Fun Stuff > CLIKC

New Google Privacy-Consent-Waggamathingy - Make it StopMakeItStopMakeItStop ...

<< < (2/3) > >>

hedgie:
Supposedly, Jitsi is better. 

pwhodges:
Many supposed insecurities are no more than inappropriate defaults that no one noticed and corrected in time.  I believe that was Zoom's problem.

Defaults are often fine, but check, check, check should be your mantra whenever using something new.  And of course you need to be confident that the person at the other end has made the same checks - which isn't so easy!

N.N. Marf:

--- Quote from: pwhodges on 03 Nov 2020, 16:02 ---Many supposed insecurities are no more than inappropriate defaults that no one noticed and corrected in time.  I believe that was Zoom's problem.

--- End quote ---
Way I see it, if something's advertised as secure, for non-savvy persons, it should be that, and only that. Non-savvy persons don't have the skills, but even savvy persons, have other things to do. If there's any way for it to be insecure, it should be as far outside the possible purview of the so-advertised product as possible. It certainly shouldn't be insecure by default.
Open-source is important, even for non-savvy, or busy savvy, persons, because it means anyone can audit it. Of course, if they don't have the skills to audit it well.. If it's sufficiently popular, and open-source, it's probably been audited. There's even more incentive there, if it's used for serious, e.g. scientific or commercial, purposes.

FreshScrod:
For "cloud storage" I encrypt files and upload them to different free file hosting services like anonfiles (the "[email protected]" thing is hiding "file=(atpersat)filename"). I upload them to multiple places, so that if one of them deletes it, there are other copies. I think it would be nice for a program to regularly check that the file is still up, and reupload it if it's not. For example, my computer would take a file, encrypt it, upload it to one file host, to another file host, etc. Then, it would check that the file is still there, and if it's not, then my computer can download it from one of the other places, and them upload it again.
To avoid them detecting that it's the same file being uploaded multiple times, it can be encrypted with a different key each time. Maybe it would be encrypted with a different key to different places, too, so that if they're working together, they won't notice that it's the same file being hosted in multiple places. More sophisticated features against detection could be splitting the file into multiple random-sized pieces, and piecing it back together when retrieving it.
Using different internet proxies or Tor can help against detection. Doing it at random times can help against detection.
Doing it at different times can stagger file expirations, so if all file hosts use the same expiration length, the copies won't all simultaneously expire.

Gyrre:
Firefox
Go into the 'Privacy' section of the Settings menu for some wonderful options. And, the even have data collection and site permission options that you can toggle to 'off'.

If you think that's too good to be true, double-down with the Ghostery extension. You can customize what third party webcrawlers you block and it'll even show which ones and how many are on a page.

If you want to go even further, AdBlock Plus now has an option where you can allow ads that don't collect data so you can still give some support to websites you like. Naturally, that excludes any sights using Google AdSense.


StartPage.com is a proxy-based search engine that gives you Google results without the Google data collection. They also don't record your metadaa, either.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page