For cookies you just need to enable one of the Cookie Notices list in uBO, and for paywalls you can add the https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-clean-filters/-/raw/main/bpc-paywall-filter.txt filter list.
You can kinda do it with Google Customizabe Search Engine, which is basically a thin wrapper around Google. In a regular Google search you can use syntax like -site:ignorethisdomain.com to exclude specific domains (i do this with Pinterest whenever searching for images, for example). But manually typing in a large list of black listed domains would be tedious so instead you can set up a CSE with everybody you want to ignore and then just use the special URL as your search engine.
So it appears, though I’m unsure whether it auto-accepts required cookies, those that have no opt-out option. If it’s banners, and not walls, then UBlock blocks the banner and thereby doesn’t give permission to store any kind of cookies, including the required ones. Kinda as if you browse the site without ever interacting with the banner.
Sadly, both need to trust that the site actually follows the rules and respects the selected/unselected cookies.
EDIT: Scrap all that, most sites don’t respect cookies settings either way, might just get either of the above and Cookie Auto Delete or something similar.
In many unzip utilities, they use temp files that you wouldn’t be paying attention to. These temp files will contain your credentials and you won’t know where they are or if they got deleted.
And even if they’re deleted by the archive program, it’s likely a normal deletion, and not a secure delete where the original data is overwritten with random data before deleting the entry in the file system, which could be potentially recovered.
My biggest issue wouldn’t even be the kernel level access, but the fact that the stuff is written and tested by no one in particular. The possible bugs are the issue for me.
If that thing would be bullet-proof, hackers trying for years to break it without success, yeah. Ok. I could be convinced. If it is cracked after two days already… Then nope.
Zip uses very bad encryption that is vulnerable to a known plaintext attack. Do not ever use PKZIP encryption for any purpose github.com/kimci86/bkcrack
What you’re describing is an issue with all of social media. While your concerns are valid, I don’t see your arguments as privacy issue. I honestly prefer post and comment history being transparent and accessible. It’s much like Reddit and this format fits much better with an open forum style of platform.
Don’t post private information and it’s a non-issue.
Also, can’t you just delete posts and comments like on Reddit?
Also, can’t you just delete posts and comments like on Reddit?
Nothing ever dies on the Internet. With the federated nature of Lemmy, it’s possible for deletes to not sync across instances, especially if there’s defederation that happens.
I think you’re asking if it’s possible for your government to be a man-in-the-middle? Depending on which government you live under, the answer is likely no but more importantly the answer will always be; it’s not worth their effort to find out what you’re watching.
YouTube’s public key is signed by a certificate authority whose public key (root) is likely installed on your device from the factory. When you connect to YouTube, they send you a certificate chain which your browser will verify against that known root. In effect, it’s information both you and YouTube already share and can’t be tampered with over the wire.
Technically, those signatures can be forged by a well resourced adversary (i.e. a government) with access to the certificate authority through subversion, coercion, etc. At the same time, it’s probably easier to subvert or coerce you or YouTube to reveal what you watch.
They’re not asking you. They’re asking the companies
The real solution is for companies to ask for the name of the officer, and then go to the official police website, call their non emergency number, and ask to speak with the officer. Then confirm that it was them, in fact, that sent the request.
Bonus: then tell them to get a fucking warrant and hang up the phone.
Asymetrical encryption solves this, here is my attempt to do an ELI5:
Adam want’s to send a chat message to Ben, but want to do it securely, so they use a special program on their computers.
When the Adam’s program first reaches out to Ben’s computer, it asks for an unlocked padlock, this is a padlock that can only be unlocked by Ben’s program.
Adam’s program takes the padlock and crafts a new special series of padlocks that only Adam’s program can unlock, which it put’s in a box and locks it with Ben’s padlock.
The box is sent to Ben’s program, the program unlocks the box and creates it’s own special series of padlocks that only Ben’s program can unlock, put them in a box and locks it with Adam’s padlocks.
The box is then sent to Adam’s program, and is unlocked.
This now means that Adam’s program can put messages to Ben in a box, lock the box with one of Ben’s special padlocks and send it on it’s way knowing that only Ben can unlock the box and read the message.
Likewise, Ben can also send messages in boxes locked with Adam’s padlocks and know that only Adam can unlock them and read the message.
Added to this is the fact that messages from Ben can be verified as having used the special padlocks Adam sent to Ben, as else Adam’s special key wouldn’t fit the padlocks given to Ben.
In reality the padlocks are keys to lock a message, and the above text describe a secure key exchange.
Oh! I remember these steps being explained on a youtube video before. So the point is that the padlock (that Adam received on the third paragraph) is like a program on my windows desktop, I can run it (here like Adam uses it to encrypt the date), I can copy it and send it to a friend, but I can’t read the code which is compiled through an unknown language (i.e even if snooper received the padlock he can’t figure out how to unlock it and decrypt the data)?
What irritates me many times when I enter Lemmy is that instead of my Nick at the top right, someone else’s Nickname appears for a moment, before changing it to mine. This is a sign of an open account sharing channel, which is quite serious and should be fixed quickly. Security at Lemmy is apparently non-existent.
It occurres sometimes, I see a random nick from strangers. It means that my account obviously is públic and even shared. I will be attentive and I will try to take a screenshot, before the nickname changes to mine while Lemmy loads.
It’s not easy to catch, because it’s only a moment when Lemmy loads and just sometimes. For now I always have my eyes to the top right corner when I enter Lemmy.
Bh sharing, unencrypted, on Lemmy that you like watching revolutionary videos on YouTube, the government now has that data, even if Google wasn’t going to give it to them. I thought I would just add that, as everyone else has explained asymmetric encryption well.
Also, usually it’s just the content of the website, not the URL itself that is encrypted, so anyone, not just the government, can know what YouTube videos you watch (as the video ID is in the URL) as well as the URL of any other websites you visit.
The other 2 commenters are wrong. URLs as they appear in your web browser are NOT encrypted when sent over https protocols.
The only data that is encrypted is POST data, and ONLY if it is sent over HTTPS.
So for example, a website login page crafts a URL like some.example.com/login?sessionID=12345678 and when you log in to the site extra parameters like Username and Password are sent via POST data, then anyone listening to your web traffic (like the NSA or your neighbor with wireshark) will br able to see the website and the sessionID, but not the login details as they will only show up encrypted.
privacy
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.