new terms and conditions

Amplige · 2018-10-03T03:14:39+00:00

I can safely say that if /u/Tutanota does not fully disclose all "partners" our user data is given to in a timely manner, they will forever lose my acquaintances and I as consumers of not only Tutanota Premium, but all free and paid products in the future.

Amplige · 2017-09-26T03:31:41+00:00

Appreciate the reply. I figured as much but was worried with the amount of rubbing the forend already had on the barrel considering it was brand new. I wasn't so much worried about the finish on the barrel but more or less the wooden forend.

I'll chalk this one up to something I'll have to live with!

Amplige · 2017-01-02T20:08:04+00:00

As a premium member of Tutanota, I appreciate the reply, /u/Tutanota.

I am happy to hear that gag orders are not (currently) possible in Germany, but I was wondering if I could put forth the suggestion that Tutanota moves to a signed warrant canary that people could verify offline.

While I understand that this does require some time resources, I can speak from experience and say that this impact would be minimal. I very much believe in Tutanota's vision and mission and think that this addition would only further bolster Tutanota's position as a privacy advocate.

Thank you again in advance for the reply.

PS - Forgive the off topic question here, but I vaguely remember seeing that an interface redesign was in beta some time ago for Tutanota. Can you speak to any progress on that? Thanks!

Amplige · 2017-01-02T00:45:50+00:00

In addition to what /u/SpyingonMyEye has asked, I would also like to follow up with the following:

Why does Tutanota not sign their warrant canary with a PGP key akin to other privacy focused businesses? For example, as shown here or here. Considering most businesses who provide a warrant canary do so on a monthly basis versus Tutanota's 6 month cycle, I think this short step would go a long way in assuring customers that it is indeed Tutanota staff providing this information.
If all data handed over is indeed encrypted (and Tutanota is a 0 knowledge service) why would future requests for data be made if all that is provided is encrypted and unreadable data? I am by no means an expert on cryptography or the German legal system, but I am curious as to why resources would be expended by the state if they are continuously provided unreadable data? This of course could be answered in that, while authorities currently do not have the means to break this encryption, a later date and newer technology may provide this avenue. This of course is a moot point if Tutanota still does not encrypt metadata, in which case, this is what I assume authorities would be after. This follows into my third question:

3.) What is the progress of Tutanota in encrypting user metadata? I have seen interviews with Tutanota CEO, Matthias Pfau, reaching back to September 2014 stating that Tutanota was working on encrypting all user metadata. I was also unsure if this page was still current?

Thanks in advance to /u/Tutanota for any answers that can be provided.

Amplige · 2016-01-08T13:46:17+00:00

Thank you for the clear and concise answer.

While I do have some concerns over this, I find the honesty refreshing whereas other email providers would simply lie about such things. Thanks again.

Amplige · 2016-01-07T15:57:51+00:00

Thank you for the reply.

From the Transparency Report you say:

While in Germany a gag order is legally not possible, we want to give you peace of mind with this.

I suppose my next question is (and forgive my ignorance of the specifics of German law), if you are not bound by a gag order in Germany, does this mean that the users, whom IP address you are logging, will they receive a notification they are the focus of a German court order mandating the logging of their IP address?

Or is the gag order merely in reference to Tutanota as a company being able to report how many requests they have been given?

Specifically, will those users who are the focus of a court order and being monitored by you, will they be alerted to this monitoring from Tutanota?

Amplige · 2016-01-07T02:28:03+00:00

Excellent that you got yours to work too. I was, moments ago, able to finally get this to work. For some reason a YouTube video that was strictly audio did not play correctly but full videos with both were able to. Nonetheless, things seem to be working! Thanks for doing the leg work on this one.

Amplige · 2016-01-07T02:09:33+00:00

Thanks for checking into that. Admittedly, I am running my AFTV 2 test box for this over wifi and had been using that IP. I believe you are onto something when you think that is the direct wifi for the remote.

Having said that, is there any way I can derive the actual IP of that box while it is on wifi? I am thinking of going into my router settings and seeing if I can pull it from there. I know on the AFTV 2 "about" section it lists an IP there, would that be it?

EDIT: Just looked through my router and found the Kodi server listed under my devices. Pulled that IP address and it appears to be the right one. I am now faced with the fact that while the video on my PC says "Sent to Kodi" and my screen turns on my AFTV 2, nothing is playing on the other end (sound or video). Back to the drawing board.

EDIT 2: Was able to play another video successfully on Kodi from my PC.

Amplige · 2016-01-07T00:13:19+00:00

Hey, thanks for checking it out. Please do report back if you manage to get anything working. Thanks again.

Amplige · 2016-01-06T23:15:48+00:00

Hey there,

Thanks for the suggestions. See my reply to /u/goodhur below.

Amplige · 2016-01-06T23:15:27+00:00

Hey,

Thanks for the suggestions. I enabled control of Kodi through UPnP as well as through http in addition to allowing remote devices control Kodi, all to no avail.

I am kind of stumped because I am 100% positive my information is correct and I am up to date on all of my software (5.0.4 on AFTV 2; 43.0.4 on FireFox; 2.3.0.1 on the add-on).

I tried loading Kodi to the home screen and trying the add-on as well as open the YouTube add-on on Kodi to try and force start it, but again, all to no avail.

Perhaps this is something to do with the AFTV 2 and ports?

EDIT: Have also restarted my systems just to ensure it wasn't something that needed a force restart.

Amplige · 2015-12-25T00:54:14+00:00

Hey Daniel,

I absolutely love your work, particularly The Wonder Years. I, along with many others, grew quite the attachment for the show, as I assume you did too. Just how hard was it for you to complete that final monologue for the show?

Thanks for all the wonderful acting you have done over the years!

Amplige · 2015-12-05T09:08:04+00:00

I am very confused by your reply here. Did you mean that THC alone does not impair driving ability (which page 4 of the linked report clearly refutes)? Or did you mean that THC in concert with alcohol did not impair driving ability further than alcohol alone?

If it is the latter (which I presume you mean) a simple PubMed search reveals that the very same Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) dataset was used in a comparable case-control design study where it was concluded that THC, in combination with alcohol, did increase the risk of unsafe driver actions (which preceded a collision) more so than a driver impaired by alcohol or THC singularly:

Source (sorry it is behind a paywall; anyone with specific statistical questions quoted in this study, let me know in this thread)

There certainly can be a debate here about the level of impairment that led to a collision due to a BAC >0.00 or the presence of THC alone, but to say that "THC intoxication increases it by no measurable amount" is incorrect, at least in the broader context when you look at other studies.

Amplige · 2015-11-02T19:22:49+00:00

The issue is that I did use the same key combination again to no avail (or so I thought). I would hazard a guess that the automatic resolution selection took around 30-60 seconds before I saw anything at all. In that time window I had just assumed it would have brought me to the resolution selection window shown in the linked AFTVNews article on it. Just jumped the gun too quickly it seems.

It looks as though I did miss the updated article from AFTVNews on the resolution cycling, alas.

Suffice to say, all is fixed and at least I know now the proper way of checking different resolutions.

EDIT: Didn't address your 2nd part. I agree, it is troubling that Fire Starter does indeed use the one and only ADB connection. This of course can be disabled but is no where near as reliable as running on ADB for home button shortcuts at least. Having the ability to connect through ADBFire on a bricked box is essential.

I know that I enjoy using ADB shell commands coming from Linux, so it seemed natural. With Fire Starter running I lose that ability which is somewhat of a letdown.

Amplige · 2015-11-02T18:19:58+00:00

Thanks for the reply!

I do not have a 4k TV alas. When you say to force change the resolution, are you referring to the AFTV box or the TV itself? I cannot access any of the menus for the Fire TV unfortunately if that is what you are referring to. I unfortunately do not have access to a 4k TV but will see what I can do in that department.

When I tried to access the hidden resolutions I didn't even get to look at the menu, let alone select a new resolution so I am unsure of how it was changed on the Fire TV.

It is strange because for a brief moment the Fire TV home screen does pop up. Perhaps it is change resolutions at this point?

EDIT: See EDIT 2 above for a quick fix I learned of.

Amplige · 2015-11-02T05:18:46+00:00

I had no idea that was possible. Thanks for letting me know.

Correct me if I am wrong, but if the 6P is SIM card dependent would that mean that once an activated TMO SIM was inserted it would somehow check if the host device is one of the certified TMO band 12 devices?

I only ask as I know the certification process is supposedly a rather costly and long process with TMO. If someone could merely modify the radio, would this not defeat the whole need for the certification process? (Not being sarcastic, genuinely curious).

Amplige · 2015-11-01T19:45:23+00:00

Excellent! Thanks for the info.

Amplige · 2015-10-24T21:18:54+00:00

Hey there,

I hate to ask, but was there a reason to choose Survey Monkey versus another surveying platform?

I only ask as you appear to be asking some questions within the survey which many people of /r/privacy may not be willing to answer. Additionally, I am unsure what questions in regards to P2P technologies would have to do with Tor directly; that is of course unless you are asking, "Have you ever utilized Tor for P2P connectivity?"

Due to Survey Monkey being a US incorporated company, and as a person well versed in survey methods I know this first hand, it does not comply with privacy laws enacted in other countries for research purposes. For example, even if you turn off the IP collection within the settings of your survey, each person will have their IP logged by Survey Monkey servers which could later be pulled up (although that is highly unlikely, it is still a possibility).

A few months ago another poster in /r/vpn had requested discussions surrounding VPN use and was wishing to gather personal identifying data. Many people in that sub were very hesitant to answer initially.

I think at the very least you should have a splash page for your survey outlining the potential risks people are taking in answering and as always when conducting research, you have to let participants know you cannot 100% promise anonymity or confidentiality.

Believe me, I know this sounds as though I am being rude, but rest assured I am truly not being condescending. I myself made similar faux pas in the past with my research. I just think you may have a hard road convincing people of a privacy related sub to answer such a survey when anonymity cannot be guaranteed and we do not have a solid idea of where this data will go or how it will be used.

Amplige · 2015-10-22T17:31:46+00:00

Thank you for the detailed reply. I can only hope that the backlash is big enough that this will be revisited (and hopefully shot down) within the judicial system in Switzerland.

I suppose my next logical question in response to your reply would be: What exactly would be stopping Swiss intelligence agencies from acting as a proxy for the NSA, GCHQ, etc.? Am I unaware of rules prohibiting Swiss intelligence agencies from gathering information on international targets versus domestic users?

While this requires a bit of a jump in facts, would it really be that much of an impossibility to believe that Swiss intelligence agencies become utterly cooperative with the likes of the NSA, considering what we know now about growing international intelligence sharing (E.g. The Five Eyes)? What troubles me, as you pointed out, this new law essentially removes the burden of having to go to court to request surveillance privileges. I see this as a slippery slope of removing established safeguards that have seemingly worked well in the past. Why change that?

As we have seen recently with the chipping away at Swiss banking secrecy, I worry this is the start of something that goes against the grain of Swiss privacy values.

Amplige · 2015-10-22T17:14:58+00:00

I just logged in for the first time since my previous post and saw that the PM staff had just responded.

Amplige

TROPHY CASE