zlacker

>>xairy+(OP)
I can see why some people might be concerned about the camera, but I'm far more concerned by the microphone. There's far more sensitive and actionable information that can be gathered from me that way! I'm glad that macOS started putting a light in the menubar when the microphone is in use, but I'd prefer to have unhackable hardware for that instead.

>>epista+i3
macOS is a proprietary binary blob, remotely controlled by Apple. So, the light in the menu bar is not a reliable indicator of anything. There is no privacy on macOS, nor any other proprietary system. You can never be 100% sure what the system is doing right now, as can be anything it is capable of. Apple is putting a lot of money to "teach people" otherwise, but that is marketing, not truth.

>>saluti+p5
> There is no privacy on macOS, nor any other proprietary system.

Which is to say, every system in actual widespread use. All such CPUs, GPUs, storage devices, displays, etc. run closed microcode and firmware. It'd be funny if it wasn't so profoundly sad.

And even if they didn't, the silicon design is again, closed. And even if it wasn't closed, it's some fab out somewhere that manufactures it into a product for you. What are you gonna do, buy an electron microscope, etch/blast it layer by layer, and inspect it all the way through? You'll have nothing by the end. The synchrotron option isn't exactly compelling either.

>>perchi+B6
Yes, ultimately, I want everything to be open. This is not a bag of rice. These are devices packed with sensors, in our homes. As for inspection, I do not have a problem trusting others. I just do not trust big corporations with remotely controlled binary blobs, no matter how much money they put into the safety and security ads. This is a personal opinion, of course.

>>saluti+5e
> As for inspection, I do not have a problem trusting others. I just do not trust big corporations with remotely controlled binary blobs

I'll just highlight this excerpt of your own words for you, and usher you to evaluate whether your position is even internally consistent.

>>perchi+Gg
Why do you think my stance is internally inconsistent?

For example, I completely trust Emacs maintainers, as I have yet to see any malice or dark patterns coming from them. The same applies to other free and open source software I use on a daily basis. These projects respect my privacy, have nothing to hide, and I have no problem trusting them.

On the other hand, I see more and more dark patterns coming from Apple, say when signed out of their cloud services. They pour millions into their privacy ads, but I do not trust them to act ethically, especially when money is on the table.

Does this not make sense?

>>saluti+z31
Thinking about it, I might have misunderstood what you wrote a bit. What I read was that you trust people, but then you also don't. That's not really a fair reading of what you wrote.

That being said, I have seen "patterns" with open source software as well, so I'm hesitant to agree on trusting it. But that's a different problem.

I also know how little hardware, microcode and firmware can be trusted, so that doesn't help either.

>>perchi+P41
Thank you for the clarification. I certainly could have worded my comment better. I agree with you on that we should never trust open-source software blindly. That said, we can at least audit it, along with every new patch, which is impossible with binary blobs. That is why, I personally think, open-source should be preferred, for free and non-free software alike.