Notices by tasket (tasket@infosec.exchange)

@jerry @Gargron Honestly, how am I supposed to expand this collapsed post without activating the link to another website?

(This is using /deck mode)

I was curious to see the post, but I don't open random links like this. This seems like a security issue.

@fsf Apple's response to this (from which they indirectly profit) was nothing. No comment...
https://www.404media.co/inside-global-phone-spy-tool-patternz-nuviad-real-time-bidding/

@phiofx Linux is a synecdoche that only techies understand. It can't succeed as a consumer product.

Build a reasonably complete stack on top of the Linux kernel, to the point where apps don't rely much on kernel specifics, and give it a decent default UI. Finally, don't ever refer to it as "Linux". Voila, you'll have something that might evolve into an Android competitor.

@tchambers @rwg A huge problem with not "pre-emptively" defederating is that the federating sites then set a double standard for compliance with the covenant. And that will be resented and fought.

And what we will have in effect is the fediverse flipping its covenant in order to partake in Meta's pattern of attacking marginalized groups. You will be complicit.

@nf3xn @andthisismrspeacock This is a strange way to frame a company like Meta/Facebook. They have a long history and people came here specifically so they could exit the sphere of corporate influence. Trying to sneak it back into our online lives is a threat.

If they have a history, then there is no reason why entities cannot be ethically blocked before they join.

@evacide EFF should be advising their followers to step out of the box that makes them the product. "Harm reduction" my ass.

I am no longer a follower, or a paying member. What I'm seeing lately is both moral and technical decline.

PS - Its hard to see an impact from EFF's fractional "harm reduction" when Google just shoved Chrome users into a new surveillance mode because too many were opting out of the old mode with blockers like uBlock Origin. If your workaround becomes popular, then #Google will react again with yet another scheme. That math won't add up. It is not reasonable to assume that Google is anything less than hostile to privacy at this point, but the EFF's behavior has been mollifying. #chrome

Doubtless your defenders here would dismiss all of this as some kind of FOSS purist pedantry, but it should concern you that their excuses sound like the old Internet Explorer hype of yore. With followers like that, something has gone wrong.

@tomw Worse... the Substack CEO is a longtime Musk associate (and fan).

Be very skeptical of any 'drama' you see between these companies.

@brouhaha @paul_ipv6

This is what I thought when someone recently berated me for wanting NAT beyond IPv4: "OK, here are all my IPv6 devices and they are not doing privacy extensions... its up to me to make that happen??"

I even thought it might be just a Network Manager thing, but then I looked at non-Linux devices and they were single-address IPv6 as well.

The IPv6 privacy extensions were an afterthought that came over a decade later. Here is what The Internet Society says:

"When IPv6 was conceived in the mid-90s the Internet wasn't composed of so many mobile devices like it is today. Also, the combination of the words 'privacy' and 'computer' weren't as salient nor contentious as they are today."

Yeesh. The Internet was conceived as being resilient to hostile attacks. But they seem to be saying here that the effusive 90s mindset made them naive. We could re-name IPv6 "Internet Vista" and tell everyone we're waiting for the upgrade to "Internet 7".