|
|
|
|
|
by Dylan16807
743 days ago
|
|
That seems like an unreasonably broad definition of remote access to me. If installing a local program that proxies data counts, then the only true way to make "remote access" impossible is by installing it in a secure room with no networking and where no other electronics are allowed in. How many people interpreted that claim as SCIF-equivalency? |
|
Basically everyone who isn't employed in tech? This is what the BBC said [0]:
> And it said a would-be hacker would need to gain physical access to your device, unlock it and sign in before they could access saved screenshots.
Those of us here can readily see that this "physical access" claim is bunk, but that's what Microsoft represented to the BBC and what the BBC is telling the world.
[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cpwwqp6nx14o