I read online that Apple Pay will use tokenization. I also read that Google Wallet does not use tokenization.
Is ATT's version (Softcard, formerly Isis) using tokenization?
This Softcard thing is a hit and miss for me. The website says certain stores work but did not for me. So far, it has only worked at one Baby's R Us for me...
de2000 said:
I read online that Apple Pay will use tokenization. I also read that Google Wallet does not use tokenization.
Is ATT's version (Softcard, formerly Isis) using tokenization?
This Softcard thing is a hit and miss for me. The website says certain stores work but did not for me. So far, it has only worked at one Baby's R Us for me...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It does not use tokenization, however the Softcard is going to be available on the iPhone 6. According to Softcard's website, this is how they protect your info.
"Your payment card credentials are stored in a special chip known as the Secure Element contained within your compatible smartphone. The Secure Element is isolated from your phone's main operating system and hardware, and is designed to allow access to authorized programs, like the Softcard app, to initiate a transaction. The app is accessed by a user-selected 4 digit PIN, adding another layer of protection. Additionally, a single call to your wireless carrier or visit to our website can disable the app."
I personally use Softcard and it works fine but you are correct that it only works at select locations. You can use the app to find places near you where it is accepted. The first place I ever tried was also Babies R Us. They are constantly adding locations and credit card companies that they are compatible with, so hopefully it will get better in the future. The app also features discounts and coupons that are based on your purchase history. Overall I like Softcard but I would like to see it accepted at more of the common stores I shop at and I wish it would allow me to use my bank card, which is currently not accepted. I hope this helped you out some!
Thank you for the reply.
So, technically, the Apple Pay is more secure since only tokens are given out. I guess that is the whole point... If Softcard, even though it uses the phone's secure element, doesn't use tokens, then full card info is still transmitted... That is an inferior protection than Apple Pay.
Walgreens is supposed to be Softcard compatible, but it didn't work for me.
de2000 said:
Thank you for the reply.
So, technically, the Apple Pay is more secure since only tokens are given out. I guess that is the whole point... If Softcard, even though it uses the phone's secure element, doesn't use tokens, then full card info is still transmitted... That is an inferior protection than Apple Pay.
Walgreens is supposed to be Softcard compatible, but it didn't work for me.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think the reason they still transmit full card info is because they feel the companies they are contracted with are secure and wouldn't have credit card info retaining devices attached to steal the information from your card. Plus the NFC only works within 4cm of the phone and requires a PIN code to accept payment. Either payment method is still going to have your full credit card info used when taking it from your account and, like what happened with Target last year, that info is still not secure because the companies themselves are not fully secure. We're pretty much screwed either way but I personally wouldn't purchase a phone solely on the basis of the NFC payment methods available. Until the service is perfected and the majority of companies accept the payment methods, it is kind of a gimmick. But that's just my opinion...
The article I read was that the Tokenization process doesn't send full card information over the NFC. It sends a Token, then the token is transmitted to a third party to be translated to the card information which is then presented to your bank for payment. (the exact wording is different) So this means that the hackers can steal all the tokens they want from the merchants, but it won't matter.
Anyway, yes, I understand that I can't base on just that to buy a phone, but if this type of payment catches on, Softcard or Google Wallet will probably need to change their algorithm, and that may require a new secure device which our phones do not have now.
Just thinking... :laugh:
de2000 said:
The article I read was that the Tokenization process doesn't send full card information over the NFC. It sends a Token, then the token is transmitted to a third party to be translated to the card information which is then presented to your bank for payment. (the exact wording is different) So this means that the hackers can steal all the tokens they want from the merchants, but it won't matter.
Anyway, yes, I understand that I can't base on just that to buy a phone, but if this type of payment catches on, Softcard or Google Wallet will probably need to change their algorithm, and that may require a new secure device which our phones do not have now.
Just thinking... :laugh:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I wasn't aware that it wasn't full card information which would make it much more secure. I hope it does catch on because too many people are having their credit card information stolen and we need a secure system in place. The only problem is the merchants willingness to adopt these new procedures. Currently there is only a handful of retailers who have said they would be adopting Apple Pay. Now Apple being as popular as they are will make it more widely accepted I'm sure and it would make Softcard or Google Wallet rethink they're current procedures. Either way, I can only hope this is a step in the right direction for more secure payment methods!
Related
Anyone think it's possible to make GWallet to work on our phone? I really really like the function.
Well...idk but you can try this http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1744403-the flashable package most likely won't flash properly so you'll have to extract the contents and put them in the appropriate places then reboot...
Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 2
The Vivid doesn't have an NFC chip, so Google Wallet won't work. There once was a NFC enabled microSD by Moneto that could utilize MasterCard Paypass, but wouldn't give access to Google Wallet, only access to Moneto's Paypass app. However there website says they're "Undergoing some Changes", and although i didn't look hard, I couldn't find any place to purchase - not to mention last I heard it was only compatible with Samsungs..
homeslice976 said:
The Vivid doesn't have an NFC chip, so Google Wallet won't work. There once was a NFC enabled microSD by Moneto that could utilize MasterCard Paypass, but wouldn't give access to Google Wallet, only access to Moneto's Paypass app. However there website says they're "Undergoing some Changes", and although i didn't look hard, I couldn't find any place to purchase - not to mention last I heard it was only compatible with Samsungs..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I thought I saw NFC in our phone.... I must have mixup with other phone when I was shopping.....
(DAMN AT&T)
RayYung said:
I thought I saw NFC in our phone.... I must have mixup with other phone when I was shopping.....
(DAMN AT&T)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's not AT&T's fault. When the Vivid, and just about every other phone, came out last year, NFC technology was in a state of flux - and it still is. Google announced just in the past day or so that it's changing to work with all cards. Few phones have the NFC chips. A lot of businesses are not yet equipped to work with them. The next round of new phones should have more phones with NFC chips. A year from now might be a lot different. However, taking a credit card from my "real" wallet and running it through the scanner might take 3-4 seconds. I really am not upset if that's 1-2 seconds slower than using my phone.
What is the status of getting Google wallet to work on the note 3? Ive had Google wallet since my nexus 5 days and really like the app. .. Will 4.4 bring us access to it?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
yokozuna82 said:
What is the status of getting Google wallet to work on the note 3? Ive had Google wallet since my nexus 5 days and really like the app. .. Will 4.4 bring us access to it?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Google wallet works, however the tap to pay feature doesn't. And that really sucks!
I believe Isis works now with 4.3, and if you flash 4.4 a certain way isis will still work. You'll have to search for that isis thread for more info.
So even with the N900A update this week we still do not have a working Tap to Pay on Google Wallet. I was hopefully both because of their response to my FCC complaint in Nov 13 that said 4.4 would have it and because its my understanding it works on the 4.4 update for the i337 S4.
I'm planning on starting a thread on the AT&T Community Support forums but I'd love to know if there's a simple way around this. I used to love Tap to Pay on my phones circa 2011/12 but I haven't had it for almost 3 years courtesy of all 3 Galaxy Note models. Has anyone attempted to side load the .apk from the Nexus 5?
Sent from my SM-T900 using Tapatalk
I too would like tap-to-pay to work in Google Wallet. But I'm curious about why people value tap-to-pay.
I've been using tap-to-pay in Isis Wallet, and it works well. But I find that it's slightly more work to take out my phone, start the wallet app, enter my PIN, and tap than it is to take out my physical wallet, remove the credit card, and swipe. Tap-to-pay is entertaining because it still has novelty value, but I don't see any practical advantage yet.
I was also hoping that the update would include support for tap to pay. I had the X-Note Rom installed for a while and tap to pay surprisingly worked. Probably because it was based off of an international Rom I would assume. I have gone back to stock and not having tap to pay again sucks. I hope Google can force AT&T to let us use it soon.
Gary02468 said:
I too would like tap-to-pay to work in Google Wallet. But I'm curious about why people value tap-to-pay.
I've been using tap-to-pay in Isis Wallet, and it works well. But I find that it's slightly more work to take out my phone, start the wallet app, enter my PIN, and tap than it is to take out my physical wallet, remove the credit card, and swipe. Tap-to-pay is entertaining because it still has novelty value, but I don't see any practical advantage yet.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
From a security standpoint it's far more secure than a physical card presented to the cashier. Convenience wise, it's easier to not carry multiple cards and safer too from a potential lose your wallet standpoint.
I agree there's a high level of novelty but it's a useful feature none the less. ISIS is a boondoggle and only works with AT&T provides sim cards. I'm usually on Straight Talk or Go Phone when in the US.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
aygriffith said:
Has anyone attempted to side load the .apk from the Nexus 5?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, and unfortunately it still doesn't use the tap-to-pay feature.
I'm like you. When I was with t-mobile, I returned my precious Note3 all because of this stupid carrier blocking this service. I went with the Nexus5.
My wife and I, recently moved to at&t, and knowing the 4.4.2 update was just around the corner, I jumped into another Note3.
Now, since I'm full blown official 4.4.2, I STILL CAN'T USE GOOGLE'S WALLET TAP-TO-PAY FEATURE!!!
WHAT THE HELL!?!?
Even side loading my Nexus5 Google wallet apk, it still won't activate the service I fell in love with on my Nexus5!
Just plain stupid!
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
aygriffith said:
From a security standpoint it's far more secure than a physical card presented to the cashier. Convenience wise, it's easier to not carry multiple cards and safer too from a potential lose your wallet standpoint.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks, those are helpful points.
I can see those advantages arising eventually, but for me at least they're not here yet. I only use one card anyway, and until e-wallets are accepted everywhere, I still need to carry the card. Everyplace that accepts e-wallets also allows self-swiping of cards, so there's no cashier risk if I use my card instead of my e-wallet. Card readers can be skimmed, but so can NFC readers.
Nonetheless, I would like tap-to-pay to work.
I came here researching for a friend who wants wallet tap and pay on his AT&T note 3 and I have to comment on the "novelty" factor. I have a t-mobile s4 running TheSickness's Insane Kit Kat V8 and I use tap and pay on a daily basis. I have one bank account and 2 debit cards linked to wallet and each payday I allot myself an amount to use for lunches and things at work. There are two stores beside mine, a drugstore and an upscale, independent grocery store, who both have NFC registers. I don't have to pull out a card or fumble with cash because I already always have my phone in my hand. I tap the card reader and put in my wallet pin and I walk out. It's not just novel, it's incredibly useful and helps me budget my income better. Just my two cents.
Edit : come to think of it, the McDonald's and the subway there both have NFC, too.
Sent From One Sick, Insane, Deviant Kat!
Gary02468 said:
Thanks, those are helpful points.
I can see those advantages arising eventually, but for me at least they're not here yet. I only use one card anyway, and until e-wallets are accepted everywhere, I still need to carry the card. Everyplace that accepts e-wallets also allows self-swiping of cards, so there's no cashier risk if I use my card instead of my e-wallet. Card readers can be skimmed, but so can NFC readers.
Nonetheless, I would like tap-to-pay to work.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
NFC can't be skimmed, not like a credit card. While its true the phone is using Host Card Emulation there is little to be gained by capturing the NFC data. The Wallet app communicates with Google's servers to generate unique card data for each transaction. That's why the Google Wallet app only functions when you have internet access.
Okay guys, I want to start a serious discussion about Android Pay, and specifically alternatives to it.
I want to start off by saying this is just sad that we, who buy nexus phones to have options as unlockable bootloaders, and base Google nexus roms or custom roms, that Android Pay requires it's base rom, and unrooted. This is unacceptable in today's age.
I was running Cyanogenmod 12.1 Nightly, and everything worked solidly and smoothly to where I wanted it to be. Then enter Android Pay.
I couldn't add my card. I tried all of the tricks. With Cyanogenmod particularly there seems to be a check. Locking bootloader, removing root, doing both at the same time still would not work. It was also checking for the Cyanogenmod rom.
So I say, fine, I really want to test the convenience of Android Pay. So I go through the trouble of backing up all of my files. Installing a Google factory image. Rooting the rom. Adding my recovery. Locking bootloader and temporarily removing root to setup the card.
It worked. Card added. I head on over to McDonalds (I know food is bad, but I the closest place near me that has android pay.) I go to swap, and I get an error. Card cannot be used.
Seriously! WTF. I thought, maybe this card needs to be enabled for Mobile Payments. I call Wells fargo, They say it wasn't enabled but they have now enabled and it should work now.
Next day. I repeat the same thing. Same error. No mention as to why it cannot use my card, just that it cannot. All provisions have taken place to get to this point and all the trouble and sacrifice of features from a much better rom (Cyanogenmod), through all the trouble of installing a Google factory image, and this still doesn't work. I figure it must be because I'm still rooted or bootloader is unlocked again.
Well seriously, screw you Google. We shouldn't have to go through so much trouble just to use a payment system, and at the end of it all, it still will not work. And what is Google's response to this? "We cannot guarantee security on rooted devices." Really? You cannot implement proper encryption methods of card numbers? You cannot think of a way to better secure a payment system for rooted users? This is Google stating we cannot do something everyone wants. Well I'd rather not use your pay system if you are going to act like this.
We need a new mobile payment system, not run by Google. Rooted users are willingly taking the risk. Nothing is ever perfectly secure, and is always a risk involved, but it's secure enough. Make an app that unroots you temporarily while you make a transaction or something. I want mobile payment system, and I refuse to not run custom roms and not root. Find a way, or be left behind. Stop trying to drag users back to your stock / unrooted ways. We will bypass you. I've left Verizon for these same kind of restrictions on their phones.
What are your thoughts. I know already you are going to say that "It's not secure, etc." but this is not a valid excuse. There has to be a compromise between security and the ability to mobile pay conveniently. I mean guys, this really goes beyond trying to patch an apk to make it work. There's WAY too many restrictions on this, and the window too small that most users aren't able to view. If my phone gets stolen, I can always call to disable mobile payment. If it's rooted Applications trying to access your card data, find a way to block it. Encrypt transactions, encrypt card info, something. If we cannot then we cannot ever use a Mobile payment system.
Not to mention, there's a TON of money to be had by becoming the VISA of mobile payments. All it takes is a developer willing to not assume responsibility for stolen money, charge $5 for the application, or even $0.01 cents per transaction. I'd sure as hell pay it if you can make it work on rooted custom rom devices.
What would it take to make one of these? Banks would be willing to work with you on it I'm sure, they will see the value. There has to already be an API for mobile payment system. We just need an apk that can do it. Trust issues of who writes it? Just charge some per transaction, so we can sue you should you try to screw us.
nikitis said:
<snipped>
Next day. I repeat the same thing. Same error. No mention as to why it cannot use my card, just that it cannot. All provisions have taken place to get to this point and all the trouble and sacrifice of features from a much better rom (Cyanogenmod), through all the trouble of installing a Google factory image, and this still doesn't work. I figure it must be because I'm still rooted or bootloader is unlocked again.
Well seriously, screw you Google. We shouldn't have to go through so much trouble just to use a payment system, and at the end of it all, it still will not work. And what is Google's response to this? "We cannot guarantee security on rooted devices." Really? You cannot implement proper encryption methods of card numbers? You cannot think of a way to better secure a payment system for rooted users? This is Google stating we cannot do something everyone wants. Well I'd rather not use your pay system if you are going to act like this.
We need a new mobile payment system, not run by Google. Rooted users are willingly taking the risk. Nothing is ever perfectly secure, and is always a risk involved, but it's secure enough. Make an app that unroots you temporarily while you make a transaction or something. I want mobile payment system, and I refuse to not run custom roms and not root. Find a way, or be left behind. Stop trying to drag users back to your stock / unrooted ways. We will bypass you. I've left Verizon for these same kind of restrictions on their phones.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Here' s the thing. Your first comment is flawed. "i figure" does not mean you know. There's a ton of reasons why it may not have worked. Could be a problem with that McDonald's for all we know. Or your card issuer(the person at their customer service line isn't privvy to everything technical occurring that may not yet be widely known). You've done limited to know troubleshooting to really isolate the issue.
Second...security is what matters. Why? Cause it's not on you. It's on the vendor and the card issuer. They are the ones who get to dictate what level of security is required before they CHOOSE to participate. I'm sure Google could come up with an option for rooted users...and I'm pretty sure Visa/Mastercard and other bank backed card issuers would tell them to take a hike.
nikitis said:
Rooted users are willingly taking the risk.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Banks would be willing to work with you on it I'm sure, they will see the value.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You nor Google aren't the one assuming the risk, it's the banks and they are the very reason you can't use this with root. The trade off for Google is yet another foray into your personal data and what you are doing with your money and where.
nikitis said:
snip......Banks would be willing to work with you on it I'm sure, they will see the value.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No. No they aren't willing and no they won't see the value.
PayPal works but, the stores are extremely limited right now. Maybe later.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
Rooted users are willingly taking the risk.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, this is wrong and i will tell you why.
If fraudsters charge up a storm on stolen card data with a given merchant, and that merchant delivers his product, he’s out the product – and that’s just the start.
The banks may then look to him for reimbursement for permitting the fraudulent transactions. In addition, the payment processor will learn of the fraud and terminate his processing account. Once that happens, no other processing firm is likely to take his business. He’ll be put on a blacklist. So in this case, the merchant can just get destroyed (specifically small businesses).
Usually, however, it is the banks that get hurt the most. This includes small regional banks. Visa and MasterCard’s contracts generally put the burden of fraud reimbursement onto the bank. A small bank may get hit with a big fraud reimbursement if a breach is serious enough. Worse, if the merchant itself is somehow involved, it may make it impossible to recoup from the merchant.
The risk isn't yours.
Also, I would also question the legality of altering software/firmware to use your credit cards. Maybe it's against the terms and conditions or possibly the law. I would look into that before you make any purchases.
I wonder if Apple Pay fails if you jailbreak iOS...
Obstacles with the Android Pay is a bummer, but if I have to choose between Android Pay and Rooting, my money is on rooting. I can still use my hard to pay, and I actually run into more stores that prefer EMV chip, over Apple/Android Pay.
Maybe in the future, for people with Android wear, we may be able to pay with watch linked to a rooted phone..?
Lol!
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
Here is an easy alternative. Go to Amazon and buy one of those fancy cases that allow you to carry cards. Problem solved.
Personally, I use cash. I guess that is because I am from the 20th century. In all reality, they could set it up so that you transfer the invisible money from your invisible account into an invisible account ran by google, then you could use that invisible money for your purchases. They would have to have an agreement that if your invisible money somehow becomes more invisible they are not responsible. Google would then be able to simply take your invisible money, but no way they would do that, right?
Someone in my family had her Galaxy S9 stolen. She reported it to Verizon and they had the EMEI blacklisted with all carriers.
But how permanently attached is the EMEI number, can't you just wipe it/hack it?
How sophisticated does a thief have to be to circumvent it and make it work on a carrier again?
FYI: I am not asking anything about how to "get around a blacklisted EMEI" number nor do I want to hear about a single way of doing so.
I simply wanted to ask if blacklisting the EMEI is very effective against a phone thief?
We had a brand new S9 stolen, and reported it to Verizon, but they are just general customer service. So their claim that it can't be used by anyone in the US doesn't really mean much to me
halfhumble said:
Someone in my family had her Galaxy S9 stolen. She reported it to Verizon and they had the EMEI blacklisted with all carriers.
But how permanently attached is the EMEI number, can't you just wipe it/hack it?
How sophisticated does a thief have to be to circumvent it and make it work on a carrier again?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It can be done. We don't necessarily allow discussion of how to do it here for obvious reasons, but the guy would have to be fairly competent on a computer to go in and do that.
More than likely he'll sell it really cheap to someone or a shady outfit that does know how to do it.
orangekid said:
It can be done. We don't necessarily allow discussion of how to do it here for obvious reasons, but the guy would have to be fairly competent on a computer to go in and do that.
More than likely he'll sell it really cheap to someone or a shady outfit that does know how to do it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Okay, that's what I figured, I thought there must be a way.
halfhumble said:
Okay, that's what I figured, I thought there must be a way.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Unfortunately yes. That is one thing iOS has over Android, I don't think it's possible to reprgoram an IMEI on an iPhone, so once it iCloud locks it really is a brick.
I still prefer Android though because of other pros.
orangekid said:
Unfortunately yes. That is one thing iOS has over Android, I don't think it's possible to reprgoram an IMEI on an iPhone, so once it iCloud locks it really is a brick.
I still prefer Android though because of other pros.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Interesting, didn't know that. Android manufactures should follow suit to reduce phone thefts.
Maybe it would have been better to NOT blacklist the EMEI when it's stolen, so that the thief or buyer activates it. Then report it like a month later to track who has it at the time.
If it's been sold, the police could work backwards from the for sale listing or emails with the buyer (Craigslist for example). Kinda elaborate though.....
halfhumble said:
Interesting, didn't know that. Android manufactures should follow suit to reduce phone thefts.
Maybe it would have been better to NOT blacklist the EMEI when it's stolen, so that the thief or buyer activates it. Then report it like a month later to track who has it at the time.
If it's been sold, the police could work backwards from the for sale listing or emails with the buyer (Craigslist for example). Kinda elaborate though.....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah well it's not on the manufacturers really, I think it's just a limitation of AOSP and the way android works. Even KNOX can't prevent it or even working around FRP (which I had to do not too long ago for a legitimate forgotten password).
But yeah I think those types of thefts are probably too low importance for the cyber crime division to go thru those types of hoops. The only real possibility would have been to try to track the phone when turned back on, or put one of those invisible self installing tracker type apps in the SD card.
End of the day if you lose or phone or it gets stolen, you're pretty much SOL.
orangekid said:
Yeah well it's not on the manufacturers really, I think it's just a limitation of AOSP and the way android works. Even KNOX can't prevent it or even working around FRP (which I had to do not too long ago for a legitimate forgotten password).
But yeah I think those types of thefts are probably too low importance for the cyber crime division to go thru those types of hoops. The only real possibility would have been to try to track the phone when turned back on, or put one of those invisible self installing tracker type apps in the SD card.
End of the day if you lose or phone or it gets stolen, you're pretty much SOL.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
"self installing tracker type apps in the SD card." Didn't know that existed. Will look into that.
Since Samsung eliminated MicroSD and reduced Internal Storage many users have turned to Cloud Storage for backups and data storage. You would be wise to assume all major Cloud Platforms have already been hacked to some degree but only when a major breach occurs will Cloud Provider's acknowledge the problem. It's a very real concern and the risks are rising. Common sense dictates that you protect yourself with other storage options!
Microsoft: Russian-backed hackers targeting cloud services
Microsoft said Monday the same Russia-backed hackers responsible for the 2020 SolarWinds breach continue to attack the global technology supply chain and have been relentlessly targeting cloud service companies and others since summer. The group, which Microsoft calls Nobelium, has employed a...
news.yahoo.com
I don't want the battery/bandwidth waste of cloud and don't trust it.
Use a OTG flashstick for quick "dirty" backups.
Main backup should always be at least two hdds that are physically and electronically isolated from each other and the PC.
Samsung will likely return to having SD card slots in the future on at least some of their flagship devices. Samsung's been cycling like this for years.
Personally I refuse to buy any device that doesn't allow for a dual drive setup.
One of the reasons I bought a 2nd new N10+ a few weeks ago.
Cloud storage is a joke, as internet law allows them to 'OWN' your data. Possession is 9/10ths of the law, and if anything at all comes up over it you are at a disadvantage when it comes to getting back your data. This is how far behind the laws governing the internet are. Plus we have all of the major players in this country, funneling data to the CIA, and whoever else is asking.
I am a huge fan of local storage solutions and have a fireproof container for drives, medicine and other things. AT&T is the worst offender with their people using LOWER requirements for the sharing of our data. They are ALL doing it, so don't get cocky about your carrier. If they aren't doing it, they are being spied on to get it, anyway.
I will never trust corporations that believe they are people too. They don't even pay taxes.
Thisis Insane said:
Cloud storage is a joke, as internet law allows them to 'OWN' your data. Possession is 9/10ths of the law, and if anything at all comes up over it you are at a disadvantage when it comes to getting back your data. This is how far behind the laws governing the internet are. Plus we have all of the major players in this country, funneling data to the CIA, and whoever else is asking.
I am a huge fan of local storage solutions and have a fireproof container for drives, medicine and other things. AT&T is the worst offender with their people using LOWER requirements for the sharing of our data. They are ALL doing it, so don't get cocky about your carrier. If they aren't doing it, they are being spied on to get it, anyway.
I will never trust corporations that believe they are people too. They don't even pay taxes.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Bell Atlantic had Black Rooms over a half a century ago...
A Bell lineman friend was the first to tell me about these almost 50 years ago.
Hoover was a vacuum cleaner...
Wasn't going that far back. We can start at the first time a caveman hit another one over the head to steal his woman. lol
This is more to do with the use/abuse of technology which could be so helpful for our society, but the crooks just won't stop ruining things. Can't have anything nice, anymore.
Thisis Insane said:
Wasn't going that far back. We can start at the first time a caveman hit another one over the head to steal his woman. lol
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
History teaches you lessons so you don't have to learn the hard way...
They were eavesdropping on Nikola Tesla, to find out what he was doing, and steal the best of his work. They even have the guy in Tesla's hometown museum saying all of Tesla's trunks are there. He only has 60 or 70 of them, and there were 120 or something in that vein.
It's everywhere, and most of us are sleepwalking, and don't even know that we don't know what's going on.
blackhawk said:
History teaches you lessons so you don't have to learn the hard way...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It only works if people pay attention in school.
The newest exploit called Log4Shell is another good reason to avoid Cloud Storage. It has the ability to manipulate any Java scripts including iPhone. "Apple’s infrastructure is a Java program that will log the name of a user’s iPhone, so, as of a few hours ago, one could use this to exploit iCloud!" Anyone who feels Cloud Storage Platforms are secure is delusional.
What's the Deal with the Log4Shell Security Nightmare?
The details behind a massive cyber problem.
www.lawfareblog.com