Privacy

48300 readers

416 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
Don't promote proprietary software
Try to keep things on topic
If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
Be nice :)

Related communities

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 6 years ago

MODERATORS

102

Countercomputing is a descendant of retrocomputing with a focus on radical privacy (lemmy.ml)

submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by whydudothatdrcrane@lemmy.ml to c/privacy@lemmy.ml

24 comments fedilink hide all child comments

This is a concept still in the making. I came across a few people discussing it, and I found next to nothing about it online. I thought it is important and I post it here to give it some traction.

The core idea that appealed to me is that it extends the idea that the processing power and bandwidth of modern devices is not used for our own sake, but to better funnel behavioral data to corporations.

So it is not just "so stupid design" that "we don't even feel devices are 10x faster than 15 years ago", but deliberate design to use the hardware capabilities for the sake of other people's computers.

The countercomputing philosophy asks, down to the chipset, what is the most repairable, reusable component, that can help the user fortify their computing and harness it as independently as possible.

It is obviously a thought that resonates with the right-to-repair movement, privacy, and other politics related with renewable energy, but with a particular focus in selecting each and every component so that we own the hardware and we can use it as we see fit. Other links can be drawn to the smallnet initiatives such as gemini protocol, alternative nets like Reticulum, and of course open hardware.

The retro angle can offer flexibility to movements to rely on simpler components and adjust their needs, something that will also lead to greater independence from Nvidia and the like.

As I said, there are very few people discussing this idea right now, and you can't find much online, but it is worth to "look out for" possible developments in the future.

Edit: Here is a discussion on mastodon about it

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

My phone at the time worked fine on 4G for over a year, but suddenly one day it no longer worked once they started enforcing this. I suspect the carrier wanted to collect a troll toll from phone manufacturers to allow them the privilege to sell a phone to their customers

Its certainly possible that they're trying to extract a toll from handset manufacturers, but I could also see it being a spectrum consolidation. Can I ask if your OnePlus 5T was a model specifically made for the USA market or was it imported from China or Indian markets? I've seen non-domestic model phones not contain all the same radios as North American phones. So while its possible there were a few specific bands overlapping that allowed it to work, those bands could have been deprovisioned from phone service or sold off to other companies wanting to buy spectrum.

[–] ___@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The ATT post-3G sunset compatibility list linked above often includes only US ATT-locked versions of phones, even when other carrier variants exist. Look at all the older Samsungs that only take the GxxxA variant when GxxxU and U1 devices exist that are carrier unlocked and have all the same bands. In the case of the OnePlus 6T, only the T-Mobile version is 'supported,' when the unlocked version is the same in all other markets (including the US). I, too, have a lot of beef with this setup. For whatever reason, ROW Samsung Galaxy S10s (G973F) are supported. Go figure ¯\_ (ツ)_/¯

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

In the case of the OnePlus 6T, only the T-Mobile version is ‘supported,’ when the unlocked version is the same in all other markets (including the US).

I'm seeing two models of the OnePlus 6T:

6T (A6013) This one is on the list of AT&T approved devices and most importantly has LTE bands 30 and 71 which are used in North America. source
6T (A6010) This one is made for the Chinese market and has the following LTE Bands: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 28, 29, 32, 38, 39, 40, 41, 66. Notice that North American LTE bans 30 and 71 are missing. source

Are you aware of a different 6T model besides these two or are you saying there are 6T (A6013) that AT&T are rejecting from activating on their network?

[–] Professor_Piddles@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago

I bought it as a generic GSM phone after checking that several of the 4G bands were ones that AT&T used. I don't recall it being marketed as a "US" or "international" version like I had seen in the past. I had not considered a change in 4G band usage, but I would certainly respect that a whole lot more than the arbitrary troll toll it very much looks like, and it would be nice if they explained that if that was indeed the case.