[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]

/tech/ - Technology

"Technology reveals the active relation of man to nature" - Karl Marx
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon


File: 1661901452776.jpg (19.54 KB, 474x316, r.jpg)

 No.16458

What are your opinions on the different privacy sites? There are a lot of them, but the famous ones tend to prioritize profit over content quality.
My (not exhaustive) list:

* https://privacyguides.org - the leader of the project is clearly right-wing trying to make money, the project is backed up by it's own LLC: Aragon Ventures LLC. I do not trust them at all even if some recommendations are good, they're doing it for the money.
* https://privacytools.io it used to be good back in 2016 but now it's profit motivated garbage
* https://restoreprivacy.com - the worst so far. utterly garbage. only their "News" are somewhat useful to stay updated with related news but you'll have to find the original source because they shouldn't be trusted
* https://privacy.do/ - good. too many options in each section which can lead to confusion. They recommend some services/software I despise but I haven't found any red flag.
* https://privacyraccoon.tk/ - this one is new and so far it's my favorite. Community maintained. Recommendations are quite good and the guy who created and maintains the site is an anarchist, being the first site on the list maintained by (a) leftist(s).
* https://digdeeper.club/ - his reviews are in-depth and has some really good analysis. I don't agree with a lot of what he says on his site, but in some articles he says that to protect people freedom we need to crush capitalism. It's one guy personal website, isntead of a community project. Tbh I don't know what to think about this one.

 No.16459

I have always used privacytools.io but I must admit the quality has degraded

 No.16460

spyware.neocities.org

 No.16483

Dig Deeper is lurking right now.

http://5essxguxi5enurgtuquvrjuvikss4gc5lbhmtz57cq4cedqx5tqvaxqd.onion/articles/forums.xhtml
>UPDATE May 2022: hell I just realized leftypol exists, and is pretty active.

 No.16493

Good thread, didn't know about http://privacyraccoon.tk , which is good because I discovered privacytools.io went to shit.

>>16483
heh nice

 No.16494

>>16483
>Dig Deeper is lurking right now.
Who?

 No.16495

>>16494
….there are only 6 posts here, I'm sure you can read them.

 No.16776

File: 1663189328079.gif (1.32 MB, 220x220, 1660745961835.gif)

>digdeeper
massive shill, will never forget his retarded article about "freetardism"

 No.16778

>>16483
>/articles/forums.xhtml
holy schizo

 No.16780

File: 1663201530112.png (182.36 KB, 1531x926, ClipboardImage.png)


 No.16782

>>16458
I think Privacyguides was created by some former staff of privacytools.io (yes, that website had staff). Anyway, there's https://prism-break.org too, but it was last updated last year.

 No.16899

I think it's just another form of autistic fear that companies can play into to get people to consume their shit. I've seen too many kids who've watched to many scary videos about "privacy", making threads asking to recommend them a bunch of shit that would "improve their privacy", which they'll blindly install, without really knowing what it is or what it does or why they want it, so they can continue to do the same privacy damaging shit, but feel better about it. Nobody wants to admit that the best thing you can do for your privacy, is to avoid technology wherever possible. Everybody wants to have their cake and eat it. When the simplest of tasks will require a smart device to accomplish, it won't fucking matter how many "privacy" browser plugins you install.

 No.16901

File: 1663676303017.jpg (43.16 KB, 606x606, glowamongus.jpg)

>>16899
This is just glowy consensus manufacturing for privacy violations.
You can't normalize privacy violations, it goes against our species being.

People should not have to put in extra effort to make their stuff more private.
Privacy should be the default.
The fact that it requires effort to have privacy respecting technology is at minimum proof that there is a criminal conspiracy, it also could be systemic and capitalism as a hole could be a privacy violation.

It's also not true that information technology is inherently hostile to privacy, it takes a lot of effort and resources to collect all that stalking data and process it. So the idea that privacy requires going back to primitive society is Bullshit.

The other part of your message that glows is the falsehood in the subtext that all the privacy violations can't be undone. All the privacy infringing data is stored on data-bases. And it's possible to delete all those creepy stalking profiles. This is just a question of political will.

 No.16991

>>16901
>You can't normalize privacy violations, it goes against our species being.
You cannot be serious. How many people do you know IRL? Does the average Joe give the slightest of fucks about his online privacy or what FAGMAN does with his data? The modern economy fucking RUNS on privacy violations - it is very much the norm, despite your grandiose claim about "our species being".

>People should not have to put in extra effort to make their stuff more private. Privacy should be the default.

Nice rhetoric once again, but can you define "privacy" in concrete terms and explain how (and if you can avoid leaning on rhetoric, why) you'd make it the default?

>It's also not true that information technology is inherently hostile to privacy

>So the idea that privacy requires going back to primitive society is Bullshit
I wasn't implying either of those things. I probably should have made it clear that by "avoid technology wherever possible" I wasn't advocating a Kaczynski/Amish way of life, but rather an awareness that there often exists the choice to not consume a product or to not use a service, which is needlessly entangled with technology that exists largely (or even solely) as a means of self-promotion, the artificial stimulation of consumption, and the creation of society's dependence on itself.

>This is just a question of political will.

Hurr durr, isn't fucking anything?

 No.16992

Imo there's no one size fits all privacy solution, it mostly depends on your threat model. The only way to be both truly private and leave no trace behind is to use Tor on Tails. For comms, encrypted messaging is best like PGP, Signal or Matrix.

This is for truly essential, probably illegal stuff. All the rest of your computing, it's good to use an encrypted FOSS system with no telemetry and unsollicited connections like (any) GNU/Linux distro or a *BSD, along with a browser that offers some degree of privacy and ad/tracking mitigations (uBO). Apart from that, I suspect most other so called mitigations offer diminishing returns (mostly thinking of excessive fingerprint obfuscation - Tor does this by default but the way I understand it, it doesn't rly make sense outside of it).

 No.16994

File: 1664203619292.png (61.1 KB, 948x540, privacy.png)

>>16991
it is indisputable that the majority of people hates surveillance, because privacy is a biological need for humans. There is no consent for it, the capitalists are imposing it by making it really hard to not have your privacy violated. And there is manufacturing of consent going on to create a false appearance that many people find this acceptable. Like your post attempting to normalize privacy violations, it therefor has to be dismissed as glowy

A privacy violation can be defined as beginning with uncertainty about whether or not their was an attempt to store personal data of any kind with some kind of system, that is not just somebodies memories. Personal data is all information where personal identification can't be ruled out. Your personal memory can also include personal objects like pen and paper or a computer for personal use only, as long as you are the only one able to access it's equivalent to your brain. (it's also a privacy violation if other people can access your personal memory-aid objects)

Also un-violated privacy-right means you can't consent to having your privacy violated, just like the end of slavery meant that you can't sell your self into slavery voluntarily. (I'm not opposed to people revealing their identity if they are doing a type of media production that relies on being recognizable.)

Privacy means the state can only identify you by means of an in person interaction of asking for your id-card by interacting with a state servant within certain spaces and limitations. Nobody else can have the ability to identify you by means other than the memories in their brain or personal memory-aid objects. (I'm trying to be very forward thinking here and allow for things like a potential dementia-compensation-prosthesis )

it is a known fact that privacy-violating data has been used for extra-judicial assassinations. I think the technical term is "meta-data-signature-strikes by unmanned areal combat vehicles". At the moment it is still very expensive and technically difficult to weaponize privacy-violations for murder even for state-actors, but it is almost certainly going to become cheaper and easier in the future, given the amount of money that is being funneled into this. Therefor i consider privacy-rights as synonymous with a right to live.

It also should not have escaped your attention that the capitalists are using surveillance for class warfare, like for manipulation of elections and interfering with worker organization. For that reason i consider privacy as a necessary component of democracy. If your data is being captured by surveillance systems it is already being used to politically disenfranchise you. That makes privacy a political right as well.

>I probably should have made it clear that by "avoid technology wherever possible" I wasn't advocating a Kaczynski/Amish way of life, but rather an awareness that there often exists the choice to not consume a product or to not use a service,

It is reasonable advice for the present conditions that people use privacy preserving technology, however that can not be turned into an excuse for privacy violating technology. Within the confines of a market economy you should choose to consume the products and services from ethical capitalists, because that is harm reduction. But the existence of harm reduction can't become an excuse for harm-infliction elsewhere. What i also want to object to is the idea that privacy means some form of technology abstinence. You can't create spheres where privacy can be suspended, or use of systems of exclusion that bar access unless you give up rights and submit to being violated.

>Hurr durr, isn't fucking anything political?

No, for example gravity is not political.
The need for life to increase the entropy of the universe to continue existing is not political.
Many other things are non-political as well, but i think these to examples should be sufficient to refute your claim that anything can be political.

>>16992
>Imo there's no one size fits all privacy solution, it mostly depends on your threat model.
You are mostly correct, but threat modeling has a flaw. People should max out their technical abilities and deploy all the privacy-preserving techniques they are capable of, even if it goes beyond what their personal threat model requires. Because it should not be possible to gauge what you think about your threat model by the measures you deploy.

 No.17000

>>16994
>Also un-violated privacy-right means you can't consent to having your privacy violated, just like the end of slavery meant that you can't sell your self into slavery voluntarily. (I'm not opposed to people revealing their identity if they are doing a type of media production that relies on being recognizable.)
So where exactly do you put a group of normies, sharing their private information willingly and publicly, on a social media platform? Is this not consent to having your privacy violated? Would you make it illegal for any website to allow people to willingly share their own information?

>You can't create spheres where privacy can be suspended, or use of systems of exclusion that bar access unless you give up rights and submit to being violated.

So you'd outlaw, for example, the right of restaurants or venues to only grant you access if you have their privacy-violating app on your smart device?

 No.17002

>>17000
>So where exactly do you put a group of normies, sharing their private information willingly and publicly on a social media platform?
I don't consider posting on social media to be the same as publishing. People are using it like an informal meeting place. Like talking to a stranger at a bus station, it would be considered a violation of privacy if somebody recorded these conversations for the purpose of creating dossiers for profiling.

>Is this not consent to having your privacy violated?

No you can't consent to give up your privacy rights. Just like you can't consent to be a slave. If you made somebody sign a contract they would now be your property, that contract would be considered illegal. Rights are like that, you can't sign them away.

>Would you make it illegal for any website to allow people to willingly share their own information?

I'm not seeking to criminalize the primary functionality of a website like displaying information to viewers or the behavior of users, the problem is harvesting that information and then compiling it into dossiers about people. If I read what you posted and remember it, that is not the same as data-mining user-data for the purpose of profiling, there is an element of systemic amplification that makes this different.
I'm not sure about the technical details, I guess that on a technical level websites should default to the most private option.
You are treating journalists publishing a signed article in a news-paper, as the same as somebody commenting on social media. The former is an official legal document and the latter is informal conversation. I'm also having trouble dealing with the idealism in legal systems, only people can be legal subjects, but legal conventions are such that legal systems also try to regulate objects that are from a materialist point of view legally inert because these objects lack a brain that can understand and follow laws. On top of that I have to work out how to distribute legal burden for all the legal subjects that are involved. And then i also have to account for technical limitations and future developments of technology. This is wrinkling my brain, I can't work all of this out and then condense it into a few lines for a post. This is more like a 100 page essay. If you try to be practical about this, you avoid creating legal mine-fields or behavioral strait-jackets, instead you would divert a lot of funding to all the people that are interested in building privacy respecting technology, that way the privacy respecting technology becomes the easy default option, and then it's only a matter of creating laws that create a legal foundation for whatever the privacy minded technology creators have come up with.

>So you'd outlaw, for example, the right of restaurants or venues to only grant you access if you have their privacy-violating app on your smart device?

I'm not sure if you can discriminate against people based on having a smartphone or based on what software they installed on it. I think it would be a privacy violation if you try to gather information about what software people have installed on a computer for personal use. I think this is a question about control, i want people to have 100% perfect control over their personal technology, and there can be no mechanism that undermines it. Owning real estate can't give you the ability to assert control over the personal technology of others. I think that you can only discriminate against bringing certain technology objects to your venue, like a restaurant saying they are a no-phone-zone. (There are fancy restaurants that make you put your technology toys into a metal lock-box so you can't disturb others in the restaurant)

There is another aspect to your question, a privacy-violating app is technically malware, i think that if you want to distribute it you have to clearly mark it as defective.

I'm assuming your example was about using your phone to place an order in a restaurant. I don't see a reason why there can't be a generalized service sector interface open standard protocol that talks to any compatible client software. Restaurant specific apps sound excessive.


Unique IPs: 11

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]