[smarx007]

> I interpreted that as a general claim about windows security

Sure, because you understand that the other interpretation is nonsensical. All the publications that are popping up showing that the Recall DB is locally accessible are aimed at all the other Windows users.

Now, I would fully agree if you question what's the benefit of posting this on GH and not on FB, for example, and what's in there to surprise the HN crowd.

[pseudalopex]

> Now, I would fully agree if you question what's the benefit of posting this on GH and not on FB, for example, and what's in there to surprise the HN crowd.

The author posted Wired's article about the tool on LinkedIn. Does Facebook host code and render Markdown? Does the author have a Facebook account? Would you bet your Facebook account they wouldn't consider it distributing a hacking tool and lock the account?

Must it be surprising? Some in the HN crowd would want to explore their own databases I think. Some will have family and friends ask them about Recall security.

[Dylan16807]

> All the publications that are popping up showing that the Recall DB is locally accessible are aimed at all the other Windows users.

See, that's the thing. Proving it's locally accessible...

Microsoft never even implied it wasn't locally accessible.

[pseudalopex]

> Microsoft never even implied it wasn't locally accessible.

BBC said Microsoft said a hacker would need physical access. You can think this meant to hack Recall or Windows.

[Dylan16807]

Right. They specifically laid out a scenario where the data is locally accessible.

So code that proves the data is locally accessible doesn't contradict them.

[pseudalopex]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40579531

[Dylan16807]

? That comment thread is about a completely different thing at this point.

[pseudalopex]

I assumed your meaning of local was consistent across comments. Was it not?