To what end? I can think of 10 reasons immediately off the top of my head, but it’s far easier to fill existing open source projects with agent contributors for most of them.
Do you really need someone to rhyme out why state actors do what they do?
When something is only a few thousand dollars away from us in "the adjacent possible", I hardly think one needs to be a conspiracy theorist to suggest we consider it...?
I don't have the means to research, but certainly there would be ample resources for such an attack in certain spaces??? Manufacturing social signal is hugely valuable
I feel like governments have so many options for hacking that forking open source and dealing with all that is likely more work than whatever outcome they hope for.
He basically pushed a player going through a crisis to suicide with his baseless accusations. Proceeded to make public derogatory remarks right after they passed while the family barely started grieving. This is a slap on the wrist.
Kramnik was accused of pushing Naroditsky to suicide and defended himself by saying that it was far more likely that Naroditsky died due to a drug overdose.
Toxicology reports later showed that Naroditsky did die due to the combination of an abnormal heartbeat, sarcoidosis and drugs, specifically methamphetamines and kratom.
Now if you want to speculate that he took those drugs due to the harassment that's a possibility, but claiming he died due to suicide is entirely unsubstatiated and uncalled for.
His final stream is illuminating if you can still find it. He speaks directly about Kramnik who he grew up idolizing right before his friend had to pull him away for erratic behavior. His comments during that stream strongly point to a suicide.
It is called for and is substantiated. Should the guy get prosecuted over it? Probably not although a precedent is moving towards pushing and or telling someone to kill them selves constitutes some kind of criminal liability at least in the states.
Drug overdoses are so often a method of suicide it is almost laughable to use that as an argument to defend assholery. Some people are psychopaths and Kramnit screams like one. Zero empathy remorse or event the slightest drop of compassion.
They already collect and track you, even with car play. I strongly recommend this CCC talk, where they hacked a Volkswagen database that contained unfiltered, high-accuracy, timestamped locations of a large majority of electric cars from VW group.
Based on that they were, for example, able to identify cars owned by members of Germany's security apparatus: where they work, where they live, where they drop off their children each morning. Who visited brothels.
They do, you just then don't benefit from the service. At least, that's been confirmed to be the case with Subaru from other security researchers looking at the telematics system.
Just curious, are car manufacturers required to obtain explicit consent from owners for collecting such data according to GDPR? Or German car lobby's pocket politicians were able to carve out some exception for them?
Irrelevant - it’s still a great type of kompromat when you want to gain leverage on someone. They probably don’t want their wives to know, for instance. Same if they’re a prominent backer of religious moral values.
