catastrophic like a bolus of explosive formed penetrator molten copper from spraying into the inside of your armored personnel carrier.
> this flow runs entirely through Google Play Services, not the Android OS. Google can change it, tighten it, or kill it at any time, with no OS update required and no consent needed.
I am curious: Can you opt-out with the device not connected to the network?
From the statement in the article it seems that may not be possible?
all appliances used to come with schematics and repair manuals, there was no prevention of modification or repair. We're talking cars, washing machines, dryers, radios etc.
Separate from computers and phones locking down devices is a much wider issue, usually it is only implemented to reduce liability of the manufacturer or to allow for planned obsolescence.
I think historically it has existed like this due to regulation regarding radio sending equipment and the integration between the platform (CPU) and modem in phones.
Due to this the equipment manufacturers where never incentivized to have a "open" ecosystem for the CPU+modem combo. That's why there is no OS war on a per device basis, most phones supports 1 OS officially.
There is a lot of fun stuff still there, but a corporate search engine might not point you to it.
reply