viking_sec's recent activity
-
Comment on ProtonMail and Huawei: A relationship made in privacy hell in ~tech
-
Comment on ProtonMail and Huawei: A relationship made in privacy hell in ~tech
viking_sec Link ParentAt no point in the Forbes article you cited did Forbes directly contradict the pre-loading claims. They didn't contradict them in DMs with me on Twitter and they haven't contradicted them on...No source is given for this and it's not a direct quote which in journalistic terms means this could be Bloomberg's own interpretation/Paraphrasing of Andy Yen's statements.
At no point in the Forbes article you cited did Forbes directly contradict the pre-loading claims. They didn't contradict them in DMs with me on Twitter and they haven't contradicted them on Twitter. This is a status where they were asked pretty directly about the pre-loading issue, and they did not at all deny that it was being considered.
I absolutely did not imply in my earlier video that an agreement has been made. The entire premise of this whole exercise has been with the understanding that the agreement hasn't been made. This is a status in which I explicitly clarify that an agreement hasn't been reached. You can see in the wording of my tweets that I am treating any agreement as an if and not a given.
I don't know how you intend to push for them to change course by misrepresenting, if not outright lying for views, and signal boosting Bloomberg's bad reporting because that's a really fast way to lose what credibility you might have had.
I'm doing just fine on credibility. It's why this campaign has gotten this far. I understand you're supporting PM and that's your right, but at no point did I lie or intentionally misrepresent any part of this story. I presented the discussion between HW and PM as ongoing, and pointed out that PM was intentionally misrepresenting the relevant Chinese laws and lying to customers.
-
Comment on ProtonMail and Huawei: A relationship made in privacy hell in ~tech
viking_sec Link ParentIt's in the original version of the article discussing this matter.It's in the original version of the article discussing this matter.
-
Comment on ProtonMail and Huawei: A relationship made in privacy hell in ~tech
viking_sec Link ParentYes, they did, in the Forbes article the CEO stated they were looking at offering the app pre-loaded on Huawei devices. Nobody is implying the agreement has already been made. It hasn't been,...So now we're not talking about a present issue based on provable facts anymore but rather conjecture. Where does it state that ProtonMail will be pre-loaded to Huawei devices? Did either party make a statement to this effect?
Yes, they did, in the Forbes article the CEO stated they were looking at offering the app pre-loaded on Huawei devices.
You can't have it both ways on this. Either ProtonMail and Huawei are provably in a partnership, in the present time or they are not. And if they have informally agreed to something with Huawei you should provide proof of that rather than appealing to possibility. Stating that there exists an agreement because there could be is misleading.
Nobody is implying the agreement has already been made. It hasn't been, that's why I'm pushing for them to change course. "but they're partnering to add PM to the store and to HW hardware and HW's upcoming OS" is assuming they reach the agreement that they said they're looking at.
-
Comment on ProtonMail and Huawei: A relationship made in privacy hell in ~tech
viking_sec Link ParentIf they'd already made the decision, the video I made would have been much more "scorched earth" than heavy pressure to change their minds.If they'd already made the decision, the video I made would have been much more "scorched earth" than heavy pressure to change their minds.
-
Comment on ProtonMail and Huawei: A relationship made in privacy hell in ~tech
viking_sec Link ParentThe explicit agreement that would be required to pre-load ProtonMail on all Huawei hardware, and to add PM to Huawei's store. Both of those things require an explicit agreement. The "it's not a...The explicit agreement that would be required to pre-load ProtonMail on all Huawei hardware, and to add PM to Huawei's store. Both of those things require an explicit agreement. The "it's not a partnership" line that PM is using is a half-truth: they're not creating a formal business partnership, but they're partnering to add PM to the store and to HW hardware and HW's upcoming OS.
The no final decision has been made line is important! That means we still have time to pressure them into taking a hard stance on privacy, free speech and human rights.
-
Comment on ProtonMail and Huawei: A relationship made in privacy hell in ~tech
viking_sec Link ParentHi. I'm the creator of that video. It matters because the explicit agreement with HW puts them into scope of their data protection, assessment and localization laws. The blog I cited in that video...Hi. I'm the creator of that video. It matters because the explicit agreement with HW puts them into scope of their data protection, assessment and localization laws. The blog I cited in that video is here:
https://www.chinalawblog.com/2018/05/china-data-protection-regulations-cdpr.html
This is how China has (ab)used that law many times in the past.
-
Comment on ProtonMail and Huawei: A relationship made in privacy hell in ~tech
viking_sec Link ParentHi. I'm guy who made the video. The thumbnail was a decision obviously to draw people to the video. I teach privacy quite a lot to others, and you find that you have to "trick" people into caring...Hi. I'm guy who made the video.
The thumbnail was a decision obviously to draw people to the video. I teach privacy quite a lot to others, and you find that you have to "trick" people into caring most of the time. An attractive thumbnail is a good trick.
Okay again, I didn't say in the video that the deal was already made. The initial article itself made that very clear to myself and others.
I didn't signal boost bad reporting. A crap outlet was the first one to report quotes from the CEO. The bits that made up the core of my argument were either never refuted in the re-do, or they were misrepresentations of the real situation (such as when PM said "we're not partnering with HW" when in reality, they meant they were creating an agreement with HW, they just weren't becoming formal business partners.)