Agree that we are behind with GUI support for secure DNS and I like how enthusiastic your are about the script. Unfortunately, this is just a teaser.
Actually, the functionality should be in systemd-resolved or network manager (or elsewhere maybe). And then configured via the default GUI. This will take time.
We are absolutely sleepwalking into the worst possible tech futures. It’s so ubiquitous now that even if you’re able to explain to someone how bad things are, trying to avoid this type of data collection would almost take Edward Snowden - level planning and obsession, so people just kind of give up before they even start.
The truth is that even the small actions you can take help make your data a little less valuable. They’re collecting so much data from so many people, that they really don’t have any easy way of verifying the data in your profile. So while there’s essentially no way to go back to when you had NO data, the accuracy and relevance of the data can be soured so that their use-cases for it are less successful. Assuming you’re already using an adblock or VPN to do most of your browsing, the biggest things are phone app data collection and purchases through a credit card via online portals as well as in-person. If you can avoid those, most of what they use the data for is a lot less successful. I would also avoid social media apps or sites where login is required, as they can scrape data on how long you look at any given image or ad with a pretty high degree of accuracy.
If you’re dead-set on perfection, you’re bound to feel helpless. But you should feel good about the little steps you take that 80-90% of people aren’t, because you’re that much harder to target via your data footprint.
How is this different than just googling for someone’s email or Twitter handle and Google showing you that info? PII that is public is going to show up in places where you can ask or search for it, no?
It isn’t, but the GDPR requires companies to scrub PII when requested by the individual. OpenAI obviously can’t do that so in theory they would be liable for essentially unlimited fines unless they deleted the offending models.
In practice it remains to be seen how courts would interpret this though, and I expect unless the problem is really egregious there will be some kind of exception. Nobody wants to be the one to say these models are illegal.
Cybersec researcher here. The content of your chat is encrypted end to end. Their servers can’t read what you write. This is because they use the same protocol as signal, x3dh and double ratchet. However, they can and will collect everything else. Contact info, for example, phone, etc
To “link” other devices you have to scan a qr from your phone, so it’s certainly possible that during that process the devices connect and share the key, and the servers don’t have it.
Or the servers could have it. Idk, it’s closed source, that’s the problem at hand.
No, the protocol is sound enough, WhatsApp doesn’t have the key, doesn’t want the key (so they will probably not be responsible for what you are communicating with others), and doesn’t need the key - as others have put so eloquently, the metadata is rich enough for them.
Sounds like it transfers the ID Out-of-band, so that’s good, does the desktop get the chat history then? (It’s possible it pulls chat history from the phone).
Oh, I agree with the closed source issue. That makes it a no-sale for me.
Initially you could only log in from one device, as it created a new private key every time you switched device. Then they implemented Whatsapp Web, which essentially required the primary device to be connected to the internet, the chats would then be transferred from the primary device to the secondary devices (I assume through an encrypted tunnel of some sorts). Then as of late they have implemented a new technology that allows you to share your private key among multiple devices, making them all the “primary device”. The chat history and all the messages can be shared from one device to another while encrypted. The weak spot at one point was the chat backup, which was unencrypted and stored in your Google Drive, so technically Google could have had access to all your chats. Today though, you can encrypt the backup through a password.
In theory Whatsapp has never needed to read your chats to have the functionality it has. That’s in theory because it’s closed source and we cannot know anything for certain. All this is just what Meta/Whatsapp said or pure speculation.
Interesting - I’ve visited this site before on my phone, and there’s usually a button below the ‘Disable my adblocker’ button, allowing you to bypass the message. Guess they’ve changed it :/
You and family use WhatsApp to talk to each others, just like millions families out there and so far no chats have been leaked because the encryption is bypassed.
This is the privacy community, and they were discussing the privacy aspect.
The concern isn’t about getting your chats leaked, there’s no incentive to just give away data that is collected. The concern is usually about a malicious group (company, government, criminals) abusing the data that they can get their hands on.
It’s a rage-bait, avoid trolls like them. Whatsapp is close-sourced - so we don’t know shit about how good their encryption is - remember how phone numbers were showing up on Google Search? Yeah. Meta also works with the local government to suppress “fake news” - so, how exactly does it know what the contents are, without breaking encryption? These are two of the most convincing reason to not use the app.
It’s interesting to me to see articles about this now, when the first rewards card I saw (every bit of 20 years ago) it was obvious why they would give you such steep discounts for using nothing more than a free card.
Doesnt this mean that you’re by default agreeing to the cookies though ? I’ve tested not responding to the pop up on several websites and they all write cookies if you don’t respond
Is that so? That’s awful, theoretically websites shouldn’t store any until you actually agree, maybe except the “necessary” ones.
Anyways, I’d advise to use I still don’t care about cookies instead if you really want to use the extension, as the original has been acquired by Avast, of all companies.
For an extension that is more refined in how it handles the cookie pop ups there’s Consent O Matic, but in my experience it covers fewer websites so you’re either fine with that or contribute by reporting unsupported websites.
There’s also the uBlock Origin option, it has a filter list for cookie pop ups that should pretty much work like the first extension
You are right; I should have fully read OP’s post before advising.
In my case, all cookies (except the ones I marked as exception) are deleted when browser is closed. Note, 3rd party cookies are by default blocked on Firefox.
While it should have been opt-in it is not that dramatic. The server owner can see what is played anyways. And since the primary use case is a home and friends setup it is vastly different to a Netflix scale privacy break.
Are you saying that this information isn’t collected by Plex for a use case that doesn’t obviously require it? Because if it is the case, then it’s a big fucking deal.
Yes, a server owner can see what is played. But this is sending email summaries about what I am watching on my own server. Even if that friend is not invited to my particular server, and even libraries that I haven’t shared with anyone.
It doesn’t even matter if I’m embarrassed by what it sends. That information is private. Period.
We need laws that prevent companies from discriminating by how you look. Websites should only be able to deny customers based on how they act. A simple innocent GET from a user with a VPN IP should not be legally permissible reason to deny them.
That thing where they claim the username/password combo is wrong?
That sounds like a really good idea if the site thinks the reason they're a lot of different lock-on attemps from that one ip is because its a hacker with a list of stolen credentials.
Basically just tell them their list is fake and "go away and stop bothering our customers, please."
I’ve had this exact scenario happen with my Amazon account. One the one hand its annoying, but on the other I don’t want them to make it easier for someone in another country to order stuff using my account and credit card.
privacy
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.