We apologize, but your web browser is configured in such a way that it is preventing this site from implementing required components that protect your privacy and allow you to view and change your privacy settings. This functionality is required for privacy legislation in your region.

We recommend you use a different browser or disable the “EasyList Cookie” filter from your “Content Filtering” settings (found under “Settings” -> “Shields” in the Brave Browser

lol

And E2EE is only available on phones, circa a couple of years ago anyways

Telegram’s servers are located in US, Singapore, Netherlands (and maybe some other countries) from what I’ve gathered. And all chats that are not E2EE’ed are stored there, encrypted at rest at best with keys in the same database, or somewhere else that can still be accessed in automated way. Maybe it is not even encrypted at rest.

The point is, all those countries are either in 5 eyes or have information sharing agreements with 5 eyes countries. So as far as I’m concerned, TLAs can still have their fingers in those pies, in addition to Telegram’s overall shadiness and Russian ties. So maybe you get KGB strongman keeping a watch over your chats too.

This is not something I’d have much confidence in to be honest.

Switch to Telegram

You know it’s not even E2EE by default, and when it is it uses a homegrown algo that is not exactly well spoken of? (at least V1)

It is reasonable yet subpar under a threat model where you do not trust any single provider, which is a model I find appropriate most of the time.

You should not assume your password manager is unhackable.

That’s my main point. Perfect is an enemy of good indeed, but I feel that doing things properly the first time is a good idea in general, especially when it as easy as using a different app for your TOTP tokens. It’s a low hanging fruit really.

Please don’t use your password manager for TOTP tokens. It is called two factor authentication for a reason.

Until next time they try to push through something similarly stupid. Now it’s EU’s turn to make their mind too.

Me, at work, looking at my backlog of Baldur’s Gate 3, Armored Core, Blasphemous 2 and countless indies on Steam

Tbh I’d not be surprised if that’s the case. Last time I had enough time to spare to rice me some arches was all the way back when I was in uni :(

I barely have enough time to hotfix my dotfiles nowadays :/

Open the link and read the thread, the author is not aware of this “collection” being shared publicly.

My point is that you should not excuse big corporations for clearly overstepping their bounds when it comes to moderation (as in “minority report” style moderation).

For Google, it would probably be even cheaper to only check URLs in collections that were shared with anybody, at a point the owner attempts to share them. Instead, they preemptively hide them from you, because “this set of characters offends us”.

This is something people should be angry about, not find an excuse for.

Scary illigal content here

I guess we test and see whether I get banned.

Also, it’s not the same. A link to a website is not “pirated content”. A link to a website in a “collection” not shared with anybody is not publicly available pirated content.

Why would Google preemptively ban a set of characters that does not constitute a slur and is perfectly legal to exist?

I’d not expect the private booth to have the club’s employee sitting there and waiting for me to do something that is against the rules preemptively.

We mostly argue about semantics, but in this instance you are trying to excuse some very questionable behaviour by companies by saying something along the lines of “well you better go and live in a forest then”. And I don’t think that’s a good take.

For example, how many Lemmy instances are fine with you direct linking to piracy torrents?

Irrelevant, as all content on Lemmy is public in a proper sense of this word.

Words used to have meaning, you know. Like, for example, the word “private”.

Type hints are cool. Runtime enforced type hints are cooler.

https://github.com/beartype/beartype

Good

Mullvad is trusted. They are pretty open with their policies, exist for a long time already, not involved in any privacy scandals (to my best knowledge), charge flat and fair fee without 60% sales and other dubious marketing practices. It is one of the better VPN providers, not in 5/9 eyes (they are in 14 eyes though), you can buy a subscription with crypto, which (assuming crypto was acquired anonymously too) is a good start for some privacy guarantees.

Pretty much every cyber security professional I know uses Mullvad in one way or another, usually as part of a more complex solution.

But all in all, please bear in mind that VPN is not some magic silver bullet to preserve your privacy and anonymity. With VPNs you basically shift your trust from your ISP to the VPN provider. That trust you put into the provider, it is still a requirement. Not to mention that a good chunk of tracking is happening on a lower level nowadays, so if you use Mullvad on Windows / any Apple device etc. do not expect to become untraceable :)

Use Firefox or Safari, the more people use Chromium-based browsers the faster we get to the situation where Google completely owns the Internet (and they almost do now).

Texts are securely stored

Right, must be military grade encryption