Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by meibo | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

meibo

I wonder how much you get away with posting/publicizing RE of these things on Chinese blogs as a PRC citizen.

I would be very careful.

View on HN

Apparently not very much. The author has since deleted the post saying:

"I just noticed that someone linked my previous tweet on HN. Sorry I have to delete it in case something come after me"

https://twitter.com/CodeColorist/status/1350798973431283712?...

That was just someone who posted a link to the V2EX thread https://www.v2ex.com/t/745030 on Twitter. Kind of ironic that the original Chinese post is still up while the tweet was deleted.

The article says "no, QQ is not stealing your history, you just need to disable the rule and it stops". I guess that's how they cover for themselves.

Nowhere does the article say that. Please don't spread made-up bullshit like this.

Maybe you could consider that I didn't just make that up. I have a Chinese person with me, albeit non tech person, that read it for me. I could have added that "apprently it says this", but your phrasing is uncalled for.

I happen to know the language so don’t need a Chinese person with me. And I can tell you it doesn’t say that, or anything close to that, apparently or not; it’s not a long post so it’s not like I would miss anything. If you disagree, point to the specific sentence and we can have a discussion.

I guess it might be a misunderstanding based on 幸好之前用火绒的自定义拦截功能，设置了一些重要或敏感数据目录的保护。 "Luckily I had previously used Huorong's user-defined interception functionality to set up protection for a few important or sensitive data folders." (Which is how they noticed that QQ was trying to access them.)

So yes, if your antivirus allows you to deny QQ access to your browser history, it won't read your browser history. But most QQ users probably didn't do that, considering that it went undetected for so long.

'disabling a rule' is a lot different than 'create a manually defined protected folder from within a third party application elsewhere'.

these two statements are in no way equivalent.

Of course not, but if you retell it twice, one might turn into the other.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com