The UK's National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC), along with GCHQ, quietly removed official advice recommending the use of Apple's device encryption for protecting sensitive information. While no official explanation was given, the change coincides with the UK government's ongoing push for legislation enabling access to encrypted communications, suggesting a conflict between promoting security best practices and pursuing surveillance capabilities. This removal raises concerns about the government's commitment to strong encryption and the potential chilling effect on individuals and organizations relying on such advice for data protection.
Apple is challenging a UK court order demanding they create a "backdoor" into an encrypted iPhone belonging to a suspected terrorist. They argue that complying would compromise the security of all their devices and set a dangerous precedent globally, potentially forcing them to create similar backdoors for other governments. Apple claims the Investigatory Powers Act, under which the order was issued, doesn't authorize such demands and violates their human rights. They're seeking judicial review of the order, arguing existing tools are sufficient for the investigation.
HN commenters are largely skeptical of Apple's claims, pointing out that Apple already complies with lawful intercept requests in other countries and questioning whether this case is truly about a "backdoor" or simply about the scope and process of existing surveillance capabilities. Some suspect Apple is using this lawsuit as a PR move to bolster its privacy image, especially given the lack of technical details provided. Others suggest Apple is trying to establish legal precedent to push back against increasing government surveillance overreach. A few commenters express concern over the UK's Investigatory Powers Act and its implications for privacy and security. Several highlight the inherent conflict between national security and individual privacy, with no easy answers in sight. There's also discussion about the technical feasibility and potential risks of implementing such a system, including the possibility of it being exploited by malicious actors.
Delta Chat is a free and open-source messaging app that leverages existing email infrastructure for communication. Instead of relying on centralized servers, messages are sent and received as encrypted emails, ensuring end-to-end encryption through automatic PGP key management. This means users can communicate securely using their existing email addresses and providers, without needing to create new accounts or convince contacts to join a specific platform. Delta Chat offers a familiar chat interface with features like group chats, file sharing, and voice messages, all while maintaining the decentralized and private nature of email communication. Essentially, it transforms email into a modern messaging experience without compromising user control or security.
Hacker News commenters generally expressed interest in Delta Chat's approach to secure messaging by leveraging existing email infrastructure. Some praised its simplicity and ease of use, particularly for non-technical users, highlighting the lack of needing to manage separate accounts or convince contacts to join a new platform. Several users discussed potential downsides, including metadata leakage inherent in the email protocol and the potential for spam. The reliance on Autocrypt for key exchange was also a point of discussion, with some expressing concerns about its discoverability and broader adoption. A few commenters mentioned alternative projects with similar aims, like Briar and Status. Overall, the sentiment leaned towards cautious optimism, acknowledging Delta Chat's unique advantages while recognizing the challenges of building a secure messaging system on top of email.
Mox is a self-hosted, all-in-one email server designed for modern usage with a focus on security and simplicity. It combines a mail transfer agent (MTA), mail delivery agent (MDA), webmail client, and anti-spam/antivirus protection into a single package, simplifying setup and maintenance. Utilizing modern technologies like DKIM, DMARC, SPF, and ARC, Mox prioritizes email security. It also offers user-friendly features like a built-in address book, calendar, and support for multiple domains and users. The software is available for various platforms and aims to provide a comprehensive and secure email solution without the complexity of managing separate components.
Hacker News users discuss Mox, a new all-in-one email server. Several commenters express interest in the project, praising its modern design and focus on security. Some question the practicality of running a personal email server given the complexity and maintenance involved, contrasted with the convenience of established providers. Others inquire about specific features like DKIM signing and spam filtering, while a few raise concerns about potential vulnerabilities and the challenge of achieving reliable deliverability. The overall sentiment leans towards cautious optimism, with many eager to see how Mox develops. A significant number of commenters express a desire for simpler, more privacy-respecting email solutions.
The Register reports that Google collects and transmits Android user data, including hardware identifiers and location, to its servers even before a user opens any apps or completes device setup. This pre-setup data collection involves several Google services and occurs during the initial boot process, transmitting information like IMEI, hardware serial number, SIM serial number, and nearby Wi-Fi access point details. While Google claims this data is crucial for essential services like fraud prevention and software updates, the article raises privacy concerns, particularly because users are not informed of this data collection nor given the opportunity to opt out. This behavior raises questions about the balance between user privacy and Google's data collection practices.
HN commenters discuss the implications of Google's data collection on Android even before app usage. Some highlight the irony of Google's privacy claims contrasted with their extensive tracking. Several express resignation, suggesting this behavior is expected from Google and other large tech companies. One commenter mentions a study showing Google collecting data even when location services are disabled, and another points to the difficulty of truly opting out of this tracking without significant technical knowledge. The discussion also touches upon the limitations of using alternative Android ROMs or de-Googled phones, acknowledging their usability compromises. There's a general sense of pessimism about the ability of users to control their data in the Android ecosystem.
This project introduces a JPEG image compression service that incorporates partially homomorphic encryption (PHE) to enable compression on encrypted images without decryption. Leveraging the somewhat homomorphic nature of certain encryption schemes, specifically the Paillier cryptosystem, the service allows for operations like Discrete Cosine Transform (DCT) and quantization on encrypted data. While fully homomorphic encryption remains computationally expensive, this approach provides a practical compromise, preserving privacy while still permitting some image processing in the encrypted domain. The resulting compressed image remains encrypted, requiring the appropriate key for decryption and viewing.
Hacker News users discussed the practicality and novelty of the JPEG compression service using homomorphic encryption. Some questioned the real-world use cases, given the significant performance overhead compared to standard JPEG compression. Others pointed out that the homomorphic encryption only applies to the DCT coefficients and not the entire JPEG pipeline, limiting the actual privacy benefits. The most compelling comments highlighted this limitation, suggesting that true end-to-end encryption would be more valuable but acknowledging the difficulty of achieving that with current homomorphic encryption technology. There was also skepticism about the claimed 10x speed improvement, with requests for more detailed benchmarks and comparisons to existing methods. Some commenters expressed interest in the potential applications, such as privacy-preserving image processing in medical or financial contexts.
SafeHaven is a minimalist VPN implementation written in Go, focusing on simplicity and ease of use. It utilizes WireGuard for the underlying VPN tunneling and aims to provide a straightforward solution for establishing secure connections. The project emphasizes a small codebase for easier auditing and understanding, making it suitable for users who prioritize transparency and control over their VPN setup. It's presented as a learning exercise and potential starting point for building more complex VPN solutions.
Hacker News users discussed SafeHaven's simplicity and potential use cases. Some praised its minimal design and ease of understanding, suggesting it as a good learning resource for Go and VPN concepts. Others questioned its practicality and security for real-world usage, pointing out the single-threaded nature and lack of features like encryption key rotation. The developer clarified that SafeHaven is primarily intended as an educational tool, not a production-ready VPN. Concerns were raised about the potential for misuse, particularly regarding its ability to bypass firewalls. The conversation also touched upon alternative VPN implementations and libraries available in Go.
The blog post "Trust in Firefox and Mozilla Is Gone – Let's Talk Alternatives" laments the perceived decline of Firefox, citing controversial decisions like the inclusion of sponsored tiles and the perceived prioritizing of corporate interests over user privacy and customization. The author argues that Mozilla has lost its way, straying from its original mission and eroding user trust. Consequently, the post explores alternative browsers like Brave, Vivaldi, and Librewolf, encouraging readers to consider switching and participate in a poll to gauge community sentiment regarding Firefox's future. The author feels Mozilla's actions demonstrate a disregard for their core user base, pushing them towards other options.
HN commenters largely agree with the article's premise that Mozilla has lost the trust of many users. Several cite Mozilla's perceived shift in focus towards revenue generation (e.g., Pocket integration, sponsored tiles) and away from user privacy and customization as primary reasons for the decline. Some suggest that Mozilla's embrace of certain web technologies, viewed as pushing users towards Google services, further erodes trust. A number of commenters recommend alternative browsers like LibreWolf, Falkon, and Ungoogled-Chromium as viable Firefox replacements focused on privacy and customizability. Several also express nostalgia for older versions of Firefox, viewing them as superior to the current iteration. While some users defend Mozilla, attributing negative perceptions to vocal minorities and arguing Firefox still offers a reasonable balance of features and privacy, the overall sentiment reflects a disappointment with the direction Mozilla has taken.
In 2008, amidst controversy surrounding its initial Chrome End User License Agreement (EULA), Google clarified that the license only applied to Chrome itself, not to user-generated content created using Chrome. Matt Cutts explained that the broad language in the original EULA was standard boilerplate, intended for protecting Google's intellectual property within the browser, not claiming ownership over user data. The company quickly revised the EULA to eliminate ambiguity and explicitly state that Google claims no rights to user content created with Chrome. This addressed concerns about Google overreaching and reassured users that their work remained their own.
HN commenters in 2023 discuss Matt Cutts' 2008 blog post clarifying Google's Chrome license agreement. Several express skepticism of Google, pointing out that the license has changed since the post and that Google's data collection practices are extensive regardless. Some commenters suggest the original concern arose from a misunderstanding of legalese surrounding granting a license to use software versus a license to user-created content. Others mention that granting a license to "sync" data is distinct from other usage and requires its own scrutiny. A few commenters reflect on the relative naivety of concerns about data privacy in 2008 compared to the present day, where such concerns are much more widespread. The discussion ultimately highlights the evolution of public perception regarding online privacy and the persistent distrust of large tech companies like Google.
WebShield is a new, free, and open-source content blocker for Safari designed to provide comprehensive protection against a wide range of online annoyances. Leveraging a constantly updated blocklist, it tackles intrusive ads, trackers, cryptocurrency miners, EU cookie banners, and other unwanted content, aiming for a cleaner and faster browsing experience. Users can customize their blocking preferences and add their own custom rules. Built using only native WebKit APIs, WebShield emphasizes performance and privacy by ensuring all processing is done locally on the device.
HN users generally expressed interest in WebShield, praising its open-source nature and potential effectiveness. Several commenters appreciated the developer's focus on privacy and the detailed explanation of the blocking process. Some raised concerns about the reliance on JavaScript and the potential for performance impact, suggesting native implementation would be preferable. Others questioned the long-term maintainability of the project and the feasibility of keeping the block lists updated. A few users mentioned existing content blockers and questioned WebShield's differentiation, while others welcomed it as a valuable addition to the Safari ecosystem. The developer actively engaged with the comments, addressing questions and clarifying the project's goals.
Microsoft Edge users are reporting that the browser is disabling installed extensions, including popular ad blockers like uBlock Origin, without user permission. This appears to be related to a controlled rollout of a new mandatory extension called "Extensions Notifications" which seems to conflict with existing extensions, causing them to be automatically turned off. The issue is not affecting all users, suggesting it's an A/B test or staged rollout by Microsoft. While the exact purpose of the new extension is unclear, it might be intended to improve extension management or notify users about potentially malicious add-ons.
HN users largely express skepticism and concern over Microsoft disabling extensions in Edge. Several doubt the claim that it's unintentional, citing Microsoft's history of pushing its own products and services. Some suggest it's a bug related to sync or profile management, while others propose it's a deliberate attempt to steer users towards Microsoft's built-in tracking prevention or Edge's own ad platform. The potential for this behavior to erode user trust and push people towards other browsers is a recurring theme. Many commenters share personal anecdotes of Edge's aggressive defaults and unwanted behaviors, further fueling the suspicion around this incident. A few users provide technical insights, suggesting possible mechanisms behind the disabling, like manifest mismatches or corrupted profiles, and offering troubleshooting advice.
Ladybird is a new, independent web browser built on the LibWeb engine, aiming for speed and simplicity. It prioritizes customizability and user choice, offering flexible settings and eschewing telemetry or pre-installed services. Still in early development, it's currently available for Linux, macOS, and Windows, with future plans for Android and potentially iOS. Ladybird aims to provide a fast, privacy-respecting browsing experience free from corporate influence, focusing on rendering web pages accurately and efficiently.
Hacker News commenters generally expressed cautious optimism about Ladybird, praising its focus on customizability and speed, particularly its use of Qt and the potential for a smaller memory footprint. Several users pointed out the difficulty of building a truly independent browser, particularly regarding web compatibility due to the dominance of Chromium and WebKit. Concerns were raised about the project's long-term viability and the substantial effort required to maintain feature parity with established browsers. Some commenters questioned the practical need for another browser, while others appreciated the renewed focus on a simple and efficient browsing experience. A few expressed interest in contributing to the project, drawn to the potential for a less resource-intensive and more privacy-focused alternative.
Mozilla's Firefox Terms state that they collect information you input into the browser, including text entered in forms, search queries, and URLs visited. This data is used to provide and improve Firefox features like autofill, search suggestions, and syncing. Mozilla emphasizes that they handle this information responsibly, aiming to minimize data collection, de-identify data where possible, and provide users with controls to manage their privacy. They also clarify that while they collect this data, they do not collect the content of web pages you visit unless you explicitly choose features like Pocket or Firefox Screenshots, which are governed by separate privacy policies.
HN users express concern and skepticism over Mozilla's claim to own "information you input through Firefox," interpreting it as overly broad and potentially invasive. Some argue the wording is likely a clumsy attempt to cover necessary data collection for features like sync and breach alerts, not a declaration of ownership over user-created content. Others point out the impracticality of Mozilla storing and utilizing such vast amounts of data, suggesting it's a legal safeguard rather than a reflection of actual practice. A few commenters highlight the contrast with Firefox's privacy-focused image, questioning the need for such strong language. Several users recommend alternative browsers like LibreWolf and Ungoogled Chromium, perceiving them as more privacy-respecting alternatives.
DigiCert, a Certificate Authority (CA), issued a DMCA takedown notice against a Mozilla Bugzilla post detailing a vulnerability in their certificate issuance process. This vulnerability allowed the fraudulent issuance of certificates for *.mozilla.org, a significant security risk. While DigiCert later claimed the takedown was accidental and retracted it, the initial action sparked concern within the Mozilla community regarding potential censorship and the chilling effect such legal threats could have on open security research and vulnerability disclosure. The incident highlights the tension between responsible disclosure and legal protection, particularly when vulnerabilities involve prominent organizations.
HN commenters largely express outrage at DigiCert's legal threat against Mozilla for publicly disclosing a vulnerability in their software via Bugzilla, viewing it as an attempt to stifle legitimate security research and responsible disclosure. Several highlight the chilling effect such actions can have on vulnerability reporting, potentially leading to more undisclosed vulnerabilities being exploited. Some question the legality and ethics of DigiCert's response, especially given the public nature of the Bugzilla entry. A few commenters sympathize with DigiCert's frustration with the delayed disclosure but still condemn their approach. The overall sentiment is strongly against DigiCert's handling of the situation.
Micro Journal is a minimalist, distraction-free writing tool designed for quick journaling and note-taking. It prioritizes simplicity and privacy by storing entries locally in plain text files, eliminating the need for accounts, cloud syncing, or databases. The interface is deliberately barebones, offering only essential features like creating, saving, and searching entries. This focus on core functionality aims to encourage regular writing by reducing friction and ensuring quick access to past thoughts and ideas.
Hacker News users generally praised the Micro Journal for its minimalist design and focus on distraction-free writing. Several commenters appreciated its open-source nature and the use of readily available components, making it easy to replicate or modify. Some discussed the potential benefits of e-ink for focused writing and its lower power consumption. A few expressed concerns about the limited functionality compared to more feature-rich options, while others suggested potential improvements like a larger screen or different keyboard layouts. The project sparked discussion about the value of dedicated writing devices and the desire for simpler, more focused technology. Some users shared their own experiences with similar minimalist writing setups and offered alternative software suggestions.
The author argues that relying on US-based cloud providers is no longer safe for governments and societies, particularly in Europe. The CLOUD Act grants US authorities access to data stored by US companies regardless of location, undermining data sovereignty and exposing sensitive information to potential surveillance. This risk is compounded by increasing geopolitical tensions and the weaponization of data, making dependence on US cloud infrastructure a strategic vulnerability. The author advocates for shifting towards European-owned and operated cloud solutions that prioritize data protection and adhere to stricter regulatory frameworks like GDPR, ensuring digital sovereignty and reducing reliance on potentially adversarial nations.
Hacker News users largely agreed with the article's premise, expressing concerns about US government overreach and data access. Several commenters highlighted the lack of legal recourse for non-US entities against US government actions. Some suggested the EU's data protection regulations are insufficient against such power. The discussion also touched on the geopolitical implications, with commenters noting the US's history of using its technological dominance for political gain. A few commenters questioned the feasibility of entirely avoiding US cloud providers, acknowledging their advanced technology and market share. Others mentioned open-source alternatives and the importance of developing sovereign cloud infrastructure within the EU. A recurring theme was the need for greater digital sovereignty and reducing reliance on US-based services.
The blog post "Removing Jeff Bezos from My Bed" details the author's humorous, yet slightly unsettling, experience with Amazon's Echo Show 15 and its personalized recommendations. The author found that the device, positioned in their bedroom, consistently suggested purchasing a large, framed portrait of Jeff Bezos. While acknowledging the technical mechanisms likely behind this odd recommendation (facial recognition misidentification and correlated browsing data), they highlight the potential for such personalized advertising to become intrusive and even creepy within the intimate space of a bedroom. The post emphasizes the need for more thoughtful consideration of the placement and application of AI-powered advertising, especially as smart devices become increasingly integrated into our homes.
Hacker News users generally found the linked blog post humorous and relatable. Several commenters shared similar experiences with unwanted targeted ads, highlighting the creepiness factor and questioning the effectiveness of such highly personalized marketing. Some discussed the technical aspects of how these ads are generated, speculating about data collection practices and the algorithms involved. A few expressed concerns about privacy and the potential for misuse of personal information. Others simply appreciated the author's witty writing style and the absurdity of the situation. The top comment humorously suggested an alternative headline: "Man Discovers Retargeting."
Apple has removed its iCloud Advanced Data Protection feature, which offers end-to-end encryption for almost all iCloud data, from its beta software in the UK. This follows reported concerns from the UK's National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) that the enhanced security measures would hinder law enforcement's ability to access data for investigations. Apple maintains that the feature will be available to UK users eventually, but hasn't provided a clear timeline for its reintroduction. While the feature remains available in other countries, this move raises questions about the balance between privacy and government access to data.
HN commenters largely agree that Apple's decision to pull its child safety features, specifically the client-side scanning of photos, is a positive outcome. Some believe Apple was pressured by the UK government's proposed changes to the Investigatory Powers Act, which would compel companies to disable security features if deemed a national security risk. Others suggest Apple abandoned the plan due to widespread criticism and technical challenges. A few express disappointment, feeling the feature had potential if implemented carefully, and worry about the implications for future child safety initiatives. The prevalence of false positives and the potential for governments to abuse the system were cited as major concerns. Some skepticism towards the UK government's motivations is also evident.
A satirical piece in The Atlantic imagines a dystopian future where Dogecoin, due to a series of improbable events, becomes the backbone of government infrastructure. This leads to the meme cryptocurrency inadvertently gaining access to vast amounts of sensitive government data, a situation dubbed "god mode." The article highlights the absurdity of such a scenario while satirizing the volatile nature of cryptocurrency, government bureaucracy, and the potential consequences of unforeseen technological dependencies.
HN users express skepticism and amusement at the Atlantic article's premise. Several commenters highlight the satirical nature of the piece, pointing out clues like the "Doge" angle and the outlandish claims. Others question the journalistic integrity of publishing such a clearly fictional story, even if intended as satire, without clearer labeling. Some found the satire weak or confusing, while a few appreciate the absurdity and humor. A recurring theme is the blurring lines between reality and satire in the current media landscape, with some worrying about the potential for misinterpretation.
Google's Threat Analysis Group (TAG) observed multiple Russia-aligned threat actors, including APT29 (Cozy Bear) and Sandworm, actively targeting Signal users. These campaigns primarily focused on stealing authentication material from Signal servers, likely to bypass Signal's robust encryption and gain access to user communications. Although Signal's server-side infrastructure was targeted, the attackers needed physical access to the device to complete the compromise, significantly limiting the attack's effectiveness. While Signal's encryption remains unbroken, the targeting underscores the lengths to which nation-state actors will go to compromise secure communications.
HN commenters express skepticism about the Google blog post, questioning its timing and motivations. Some suggest it's a PR move by Google, designed to distract from their own security issues or promote their own messaging platforms. Others point out the lack of technical details in the post, making it difficult to assess the credibility of the claims. A few commenters discuss the inherent difficulties of securing any messaging platform against determined state-sponsored actors and the importance of robust security practices regardless of the provider. The possibility of phishing campaigns, rather than Signal vulnerabilities, being the attack vector is also raised. Finally, some commenters highlight the broader context of the ongoing conflict and the increased targeting of communication platforms.
Pi-hole v6.0 is a significant update focusing on enhanced user experience and maintainability. It features a redesigned web interface with improved navigation, accessibility, and dark mode support. Under the hood, the admin console now uses Vue 3 and the API utilizes PHP 8.1, modernizing the codebase for future development. FTL, the DNS engine, also received updates improving performance and security, including DNSSEC validation enhancements and optimized memory management. While this version brings no major new features, the focus is on refining the existing Pi-hole experience and laying the groundwork for future innovation.
Hacker News users generally expressed excitement about Pi-hole v6, praising its improved interface and easier setup, particularly for IPv6. Some users questioned the necessity of blocking ads at the DNS level, citing browser-based solutions and the potential for breakage of legitimate content. Others discussed alternative solutions like NextDNS, highlighting its cloud-based nature and advanced features, while some defended Pi-hole's local control and privacy benefits. A few users raised technical points, including discussions of DHCPv6 and unique privacy addresses. Some expressed concerns about the increasing complexity of Pi-hole, hoping it wouldn't become bloated with features. Finally, there was some debate about the ethics and effectiveness of ad blocking in general.
Signal's cryptography is generally well-regarded, using established and vetted protocols like X3DH and Double Ratchet for secure messaging. The blog post author reviewed Signal's implementation and found it largely sound, praising the clarity of the documentation and the overall design. While some minor theoretical improvements were suggested, like using a more modern key derivation function (HKDF over SHA-256) and potentially exploring post-quantum cryptography for future-proofing, the author concludes that Signal's current cryptographic choices are robust and secure, offering strong confidentiality and integrity protections for users.
Hacker News users discussed the Signal cryptography review, mostly agreeing with the author's points. Several highlighted the importance of Signal's Double Ratchet algorithm and the trade-offs involved in achieving strong security while maintaining usability. Some questioned the practicality of certain theoretical attacks, emphasizing the difficulty of exploiting them in the real world. Others discussed the value of formal verification efforts and the overall robustness of Signal's protocol design despite minor potential vulnerabilities. The conversation also touched upon the importance of accessible security audits and the challenges of maintaining privacy in messaging apps.
A VTuber's YouTube channel, linked to a Brand Account, was requested to verify ownership via phone number. Upon doing so, the channel's name and icon were permanently changed to match the Google account associated with the phone number, completely overwriting the VTuber's branding. YouTube support has been unhelpful, claiming this is intended behavior. The VTuber is seeking community support and attention to the issue, warning others with Brand Accounts to avoid phone verification, as it risks irreversible damage to their channel identity.
HN commenters were largely skeptical of the YouTuber's claims, suspecting they had misunderstood or misrepresented the situation. Several pointed out that YouTube likely wouldn't overwrite an existing Google account with a brand account's information and suggested the user had accidentally created a new account or merged accounts unintentionally. Some offered technical explanations of how brand accounts function, highlighting the separation between personal and brand channel data. Others criticized the YouTuber for not contacting YouTube support directly and relying on Reddit for technical assistance. A few commenters expressed general frustration with YouTube's account management system, but most focused on the plausibility of the original poster's story.
Meta's Project Aria research kit consists of smart glasses and a wristband designed to gather first-person data like video, audio, eye-tracking, and location, which will be used to develop future AR glasses. This data is anonymized and used to train AI models that understand the real world, enabling features like seamless environmental interaction and intuitive interfaces. The research kit is not a consumer product and is only distributed to qualified researchers participating in specific studies. The project emphasizes privacy and responsible data collection, employing blurring and redaction techniques to protect bystanders' identities in the collected data.
Several Hacker News commenters express skepticism about Meta's Project Aria research kit, questioning the value of collecting such extensive data and the potential privacy implications. Some doubt the project's usefulness for AR development, suggesting that realistic scenarios are more valuable than vast amounts of "boring" data. Others raise concerns about data security and the possibility of misuse, drawing parallels to previous controversies surrounding Meta's data practices. A few commenters are more optimistic, seeing potential for advancements in AR and expressing interest in the technical details of the data collection process. Several also discuss the challenges of processing and making sense of such a massive dataset, and the limitations of relying solely on first-person visual data for understanding human behavior.
Despite significant criticism and a year-long controversy, Mozilla continues to promote and partner with OneRep, a paid service that removes personal information from data broker sites. Security expert Brian Krebs reiterates his concerns that OneRep's business model is inherently flawed and potentially harmful. He argues that OneRep benefits from the very data brokers it claims to fight, creating a conflict of interest. Further, he highlights the risk that OneRep, by collecting sensitive user data, could become a valuable target for hackers or even sell the data itself. Krebs questions Mozilla's continued endorsement of OneRep given these ongoing concerns and the lack of transparency around their partnership.
Hacker News users discuss Mozilla's continued promotion of OneRep, a paid service that removes personal information from data broker sites. Several commenters express skepticism about OneRep's effectiveness and long-term value, suggesting it's a recurring cost for a problem that requires constant vigilance. Some propose alternative solutions like Firefox's built-in Enhanced Tracking Protection or opting out of data broker sites individually, arguing these are more sustainable and potentially free. Others question Mozilla's motives for promoting a paid service, suggesting potential conflicts of interest or a decline in their commitment to user privacy. A few commenters defend OneRep, citing positive experiences or emphasizing the convenience it offers. The overall sentiment leans towards distrust of OneRep and disappointment in Mozilla's endorsement.
This FBI file release details Kevin Mitnik's activities and the subsequent investigation leading to his 1995 arrest. It documents alleged computer intrusions, theft of software and electronic documents, and wire fraud, primarily targeting various telecommunications companies and universities. The file includes warrants, investigative reports, and correspondence outlining Mitnik's methods, the damage caused, and the extensive resources employed to track and apprehend him. It paints a picture of Mitnik as a skilled and determined hacker who posed a significant threat to national security and corporate interests at the time.
HN users discuss Mitnick's portrayal in the media versus the reality presented in the released FBI files. Some commenters express skepticism about the severity of Mitnick's crimes, suggesting they were exaggerated by the media and law enforcement, particularly during the pre-internet era when public understanding of computer systems was limited. Others point out the significant resources expended on his pursuit, questioning whether it was proportionate to his actual offenses. Several users note the apparent lack of evidence for financial gain from Mitnick's activities, framing him more as a curious explorer than a malicious actor. The overall sentiment leans towards viewing Mitnick as less of a criminal mastermind and more of a skilled hacker who became a scapegoat and media sensation due to public fear and misunderstanding of early computer technology.
A UK watchdog is investigating Apple's compliance with its own App Tracking Transparency (ATT) framework, questioning why Apple's first-party apps seem exempt from the same stringent data collection rules imposed on third-party developers. The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) is particularly scrutinizing how Apple gathers and uses user data within its own apps, given that it doesn't require user permission via the ATT pop-up prompts like third-party apps must. The probe aims to determine if this apparent double standard gives Apple an unfair competitive advantage in the advertising and app markets, potentially breaching competition law.
HN commenters largely agree that Apple's behavior is hypocritical, applying stricter tracking rules to third-party apps while seemingly exempting its own. Some suggest this is classic regulatory capture, where Apple leverages its gatekeeper status to stifle competition. Others point out the difficulty of proving Apple's data collection is for personalized ads, as Apple claims it's for "personalized experiences." A few commenters argue Apple's first-party data usage is less problematic because the data isn't shared externally, while others counter that the distinction is irrelevant from a privacy perspective. The lack of transparency around Apple's data collection practices fuels suspicion. A common sentiment is that Apple's privacy stance is more about marketing than genuine user protection. Some users also highlight the inherent conflict of interest in Apple acting as both platform owner and app developer.
Ricochet is a peer-to-peer encrypted instant messaging application that uses Tor hidden services for communication. Each user generates a unique hidden service address, eliminating the need for servers and providing strong anonymity. Contacts are added by sharing these addresses, and all messages are encrypted end-to-end. This decentralized architecture makes it resistant to surveillance and censorship, as there's no central point to monitor or control. Ricochet prioritizes privacy and security by minimizing metadata leakage and requiring no personal information for account creation. While the project is no longer actively maintained, its source code remains available.
HN commenters discuss Ricochet's reliance on Tor hidden services for its peer-to-peer architecture. Several express concern over its discoverability, suggesting contact discovery is a significant hurdle for wider adoption. Some praised its strong privacy features, while others questioned its scalability and the potential for network congestion with increased usage. The single developer model and lack of recent updates also drew attention, raising questions about the project's long-term viability and security. A few commenters shared positive experiences using Ricochet, highlighting its ease of setup and reliable performance. Others compared it to other secure messaging platforms, debating the trade-offs between usability and anonymity. The discussion also touches on the inherent limitations of relying solely on Tor, including speed and potential vulnerabilities.
Kagi Search has integrated Privacy Pass, a privacy-preserving technology, to reduce CAPTCHA frequency for paid users. This allows Kagi to verify a user's legitimacy without revealing their identity or tracking their browsing habits. By issuing anonymized tokens via the Privacy Pass browser extension, users can bypass CAPTCHAs, improving their search experience while maintaining their online privacy. This added layer of privacy is exclusive to paying Kagi subscribers as part of their commitment to a user-friendly and secure search environment.
HN commenters generally expressed skepticism about Kagi's Privacy Pass implementation. Several questioned the actual privacy benefits, pointing out that Kagi still knows the user's IP address and search queries, even with the pass. Others doubted the practicality of the system, citing the potential for abuse and the added complexity for users. Some suggested alternative privacy-enhancing technologies like onion routing or decentralized search. The effectiveness of Privacy Pass in preventing fingerprinting was also debated, with some arguing it offered minimal protection. A few commenters expressed interest in the technology and its potential, but the overall sentiment leaned towards cautious skepticism.
Umami is a self-hosted, open-source web analytics alternative to Google Analytics that prioritizes simplicity, speed, and privacy. It provides a clean, minimal interface for tracking website metrics like page views, unique visitors, bounce rate, and session duration, without collecting any personally identifiable information. Umami is designed to be lightweight and fast, minimizing its impact on website performance, and offers a straightforward setup process.
HN commenters largely praise Umami's simplicity, self-hostability, and privacy focus as a welcome alternative to Google Analytics. Several users share their positive experiences using it, highlighting its ease of setup and lightweight resource usage. Some discuss the trade-offs compared to more feature-rich analytics platforms, acknowledging Umami's limitations in advanced analysis and segmentation. A few commenters express interest in specific features like custom event tracking and improved dashboarding. There's also discussion around alternative self-hosted analytics solutions like Plausible and Ackee, with comparisons to their respective features and performance. Overall, the sentiment is positive, with many users appreciating Umami's minimalist approach and alignment with privacy-conscious web analytics.
Summary of Comments ( 160 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43271177
HN commenters discuss the UK government's removal of advice recommending Apple's encryption, speculating on the reasons. Some suggest it's due to Apple's upcoming changes to client-side scanning (now abandoned), fearing it weakens end-to-end encryption. Others point to the Online Safety Bill, which could mandate scanning of encrypted messages, making previous recommendations untenable. A few posit the change is related to legal challenges or simply outdated advice, with Apple no longer being the sole provider of strong encryption. The overall sentiment expresses concern and distrust towards the government's motives, with many suspecting a push towards weakening encryption for surveillance purposes. Some also criticize the lack of transparency surrounding the change.
The Hacker News post titled "NCSC, GCHQ, UK Gov't expunge advice to 'use Apple encryption'" sparked a discussion with several insightful comments. Many commenters focused on the implications of the UK government's seemingly changed stance on end-to-end encryption.
Several commenters speculated on the reasons behind the removal of the advice to use Apple's encryption. Some suggested it might be related to the UK's ongoing efforts to push through legislation that could potentially weaken end-to-end encryption, like the Online Safety Bill. The idea being that promoting specific encryption methods now could complicate later arguments in favor of breaking or bypassing that encryption. Others posited that the removal was less nefarious, perhaps simply a matter of avoiding the appearance of endorsing a specific commercial product or recognizing the evolving landscape of secure messaging where other platforms offer comparable security.
A recurring theme was the inherent tension between government surveillance desires and individual privacy rights. Commenters debated the merits and drawbacks of end-to-end encryption, acknowledging its crucial role in protecting sensitive communications while also recognizing the challenges it poses for law enforcement.
Some commenters highlighted the subtle language changes in the updated guidance, noting that while the specific mention of Apple encryption was removed, the general advice to use end-to-end encrypted services remained. This led to discussions about the nuances of security advice and the difficulty of providing clear, actionable recommendations to the public without inadvertently promoting specific products or overlooking potential vulnerabilities.
A few technical comments delved into the specifics of different encryption implementations and their relative strengths and weaknesses. One commenter mentioned the potential issues related to metadata, even with end-to-end encrypted messages, and another discussed the importance of verifying the authenticity of encryption software.
Overall, the comments section reflected a nuanced understanding of the complex issues surrounding encryption, government surveillance, and online privacy. Commenters generally expressed concern over the implications of the UK government's actions while also engaging in productive discussions about the technical and societal aspects of encryption technology.