I hate it that they put al the nice features behind data harvesters. Want to have that nice traffic info (a nightmare on it's own, but it is handy)? Share all your data. Want to have Spotify? Share all your data.
I’m weirded out by their “why need an account” explanation when Mullvad has a perfectly viable solution that doesn’t require one. “We don’t link your queries to you” is a vastly different claim from a “we can’t link your queries to you” one. Still, considering who we compare them to…
On a personal note, Google search is so infuriatingly shitty lately that I’d been thinking about switching to another service. This does look to be worth a try.
Mullvad can offer that because they generate you a one time access token that’s good until a certain time for a set number of simultaneous clients.
Kagi could do a simpler version - an access token that’s good until a certain number of searches. In fact, they have that mostly built - the link they tell you to use in private sessions is literally it.
Add to that anonymized payment options, and you got yourself a hard to track design.
Translate You features LibreTranslate, Lingva, DeepL, MyMemory, Reverso, and SimplyTranslate.
While I can’t speak for any of them, I think that all of those should be safe being that Translate You is FOSS
Depends on what is secure enough to you. For me that is secure enough but I know a ton of people out there who would say it's not secure enough for them. So in the end it's up to you. Think about the risks and make a decision.
I’m not sure what you mean by that. 2FA can’t be linked back to your phone or anything if that is your concern. If you use it to login to your account often, then maybe the platform can. If you want an alrernative, check platforms that support passkeys as a 2FA, it has the same privacy though.
Just as it inconveniences you to have to decrypt to search, it would similarly slow down anyone malicious who gains access to your machine.
Am in favour of allowing users to decide which features are best for their needs, but this seems like it would be easy to forget to reinstitute local encryption after a search, so can also understand why developers prevent storing in plaintext.
You can’t search encrypted emails, period. The way I see the benefit of encrypting emails is to not have them compromised in the cloud servers. But on my own machine, if someone gains access to the files, then it’s all ogre. Maybe that’s just me IDK.
Point is, one can decrypt each email individually. That slows an malicious attacker rummaging in your device from finding what they are after as much as it does you.
You wouldn’t be alone in wanting this feature, but for those who need rather than prefer to encrypt, the option to store locally in plaintext is a major risk. On balance it seems better for developers to pay heed to that than to our preferences.
For the rest of us, we can download the emails we wish to refer to with ease, or we can create aides memoire to make it easy to locate specific emails later.
I feel like you’d get this with the Protonmail Bridge. It acts as it a email provider on your local network, and handles the encryption stuff itself. I believe Thunderbird sees and stores the email it sees through that as plan text.
This may be a long shot, but it’s what I do, so it might be an option: Set up a crypto gateway like CipherMail which will automatically decrypt inbound email and sign/encrypt outbound. The result is that your Thunderbird will never get to see an encrypted email, decryption is handled transparently before it hit’s your inbox. Obviously, if you don’t trust your email provider, this is not an option.
This isn’t simple and hence not for everyone, also comes with dependencies on your email provider, but it works flawless for me ever since I set it up. I run my own email server, hence adding in CipherMail wasn’t a big deal.
privacyguides
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.