"We have no idea why, so here's our woo-woo explanation".

Checked Alarm's privacy policy on their website... and it's kind of sketch. The big ol' "Privacy" link takes you to a page basically saying "We don't sell your info", which OK, cool.

However, scroll all the way to the bottom, and there's another privacy section. That one details what they do with info using their service.

Quick Bing AI summary:

Alarm.com's Privacy Policy outlines how they handle your personal information when you use their services. Here’s a summary in plain English:

Information Collection:
    Alarm.com collects and stores Personal Information from or about you. This includes details that can be used to uniquely contact, identify, or locate you.
    When using the User Interfaces (such as their website or mobile apps), you may provide Personal Information like your name, address, phone number, email, location, or zip code.
    Additionally, when using their Services, you or your Authorized Service Provider may provide additional information (e.g., home or business details, system configuration, sensor names, etc.) to personalize your experience.

Types of Data Collected:
    Performance data from security devices monitored by Alarm.com.
    Electrical usage, heating/cooling information, light settings, and more.
    Alert logs and other relevant data.

Purpose of Data Collection:
    To provide you with the best interactive security, energy management, video monitoring, automation, and wellness services.
    Personalization of services based on the information you provide.
    Alarm.com may also receive data from their partners (like emergency contact info) to enhance their services1.

Remember that data privacy practices may vary based on your region and use of the app2. Always review the full privacy policy for complete details1. If you have specific concerns, consider reaching out to Alarm.com directly for clarification.'

Potassium salt substitute tastes like ass though.

I used to blame my cousin, as she has a raging drug addiction and does shady crap like steal people's credit cards/checks and it was only after she had been over that I had noticed. But nope, still going despite time and resets. If I knew a way of pulling login info off the TV, I'd probably share it, because hell, why not.

How many years has this vulnerability been kicking around? At least through a couple/few generations of processor... so what's the hold up to actually fixing the issue? Also, "InSpectre Gadget" is a great name.

I'm thankful Roku has had data breaches. Mostly because I have a Roku TV that was somehow compromised and now, even after a couple of years and several full factory resets, whoever used my throwaway account signed up for all the streaming services at the highest tier. Hard to be mad when I havent had to pay for anything.

And no, before anyone says anything, it's not putting my home network at risk, as it's just the Roku account that's compromised. Nothing tied to me personally, not even a card/address on the account, so I just chalk it up to "as long as it keeps working, Im not worrying about it".

Seeing this statement makes me wonder - would Proton's ecosystem be considered a juicier target for data, with thinking along the lines of "people adopt proton to have more privacy. Are they more likely to transmit more sensitive data because they think it's more private?"

As I admittedly don't actually know much of Canadian politics, especially so at the provincial level, I had to make some broad assumptions but it seems that such practices are just a given at this point, regardless of geographical location. I found out recently that despite living in the land of the so-called free, it is apparently very much frowned upon to just like... open a roadside tavern for weary travelers. Something about health codes and livestock in common areas or something .

Ah, sounds like that Marlaina person would snub their nose at me. My second thought after "Huh, gallon of vodka makes perfect sense" was "bet college me could have double-fisted them and lived to tell the tale".

I wonder what the issue is. Seems to me that using something as ubiquitous as the 1 gallon milk jug makes sense. Are they really concerned that someone that's tempted to drink the entire gallon will be stopped by having to purchase more than one container? The article has a strong focus on the pricing of the vodka... so, who on the Canadian Liquor Board is getting paid to keep prices up? "Spirit of the Albertans" -- seems disingenuous to say that the locals are in support of price fixing, as the article seems to imply.

The end of the article hints at spirits-makers being able to bulk purchase alcohol to be blended, and how newer distileries/spirits-makers aren't required to make the same investment into producing their own base alcohol as was previously required. The way it reads, makes it seem like the article is being sponsored by the big makers in terms of how "small makers" have the unfair advantage and that it's the small guys lowering prices that is the bad thing.

My interpretation could be off, but my tl;dr is corporate has a problem with prices effecting profits, so hit-piece on the independents it is.

I'm glad I'm not the only one to see the absurdity in it. Never thought "refueling" would mean "stopping at the 7/11 for some gas and war-snacks". Even worse... that poor trucker that pulled in just at the station got hit... hopefully there's somewhere else nearby.