6 ms·
They should consider making their primary site a .onion and then have clear-web portals in many countries that serve as a secondary class site or cache. The ph
by Bender 1y ago
They should consider making their primary site a .onion and then have clear-web portals in many countries that serve as a secondary class site or cache. The physical location of the primary site should be unknown.
- anonymousiam 1y agoIt's a sad fact that there's just no way for GrapheneOS to win this fight. The intelligence agencies of every world government are on one side, and a relatively poor organization that produces less restricted cell phone software is on the other.
- hacker_homie 1y agoWe can only use technical solutions to this problem for so long. The real issue is that the public wants a right to digital privacy. The state would not like you to have that because they are lazy and want to be able to look at your messages. Because they have convinced themselves that messages are a crime. This is a political problem not a technical one.
- ranger_danger 1y ago> The real issue is that the public wants a right to digital privacy. Legitimate question, is there any concrete evidence that the majority of the public actually does want this?
- whatshisface 1y agohttps://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2023/10/18/how-americans-view-data-privacy/ https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2023/10/18/how-american... 80% are concerned.
- 9dev 1y ago…and if you ask them, most people don't want animals to suffer. Guess what they're ordering next time at the restaurant? It's not the vegan pasta.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- goku12 1y agoAnd how exactly does that analogy apply here? The current situation is more like the government banning vegan pasta.
- 9dev 1y agoWhat I was trying to say was that people are "concerned" about lots of things, but that doesn't mean much on its own. As soon as they actually have to give up some immediate comfort for the long-term better option, they will not act upon their concerns but choose satisfaction right now, reliably.
- 9dev 1y agoThere is not. In fact, many users will gladly give away any notion of privacy whatsoever in exchange for a Candy Crush lootbox.
- serial_dev 1y agoI want digital privacy… but a lootbox is a lootbox.
- immibis 1y agoIt's amazing to me that everyone even slightly disliked by the ruling class isn't doing this. Like remember when Nintendo took down a bunch of Switch emulators... from GitHub? Why were they primarily on GitHub?
- undeveloper 1y agoTechnically emulators are not against the law, piracy is against the law. And given that open source projects are all on github, it makes sense for them to just be on github That said, there are many forks of the projects DMCA'd still floating around.
- immibis 1y agoThey don't have to be against the law - they just have to annoy powerful people.
- undeveloper 1y agonotably, the yuzu emulator and the associated team disbanded because they had a stash of every game released for the switch and were sharing it. that's plainly illegal, morality aside. of course they got hit with the DMCA
- zamadatix 1y agoGitHub is a great, free as in $, and convenient place to be. So long as they weren't ONLY on GitHub (they weren't, the source code is still around) they can get the best of both worlds before and after. The deeper problem for the Switch emulators was letting their personal life be linked to it so Nintendo could seek legal pressure against them directly.
- immibis 1y agoIf you host on any mainstream site, you can expect they're recording your IP address, your ISP is recording who has that address, and both of them will rapidly give it up to anyone who seems official or legally scary enough.
- gruez 1y agoHow does this increase security? The actual code is distributed over github and is digitally signed. Same goes for the installers/updates. Attempts to replace the contents would be easily detected, and would won't do much, aside from maybe compromising someone installing in that short time frame. Moreover darknet sites have an identity problem. It's easy to validate that "grapheneos.org" is the official site, not least because there's no grapheneos.com or similar. If you're using a hidden service you'll get an address like graphenenlhxh74dsi1kk1k8se0wutcc2v4f7bnohqe8zxbkfk8z3wp8.onion. How do you know whether that's the official site, or graphenenlhxr1uvl0i8oiuzx587fpgcesik0apij5axd1a0xbdvj5eg.onion?
- vbezhenar 1y ago> It's easy to validate that "grapheneos.org" Is it? Why not graphene-os.org? Why not graphene.org? Why not grapheneos.com? Why not grapheneos.io? How do you validate it, really? Also who REALLY controls that domain in the end? Someone with access to `.org` nameservers. Do you trust that person? What's their name?
- fragmede 1y agoYou plug it into Google and hope they got it right
- vbezhenar 1y agoTry putting Putty into Google.
- gruez 1y ago>Also who REALLY controls that domain in the end? Someone with access to `.org` nameservers. Do you trust that person? What's their name? Same way you trust/verify that you got Tor Browser from the right domain, and the organization behind it hasn't backdoored it (didn't the tor project recieve government funding?).
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago"Majority of Americans block ads" https://allaboutcookies.org/ad-blocker-adoption https://allaboutcookies.org/ad-blocker-adoption "Majority of Americans now use ad blockers" https://www.theregister.com/2024/03/27/america_ad_blocker/ https://www.theregister.com/2024/03/27/america_ad_blocker/ Was there "concrete evidence" that "the majority of Europeans wanted" the rights granted to them under the GDPR If we examine each of the rights that the public possesses, perhaps many of them would be unfamiliar or unknown to a majority of the public Is it reasonable to imply that for each and every one of those rights there is "concrete evidence" that "a majority of the public" wants them, even when they are not familiar with them or do not know of their existence