this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2025
41 points (87.3% liked)

Privacy

1174 readers
675 users here now

Protect your privacy in the digital world

Welcome! This is a community for all those who are interested in protecting their privacy.

Rules

PS: Don't be a smartass and try to game the system, we'll know if you're breaking the rules when we see it!

  1. Be nice, civil and no bigotry/prejudice.
  2. No tankies/alt-right fascists. The former can be tolerated but the latter are banned.
  3. Stay on topic.
  4. Don't promote proprietary software.
  5. No crypto, blockchain, etc.
  6. No Xitter links. (only allowed when can't fact check any other way, use xcancel)
  7. If in doubt, read rule 1

Related communities:

founded 3 months ago
MODERATORS
 

Mozilla deletes promise to never sell Firefox data.

top 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] fishie@quokk.au 3 points 20 hours ago

you should always use internet with zero trust

TL;DR - No trust. None. For anyone or anything.

Extreme you say? Sure, maybe. But we've been burned so many times, yet we still say things like "oh but its convenient". That simply means most people dont care or dont have the time to deal with it, which is fair.

I don't blame them, in this day and age, we have PLENTY to worry about, other than our online privacy and anonimity.

Personally, I've went with the scorched earth approach. Foss, privacy respecting, self-hosted, encrypted. If I don't have control of it, I will keep it in a different place than the things I have control over.

Unfortunately, for most, this comes at a very large technical overhead. Frankly, I don't see other ways forward. Look at france, sweeden, UK, they all want backdoors and the encryption keys to everything.

The way forward will be trustless, self-hosted services. The next steps are to simply lower the technical bar, because even as a skilled engineer, sometines I hit my head against things that need a serious amount of figuring out.

Making these services easy to host and use would be amazing. Trust nothing.

[–] Fern@lemmy.world 41 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Not to be a doomer, but it feels like the skill floor to protecting my privacy is unbearably high and getting higher. Does anyone have a good resource about it?

[–] orvorn@slrpnk.net 19 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 3 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Just do one thing at a time. Here's my general process:

  1. switch email, and forward everything from the old one to the new one (I use my own domain name, but paid hosting)
  2. get into self-hosting, and slowly replace services I use w/ self-hosted ones
  3. get friends and family to switch to privacy-friendly services to communicate w/ me

And so on. Just do one thing at a time, and continue until you're happy with it.

[–] fishie@quokk.au 1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

convincing people to switch the hardest part

Yup, but it's possible if you get them one by one. They can keep their old stuff, just use the new one with you.

[–] Coldmoon@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 days ago (2 children)
[–] schizo@forum.uncomfortable.business 2 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

I have to ask: what are you going to do? Shoot Facebook? Snipe iCloud?

Start blasting Google?

Pretty sure a rifle is in no way a useful tool for any sort of online privacy.

[–] Coldmoon@sh.itjust.works 1 points 21 hours ago

If there was ever a time for a “touch grass” comment this would be it.

[–] Mac@mander.xyz 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Not very private to put your name on a government list of gun owners.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That's not needed in my state.

[–] Sturgist@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Not everyone here lives in your state

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I was suggesting the OP may live in a similar state, using mine as an example.

The assumption was: buying a gun = registration in a government database. That's not a valid assumption, so I provided a counter example.

[–] Mac@mander.xyz 2 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

It's a valid assumption in my state.

Not everyone here lives in your state

[–] actionjbone@sh.itjust.works 29 points 2 days ago (1 children)

No, mostly because the main tenet of data security is that nobody should ever be trusted - not fully, at least.

[–] Atelopus-zeteki@fedia.io 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I believe it's phrased, Trust AND Verify.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Trust but verify, if you're using the Russian axiom.

[–] Atelopus-zeteki@fedia.io 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

I wasn't aware of the Russian origin of the axiom. And it's been quoted to me, and I use "trust and verify." I see from wikipedia that it's a Russian proverb in Russian: доверяй, но проверяй, romanized: doveryay, no proveryay.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust,_but_verify

I guess I'm neither a good Russian, nor a good Reaganite. Not in the least bit surprised to know this about myself.

I'm neither Russian nor a big fan of Reagan, but I do like the proverb.

[–] IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Aren't we supposed to be checking the code?

Just make sure that when you uncheck all telemetry and don't use an account, they don't send your personal data. Its open source so it should be verifiable. You don't need to "trust" them if there's no data being sent in the first place.

[–] sinceasdf@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

I suspect the codebase for modern browsers has gotten so incredibly complex that it's become difficult to audit for most people. But you're right