Comments by "Sasha S" (@sashas3362) on "Rob Braxman Tech" channel.

  1. 17
  2. 9
  3. 5
  4. 5
  5. 4
  6. 3
  7. 3
  8.  @dorfsteen  Whether satellites are real or not, or whether calls are routed overseas via undersea cables, is irrelevant to how cell phones work. Cell phones are not claimed to work by connecting to satellites by anyone with basic knowledge of cell phone technology. It is no surprise you lose service in some areas. The maps you mentioned show the "dead spots". It's no secret there are dead spots. Those are areas where there aren't any cell phone towers nearby to provide the service. BTW iirc the reason we still use undersea cables is because they transmit light. They are optical cables. Light can carry more data at a higher speed than radio waves because the light is at a higher frequency than radio waves. They didn't have laser based communications when they laid those cables. Or maybe it was cheaper to lay undersea cables than to launch satellites into orbit. They certainly do have some sort of radio transmitters in the sky whether they be high altitude balloons or satellites in geostationary orbit. Otherwise your satellite tv dish wouldn't need to be pointed towards it. So if they can fake a satellite using balloons why would they lay cables under the sea? It would be easier to launch a high altitude balloon with a radio transmitter attached. You see the problem with your logic? I'll admit it is strange they haven't simply used lasers to communicate instead of laying fiber optic cables undersea. But like I said maybe it is cheaper to lay cables undersea. Satellites which transmit signals using lasers may require high power lasers too to get through all the particulates in the atmosphere. I know such satellites are now claimed to exist. They are being used to build a quantum internet where entangled photons are used for quantum encryption. This tech has probably been around longer than the public has known. But it is only within the past couple decades that I have heard of laser based communications. So it's relatively new in the public arena.
    3
  9. 3
  10. 3
  11. 3
  12. 3
  13. 3
  14. 2
  15. 2
  16. 2
  17. 2
  18. 2
  19. 2
  20. 2
  21. 2
  22. 2
  23. 2
  24. 2
  25. 2
  26. 2
  27. 2
  28. 2
  29. 2
  30. 1
  31. I mentioned this to someone and he said any sort of automated crime detection is unconstitutional. He pointed to some cases involving automated speed traps set up on roadsides which take a picture if you go over the speed limit. He said a cop has to witness it, can't be a machine because that is unconstitutional. I don't know if that is correct but I do vaguely recall hearing something about how those speedtrap fines can be challenged in court and you will win because it is illegal/unconstitutional for some reason. I don't know why it is illegal. Maybe because it involves warrantless search before probable cause. The same may apply where client side scanning for criminal activity using phones are concerned. I personally don't have a problem with law enforcement using automated technologies to punish people for speeding or other traffic violations. Not enough is being done to ensure safety on the road imo. But use of automated violation detectors may be illegal. I'm inclined to say that if client side scanning protects kids then maybe it isn't so bad. But the gov tends to use kids as an excuse to take away rights and privacy. For example, I have discovered libraries are censoring online content using various filtering technology such as customized blacklists and also some "intelligent" ai based filtering of some sort. They admit that their filtering will result in some sites being unjustly blocked. They try to make it sound like that isn't a problem though because all you need to do is let the librarian know and they will unblock the site if it doesn't break their rules. That is intolerable imo because it is a violation of privacy. I shouldn't have to disclose to them what website I am trying to access. That is none of their beeswax. This lead me to discover that they aren't using secure DNS because they need to know the domain names to filter! I asked to see their privacy policy but they don't have one for using their computers or wifi hotspots. I tried to explain to them why that is a problem but they just didn't seem to understand. They kept saying things like "listen, we're NOT going to let people come in here and access illegal content". imo they shouldn't be policing people like that. Leave the policing to law enforcement. I mean if people come in there and start accessing illegal content then the police can arrest them. They are just using the excuse of protecting kids to spy and censor imo. It should be illegal for libraries to do that because that can lead to civil rights violations and abuses such as censoring perfectly legal content or a stalinesque purge of political enemies.
    1
  32. 1
  33. 1
  34. 1
  35. 1
  36. 1
  37. 1
  38. 1
  39. 1
  40. 1
  41. 1
  42. 1
  43. 1
  44. 1
  45. 1
  46. 1
  47. 1
  48. 1
  49. 1
  50. 1
  51. I'm not sure I understand the strategy you are recommending or exactly what you are expecting to accomplish, rob. You talk about hiding your identity yet you talk about giving actual device phone numbers to google voice. Although you can use an unegistered prepaid phone bought with cash the carrier and it's affiliates will be able to identify the user because they have access to it's location via GPS and triangulation relative to wifi hotspots even if location tracking and wifi is disabled. Even if you never use the phone at home they can still identify you using facial recognition data etc when you are out in public. Not only that but they can locate your home by using the accelerometers and gyroscopes to track where the phone is even when it is turned off or the battery is removed because the baseband computer is always running (on a second non-removeable internal battery and can even be powered by airwaves like a crystal radio). BTW google voice records all calls for analysis by Ai to somehow improve google's speech recognition (or at least it still did last I heard about it). That data is reportedly anonymized but anonymized data can easily be deanonymized using data in databanks obtained through data harvesting. You might be able to hide from a certain Ai at this time but not all Ai's and certainly not forever. All the data is recorded and can later be linked to an identity someday after the Ai improves in it's ability to identify users. You might be able to hide phone numbers and identities from some people you interact with but not big tech or gov. Their all seeing eye has become impossible to hide from.
    1
  52.  @robbraxmantech  You mean email notifications? You're using a google voicemail number as the phone number required to set up an email account then having notifications sent to that email account? I still don't understand how that prevents the email platform owner or others (such as the Ai you mentioned) from learning your true identity since you are giving your phone number or device ID to google voice. Or did I misunderstand you about that? I'm presuming you are using the google voice app. If so then what prevents the app from acquiring your device ID and IP address? Or is there a web based version which can run in the tor browser or perhaps some web 3.0 browser or browser dapp? Web 3.0 holds some exciting promises for protecting privacy but most people are still using computers which come with closed-source OS's and apps to run the dapps...unless they've built the computer themselves and installed an open source distribution of linux instead of windows, etc. But even if you build from scratch you'd need to run some closed source drivers and BIOS/firmware code, wouldn't you? I know there are some open source BIOS/firmware/driver alternatives out there but am not sure that those are stable and reliable or not since they don't get bug tested the way the closed source options do (since few people are using fully open source systems because it is too challenging to build such a system). Somebody needs to mass market a fully open source computer which can be trusted. It's ironic how all the tools for building such a computer are available but you can't buy that kind of computer. It's as though it were some sort of sci-fi fantasy like antigravity or a time machine.
    1
  53. 1
  54. 1
  55. 1
  56. 1
  57. 1
  58. 1
  59. 1
  60. 1
  61. 1
  62. 1
  63. 1
  64. 1
  65. 1
  66. 1
  67. 1
  68. 1
  69. 1
  70. 1
  71. 1
  72.  @robbraxmantech  Thanks for letting me know, Rob. I appreciate your input. Is there a way to replace the OEM software and drivers with open source alternatives? It seems there should be some open source alternatives out there by now. There are open source BIOS, firmware, and driver code for PC's and some peripherals so why not phones? BTW do you know what the legal status of installing custom roms onto tablets is? It seems it was illegal at one time and so may still be illegal unless it was legalized. I have read it's legal to install custom roms onto phones as long as you truly own it and it is allowed by the legal documents attached to the phone and you aren't intending to do anything illegal with it. But I have read it is illegal to install a custom rom onto tablets. I don't understand why there would be a difference between a tablet and a phone. A so-called (smart) "phone" isn't actually (only) a telephone but rather a small tablet. A tablet can make "telephone" calls AKA "voice calls" the same as a tablet so what is the difference? A tablet can do everything a phone can do or vice verse. So what is the difference? Supposedly it's illegal to install a custom rom onto a tablet due to copyright laws but I don't understand that. Perhaps you would know. Hopefully that nonsense has been outdated. Maybe the right to repair executive order biden signed the other day makes it legal to install custom roms on tablets? The only reason that law was needed is to knock down the obstacles created by copyright laws on the software inside of the hardware, right? So, if copyright laws are what made it illegal to install custom roms onto tablets and you argue you are "repairing" a tablet by installing a custom rom because you believe it is in need of improvements due to (intentional) design "flaws" (which are intended to weaken security and create backdoors for illegal surveillance) then it should now be perfectly legal to install a custom ROM onto any tablet you own to "fix" it (IMO).
    1
  73. 1
  74. 1
  75. 1
  76. 1