this post was submitted on 15 Jun 2024
93 points (78.2% liked)
Privacy
32442 readers
782 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Cos i dont trust anything that says privacy but doesnt open source and provide reproducible builds.
Their latest announcements are interesting because they say some of their privacy claims will be verifiable by independent firms (mainly when it comes to their custom built AI servers iirc). Is this actually worth something or is it just marketing fluff?
Independent firms hired by them? Right. I don't think "independent" means what they think it means.
I mean, the Linux lmza exploit was found by a Microsoft engineer. Just because dollars exchange hands doesn’t mean the data provided is invalid.
Companies hire Jepsen to validate their code for example, and you’d be a damn fool not to accept their analysis.
Are you under the impression Microsoft was being paid to find that exploit or something? How is that at all related?
That truly was an independent third-party finding an exploit, and do you know why it was possible? Because the code was open source.
Great point.
That could very well be the case. However, I would have to be seriously gullible to believe anything those closed companies promote an "independent" party paid by them found, moreso if the findings only serve to push their proven lies forward for "public perception'.
In this case it's and actual independent party auditing open source code, that makes much more sense.
You are absolutely correct. What means the provided data is invalid is the fact that these companies are regularly found lying about how they handle our " privacy" or how secure they are. Just search for "Apple lied" and see all the instances and how they try to bury it all via PR bullshit.
I believe that, out of Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft and Apple, Apple is the lesser evil, but that means shit when they all do the same, just in different ways and at varying degrees.
Who gives a fuck what the server was running when tested. Its not like large companies have ever designed software specifically designed to fool when being tested is it cough vw cough. Its worth something so its probs gonna be fine for the majority of people but never trust anythibg that isnt on hardware u control running verifiably open source code or e2e encrypted.