sbehere

Replace 'Security' with 'Safety' and your comment still rings eerily true! One exception (? probably not an exception) is that sometimes organizations will still hire safety/security specialists (because the externally viewed perception of not having them is damaging), but these specialists are then (perhaps unintentionally) knee-capped to various extents in order to prioritize promises to leadership or other org. goals that must be hit. The net result is that good and capable folks who care deeply about the company's mission may watch in consternation as the org. slowly train wrecks itself if the roll of the dice doesn't land right. See, for example, the story of several autonomous driving organizations.

I've seen this happen at $EMPLOYER and it actually went beyond the website. Any email you send that has the url/domain in the text (e.g. in the signature) gets flagged by gmail or any G workspace email server with a big red warning. So, all customers who use Google's email servers (directly or indirectly via G Workspace) will get the red warning banners on all emails sent from anyone in your organization. Now THAT gets annoying real quick.

> A car doesn't need data updates, and definitely not code updates

I don't think this is accurate. Many advanced driving assistance capabilities need access to updated map tiles, which is a data update. They may need code updates to fix errors or shortcomings that can be detected only after deployment on extensive fleets or in response to changes to the environment/infrastructure. This is just one example for why data and code updates are needed.

I think it is more accurate to say that a "dumb" car with mostly electro-mechanical systems doesn't need data updates and definitely not code updates. But that isn't true for vehicles built within the last few years and definitely untrue for vehicles that will be built in the coming years.

This "basic" guide is probably well-intentioned and useful. It does gloss over a whole range of nuances and diversity of protocols for India. Wonder if similar glossing over is happening for other countries in the list.

I think certain sounds are hard for Western speakers to pronounce, while others are easy. Specifically, Hindi (and many other Sanskrit-derived languages) distinguish between some sounds (which have correspondingly different characters in the written script) that are often indistinguishable to Western ears. And if you can't hear the difference, you are unlikely to be able to say it right.

These sounds typically come in groups of four. For example, there are 4 "T" sounds in Hindi: त थ ट ठ. If you pronounce each of these correctly, Indian ears will hear 4 distinct sounds. Western ears will typically hear the same sound 4 times. If they are listening attentively the second time around, they may be able to distinguish at most 2 different sounds, but not 4. Given this, Western speakers are unlikely to correctly pronounce a word containing one of these sounds. The good news is that even if a Western speaker has incorrect pronunciation, in the vast majority of cases native Hindi speakers would be able to understand what was meant.. so the communication still happens effectively. Furthermore, regardless of language, I like to believe that most native speakers will very much appreciate efforts to speak the language, no matter how mangled the pronunciation is.

I don't understand the point of traveling with clean burner devices and keeping your data encrypted in the cloud. Yes, it protects for threats where the devices are stolen or compromised when out of sight, but not for cases where government authorities are targeting you, as described in the article. What happens when govt. goons tell you to write down a list of your cloud accounts (email, storage etc.) and their corresponding security credentials and threaten you to not leave any out? Or, when you are asked to log in to your cloud accounts with the threat actors hovering around you? How many of us would refuse and/or roll the dice on not revealing certain accounts and risk them being discovered later (along with implications of not having revealed them earlier when specifically told to do so)?

Wouldn't it be more rational and reasonable (for everyday folk, not journalists, activists, dissidents, etc.) to never travel with or keep on cloud storage any data that they would rather authorities never, ever see, if at all they have such data?I think the vast variety of business and personal data does not fall into this category.

Note that, in principle, I am all for privacy and resisting govt. intrusions into private lives by crafting appropriate legal frameworks and strong technical mechanisms. In practice, as an average Joe, I don't know how much I should resist if/when I am personally targeted and threatened with dire consequences while traveling in a foreign country. It is easy to think that in such a situation, my priority would be to get out of that situation asap and folding completely may be seen as the fastest way to achieve that.