> on the understanding it was reasonably hackable and open

I, honestly, have no idea why you thought that. Bambulab has been under fire from the very beginning about not being open at all and not contributing back to the open source community they're build on.

I bought one of their printers during black friday too, it took me a long time to get over the fact that it isn't an open printer, and I never want to go back to tinkering for hours to get meh quality prints.

And let them be closed-source as long as they give you ability to print without calling home or even without internet connection.

I didn't realize that closed source means you the end user get to dictate how the manufacturer implements features.

And who wrote that definition again? Right, the murderers.

Ever since this kind of stuff was introduced I've been annoyed that there is no way to disable it for yourself. And it's allowed for straight up evil stuff like google buying the .dev TLD

Your mention of .dev seems like a complete non-sequiter to me. What happened to .internal here is the exact opposite of what happened to .dev. And how would you even propose to "disable" reservation of a TLD. Sorry your comment just makes no sense from my POV.

Bought a "proper" light sensor last week but would've fit my needs. D'oh!

Unencrypted? Seriously?

Honestly speechless

No, not seriously.

TFA says it's encrypted at rest, with Bitlocker. When running, the data is accessible only to the SYSTEM user. That's exactly how I'd expect to implement this on Windows, I'm not sure what else you could do while offering the features it does.

The insecurity stems from the concept of Recall, not its implementation.

The main threat is from malware that compromises SYSTEM, or whatever user interface is offered onto Recall.

There's a second-order threat too - Microsoft changing their privacy policy in 1,2,3 years and feeding it to their AI models & 2317 advertising partners. Sure there'll be an opt-out - a paper form in a basement filing cabinet, with a sign saying "beware of the leopard" etc.

There's just no secure way of implementing a feature that collects and stores an enormous amount of new personal data.

> main threat is from malware that compromises SYSTEM

It's a keylogger -- the system IS the malware.

If it's a feature announced and legitimately offered that consumers want, then it's not malware by definition.

I feel what we're all saying is that the security risks of amassing all this data are very unlikely to offset the small benefit of being able to remember something you did last week.

Given that the benefits are few, there's no better time to shout it down.

But long term, Recall is platform that MS will build on, offer more access to, synchronise, offer to 3rd parties. Imagine your insurance company demanding access, or potential employer?

It'll be a scary "new normal" when your computer OS records everything you do, as standard, and everyone else expects that to be the case.

> I feel what we're all saying is that the security risks of amassing all this data are very unlikely to offset the small benefit of being able to remember something you did last week.

Oh, I agree. It's the rational observation and conclusion. But this feature isn't for us.

It's for the average non-technical computer user, and ostensibly they do want this feature, the downsides be damned.

> It'll be a scary "new normal" when your computer OS records everything you do, as standard, and everyone else expects that to be the case.

That is scary and not even something I had considered, since trying to criminalize E@EE gets all the press these days.

It's possible one day that all these computers from the last few decades may end up being very valuable given they are all unlocked and future ones may not be.

That's like calling most disk encryption "unencrypted": When you decrypt on boot or with veracrypt, the files become accessible to all running processes that can access disks.

Based on the article, it is encrypted, but you can access it without manually decrypting it on every access.

I recognise the problems this 'dumbphone' trend is trying to solve but I really don't understand many of the solutions people are putting forth. What I did years ago is aggressively manage my notifications settings, deleted the apps that were a problem (twitter, reddit) and I'm assertive about not being in too many group chats + notifications off for those. And it's been working great.

I think it's worth viewing through an addiction lens. Some people have addictive personalities, and their brains work differently when presented with things like this. I can have just one drink, or play just a bit of a video game. But I know people who will tip into a destructive addiction spiral from a tiny impetus like that, such that completely avoiding what to me would be a harmless thing is the only way they can live a normal life.

It's sort of like people with clinical depression. Advice from people who're not clinically depressed is often terrible, because it's stuff that'll work great if you're a neurotypical person. And it's legitimately hard to get in the mindset of someone whose brain works differently than yours for things like this, and understand what's incredibly difficult for them despite being trivial for you.

Notifications off by default and apps not on the Home Screen by default already goes a very long way. For me, there is no need to make my phone any dumber.

I would add that if you truly want to distract yourself, ‘no notifications’ policy doesn’t work. You may just open your distraction and update it manually, expecting for the notification to arrive. Even when you set it to never bother you. So, the best way is to explore what triggers you to distract in the first place.

I don’t mean turning off the notifications isn’t going to work. It would, and I highly recommend turning off everything, but the urgent stuff. You’ll notice you won’t miss what you truly need anyway. And you still may distract yourself, when you want it.

Not adding most apps to the Home Screen adds just enough friction for me. For heavy offenders which draw my attention, there is one sec.

Feigning being a victim and having no agency is trendy in certain circles.

Never knew, always assumed it was just a render. Very cool!

Same here. And I think it was the purpose to make peopel assume that

This is just ebay/facebook marketplace with extra steps and having to trust some company even more that they won't screw you over.

Something I feel like you've left out that is important: It's a gesture of respect, ensuring that no one's passing goes unnoticed.

And more of a comment to the other replies; a relative being unable to be contacted currently doesn't mean they don't care. Them finding out later and knowing, despite everything, they got a dignified ending might give them some peace. These funerals are not being held for the people attending them but at the same time you can't have a funeral without someone attending them.

No, contacting relatives might be impossible but become possible over the years, them knowing someone they lost contact with but still loved was given a proper burial might relieve some of the shock of finding out they're dead.