And then all the pro-privacy arguments were done on Youtube, owned by one of the most privacy unfriendly corporations on Earth.
And then all the pro-privacy arguments were done on Youtube, owned by one of the most privacy unfriendly corporations on Earth.
Thats an understatement. I forget where exactly but I saw a video presentation by
someone at google about the lengths they will go to track you even in a private browser
session.
yeah what happened to do no evil
They removed that motto back in 2018 after doing a lot of evil.Hasn't affected their popularity though. Humans are happy with evil if it is convienient for them.
So true. Used to be a time when people wanted things like privacy simply for privacy's sake. Remember phone booths? Now people know (even if vaguely) tha Google/Apple/Amazon are listening in yet they still buy "smart speakers" etc for the convenience.
our phones and the services we use on desktop computers are most certainly spying the fuck out of us.
several apps and browsers and cookies are all part of it.
it's too late, we handed it to them. we wont get our privacy back.
Hello MRO!
** On Friday 11.02.22 - 16:56, MRO wrote to Otto Reverse:
it's too late, we handed it to them. we wont get our privacy back.
A lament on privacy from 1972..
https://kolico.ca/mpg/TGC1972-privacy.mp4
What search engine do you use? And do you think it returns the same quality results as Google?
I've thought about moving away from Google, though I've gotten very used to Gmail, and I've been using Android phones for years..
Nightfox
Re: Re: the nothing to hide a
By: MATTHEW MUNSON to ANDEDDU on Sun Feb 13 2022 08:38 pm
They removed that motto back in 2018 after doing a lot of evil.
Yup. I try my best to de-google my web browsers.
What search engine do you use? And do you think it returns the same quality of results as Google?
that's why guest access to that shit should be turned off.
that's why guest access to that shit should be turned off.
Agreed. Guest access when you had to dial in made sense, but now, it opens yourself up for abuse.
Yep.. Manye BBSes today have web interfaces where the public forum
that's why guest access to that shit should be turned off.
Mewcenary wrote to Phigan <=-
Where is an example of this? So far, I only know of MajorBBS that puts the
BBS messages in a web forum as well. What BBSes do
you know that have their messages web accessible?
Synchronet itself does this.
Got nothing to hide? Then get naked!
Where is an example of this? So far, I only know of MajorBBS that puts
the B messages in a web forum as well. What BBSes do you know that
have their messages web accessible?
Echicken's one comes to mind, the first of all.
And a nice layout that echicken's web forum interface has also. The best that I know of.
You have all your ports exposed publicly to the internet?
You have all your ports exposed publicly to the internet? Or perhaps there's an alternative to NAT that I'm not aware of..?
I thought pretty much everyone with internet at home would be using a router, and I thought NAT a standard feature of a router
for some level of protection.
well, we're assuming people here are somewhat powerusers, and they
have multiple computers and devices. also it helps to have some
type of hardware firewall up. ---
That still doesn't necessarily mean NAT. Firewalls have been around _much_ longer than NAT.
thought pretty much everyone with internet at home would be using a
router, and I thought NAT a standard feature of a router for some
level of protection.
NAT != security. You've fallen for the big myth that NAT is somehow more secure. All it does is screw up some protocols (FTP anyone?), and puts arbitrary limits on incoming traffic (2 BBSs on the same port, NO WAY!).
;) iptables on Linux does an excellent job
Vk3jed wrote to Nightfox <=-
On 02-27-22 22:25, Nightfox wrote to Vk3jed <=-
NAT != security. You've fallen for the big myth that NAT is somehow
more secure. All it does is screw up some protocols (FTP anyone?), and puts arbitrary limits on incoming traffic (2 BBSs on the same port, NO WAY!).
Re: Re: the nothing to hide a
By: Vk3jed to MRO on Sun Mar 06 2022 08:43 pm
On 03-04-22 05:11, MRO wrote to Vk3jed <=-
so what are we arguing about? you neek saying NAT over and over
again.
Maybe try reading the message. :)
you: nat nat nat. it's not nat. nat nat nat
On 03-04-22 06:56, poindexter FORTRAN wrote to Vk3jed <=-
It's in no way a secure model, but I liked my first setup, where I had
a single IP address and a Linux box with 2 network cards. I ran all of
my services on the box directly with iptables running, and NATed the
rest of my lan over the second card.
Easy, less hassle with NAT, and everything worked.
Quoting Boraxman to Ogg <=-I totally agree. We don't expect privacy so it isn't an issue for many
Jazzy J wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <622DDCFC.2296.dove-internet@jayscafe.net>
@REPLY: <62084A5E.5205.dove-int@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Quoting Boraxman to Ogg <=-
I totally agree. We don't expect privacy so it isn't an issue for many people.
I'm a quad, and I have Amazon Services throughout the house. For
myself, the abdication of my privacy isn't a convenience, it is how I
can be as independent as I can.
Security v. Freedom is a lofty argument. The more something is secure,
the less freedom we have. Many people forget this and want 100% of
both. Well, there is nothing that is ever 100% secure nor is there anything that is ever 100% free -- I think of how much a "free" dog
costs in medical bills after the fact.
The best someone can do is strive to strike a balance between the two.
However, for most people, they don't understand the concept of IoT and never update their TVs, refrigerators, toasters, you name it. Whatever they have in their LANs that pull an IP is vulnerable and a security
risk.
People also don't value their information. They don't understand that
the myriad of trash they are getting in their email or twit feed, etc.
is largely their own making.
Before we can increase electronic security, we need the public to be educated on what electronic security touches. I think the average
person would be confounded and overwhelmed with some of the specifics.
Jazzy J
Most Synchronet BBSes (e.g. web.synchro.net).
| Sysop: | Aerosly |
|---|---|
| Location: | Orlando, FL |
| Users: | 6 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 185:38:39 |
| Calls: | 334 |
| Messages: | 39667 |