The rfid can work trough fabric. So a shielded wallet is a smart choice. Technically someone can make you pay by tapping your pants with a terminal device. Does this happen allot? No not really. But technically possible and more likely when more people use tap.
Here there is a maximum amount that can be paid with only contactless payment without a PIN code. If the price is higher a pin prompt will show up automatically (max $25,-) If you pay more things in a short time with the rfid than the pin prompt will eventually show up. So an unlimited amount of low payments isn’t possible. (Do check your bank for these details.) So when you lose your card your account can’t be drained. (Unless you have less than the minimum amount on your account)
Phones can also be setup as a contactless payment method, and would physically work the same. With the benefits of having a stronger signal, and being locked behind your phone lock (facial recognition or whatever.)
Contactless payment works only half the timeon actual registers. What magic do scammers have that makes their readers work so well, and why aren’t stores using it?
Yes, but the same as with Startpage. Despite the company, it’s privacy features are already valid (GDPR), better as DuckDuckGo, Qwant, and other privacy search engines, the only seach engines without any tracker and/or ads are Andisearch. MetaGer, Mojeek, GetPage, Groot Search and few more, but it’s depend of which data is collected to put in risk the privacy, tecnical data are not the same as personal data. Ads and trackers are anyway blocked with the adblockers everybody use, the risk is only the logging of the user activity and this none of the privcy search engines do.
Yes. If you use Ghostery and are looking for an alternative I highly recommend Privacy Badger. It’s created by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and is free and open source. Great piece of software.
Yes they were, and they used what you personally blocked to better enable ads that would bypass their adblocker. They had some catchy name for it, I don’t remember what. When they were exposed for their practices the privacy community did a mass uninstall. These features actually seem good, but I will never trust them again.
I tried to follow the link just to look at it, my firewall blocks it for ‘tracking’, I could bypass it but once bitten, twice shy.
I’m not saying it was always the case. Back when ads were just images hosted on the same machine as the rest of the page they were only annoying.
But nowadays even so-called acceptable ads are delivered by third-party servers. So suddenly you have to trust not only the operator of the page you’re visiting but also any advertising partners they use. And since all modern advertising uses a gazillion of metrics that necessitates JavaScript you end up executing code that neither you nor the page operator have any actual need for nor influence on, hoping that the ad network has some sort of vetting process so they don’t end up unwittingly delivering malware.
That’s a tall order in my opinion.
Another issue is that Strict mode is used by roughly 0.5% of Brave’s users, with the rest using the default setting, which is the Standard mode.
This low percentage actually makes these users more vulnerable to fingerprinting despite them using the more aggressive blocker, because they constitute a discernible subset of users standing out from the rest.
CNN might be the only site I’ve seen that actually checks if you have made a cookie choice then. The whole cookie acceptance thing is dumb, but they are following the law.
Thankfully there is a plan that EU will make changes fo current policy so those popups might go away.
On Lemmy any comment you post gets federated out to other servers, so it’s available to anyone who sets up a server. So by design it is not possible to control who gets to see or archive your comments. I could set up a server to permanently archive every comment it sees, and if your server sends me your comment it goes into my archive. Probably people are already doing this for data mining. It’s not clear that you could bolt some kind of privacy control on to this architecture, which is fundamentally designed for sharing.
Although I agree that is how things work now, one could imagine a different approach:
For instance, I could maybe control who my content gets federated to. That is, if I decide I don't particularly want my content blasted to certain places that my instance would not call any blocked ones with my data.
If that causes some issues with ActivityPub, you can imagine encrypted blobs that could only be opened by others with a shared key.
We don't need to achieve perfection out of the gate, to me these questions are worth discussing so that we can build out more high quality tech for the fediverse, let's not try to just immediately shut down discussion.
How would you ensure other instances are not sharing your content?
To me this seems to be a question of ideology. I came here from Reddit because this is an open forum with transparent history.
Federetion by design ensures that accessibility (as far as I understand, correct me if I’m wrong). This design principle to me is the core. If that seems like an issue maybe this style of social media is not for you.
In this context, it’s an open public digital space. Noone is obligated share anything.
The part that is discussed as a privacy issue is a design element. It is by design post are visible to everyone, it is by design that comments are visible to everyone.
How is it a privacy issue when the user desides what to post for everyone to see?
If you are looking for a different design ideology then maybe you need a different social media platform.
So regarding an open, public digital space like Twitter, how do you feel about people having the ability to lock their accounts and instantly hide all their tweets from the public?
Mastodon doesn’t have that, but it could.
My reaction to adding something like that will always be “that would be rad” regardless of previous assumptions about how public an app should be, or truisms like “the Internet is forever”, because I believe strongly that trying to fix issues is better than letting them languish unchecked.
I’ve never been on Twitter. Besides Reddit I really disliked all other main platforms. So answering your question: I don’t care, it’s a different platform for different style of social media interactions.
the Internet is forever
My position has nothing to do with this sentiment. Internet forgets, and often.
I like federated nature of Lemmy, I like that there is no “private” accounts. This is a feature not a bug.
I’m not trying to argue against privacy, but what you are describing isn’t a privacy issue or an issue at all. It’s a design element. And it’s this design is why I like it here.
As someone here has said, at some point the responsibility has to fall on the user. You don’t need to share anything. As long as the nature of the platform is clear (and it’s a separate discussion) the is no issue to be fixed.
If to you that is seems as an issue, well then maybe you are at the wrong place. And if the platform changes in the direction I don’t agree, I will leave.
For example, privacy settings on Facebook are available to all registered users: they can block certain individuals from seeing their profile, they can choose their “friends”, and they can limit who has access to their pictures and videos.
We were talking about the definition of privacy, and I was giving an example to bolster my definition of it. We can switch to a different topic if you want, but first I want to cement this definition.
Another issue is that Strict mode is used by roughly 0.5% of Brave’s users, with the rest using the default setting, which is the Standard mode.
How are they getting this data? If it’s with telemetry this data doesn’t seem reliable, I doubt that people who change the fingerprint setting don’t disable telemetry.
That’s why places like Lemmy and Mastodon are nice, even if big corpo buys up some instances, there’s still the option to just start free ones elsewhere.
Anyone remembers when Chrome was the hot new kid on the block and we all converted the “normies” to it because it was so much better than IE? We’re reaping what we sowed.
This isn’t new, interesting or noval information. If you run whats app from the desktop app or from web.WhatsApp.com on you’re browser on a PC then no shit they know your on your PC
Why does it matter if the people I’m chatting with know if in onnmy PC?
I see the issue. The issue is that you seemingly did not bother to read the link. Since that is not what is being discussed. It is not that you cannot tell whether someone is using a PC or a phone, but rather which PC or phone or peripheral you are using if you have number of them. Your point has literally nothing to do with the post.
“Be’ery wrote in his blog post explaining the data leak that it is a consequence of the way WhatsApp is designed: When someone sends a message to another WhatsApp user, their device creates a different session key for each device the receiver is using, thus telling the sender how many devices the receiver is using.”
The Snapchat has a word-filter suggestion makes most sense. But then again Cloudflare is very popular on the Internet as the cheap and well-known MITM anti-DDOS tool.
I haven’t read much about i2p, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the government has their paws in there too.
You will have to trust something if you want to communicate, there’s also GNUnet, ZeroNet, DeltaChat, and probably a lot more.
privacy
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.