What are some controversial privacy topics?
If you don't know me, I make frequent write ups about privacy and security. I've covered some controversial topics in the past, such as whether or not Chromium is more secure than Firefox. Well, I will try my hand again at taking a look at some controversial topics.
I need ideas, though. So far, I would like to cover the controversy about Brave, controversy around Monero and other cryptocurrencies, and controversy around AI. These will be far easier to research and manage than Chromium vs. Firefox, for example. I'd like to know which ideas you have!
Which controversial privacy topics do you know of that you would like to see covered?
PLEASE DO NOT ARGUE ABOUT THEM IN THE COMMENTS!
Please save any debate for if/when I make a write up about the topic. Keep the comments clean, and simply upvote ideas you would like to see covered. I won't be able to cover everything, so it helps bring attention!
Above all else, be kind, even if you don't agree with an idea or topic 😀
A verdict about whether or not Chromium is more secure than Firefox
Two weeks ago, I made this post. The goal was simple: I wanted to dig into the details of Chromium and Firefox to see if the claims that Chromium is more secure than Firefox are true or not. You'll notice I also started turning that post into an update log, but only one update got released. There is a reason for that. Life suddenly got extremely busy for me, I could barely make time to continue researching. However, during that time, I spent a lot of time thinking about the issue. I tried breaking down the problem in a million different ways to find a way to simplify it and start from the ground up.I came to a conclusion today, a realization. I have no way to put this gently: I cannot conclusively determine which one is more secure. This will upset many of you, and it upsets me too considering I maintain my own list of software that relies on only providing the most secure and private versions of some software. I need to explain why there cannot be a solid conclusion.
I managed to collect many sources to be used for the research. A lot of the information is parroting this article which, despite having many sources, fails to provide sources for some of the most crucial claims made there ("Fission in its current state is not as mature as Chromium's site isolation" has no source, for example). My favorite source is this Stanford paper which I think does a great job at tackling the problem. The problem I noticed is that a lot of privacy advice is given from an echo chamber.
Think about what privacy advice you like to give, and think about where you heard that. A YouTube video? Reddit? Lemmy? Naomi Brockwell gives a lot of advice that stems directly from Michael Bazzell's Extreme Privacy book, as I found out after reading it. Her videos about convincing people to use Signal are paraphrased passages from the book itself, which has a whole section about it. People touting Chromium as more secure than Firefox, or that the Play Store is a more secure option than F-Droid or Aurora Store, often get their information from GrapheneOS. I've never seen anyone research those in depth.
The point I'm trying to make is that a lot of privacy advice is circular reporting. I'm certain that if Michael Bazzell and GrapheneOS were to provide sources as to where they got their information (they rarely do, I checked) it would come to light that it boils down to a few real sources. GrapheneOS, no doubt, likely has inspected at least some part of the Firefox codebase, but Firefox is rapidly changing, so any sources that used to be true may not be true today.
FUTO Keyboard and GrayJay get recommended often because of Louis Rossmann, but HeliBoard and FreeTube (or NewPipe) were options long before those pieces of software. The reason the former became so recommended over the latter is simply because people used a popular figure, Louis Rossmann, as a primary source. It then became an echo chamber of recommendations and best practices.
That doesn't mean the claims of Chromium being more secure are false, but as a researcher it is very hard to credit something that doesn't provide any primary sources. In the eyes of a researcher, GrapheneOS's word holds just as much weight as a random internet user, without any proof. I see it play out like this: A source like GrapheneOS or Extreme Privacy makes a claim, secondary sources such as GrapheneOS users or Naomi Brockwell present this information without providing the sources, the general privacy community sees both, and begin giving the same recommendations on Reddit or Lemmy (sometimes with sources), and eventually the privacy community as a whole starts presenting that information, without any primary sources. Even if GrapheneOS, Extreme Privacy, or Louis Rossmann provided no research or direct comparisons, their word is taken without question and becomes the overarching recommendations in the privacy community. They each gained credibility in their own ways, but there should always be scrutiny when making a claim, no matter how credible.
The main reason why I cannot give a concrete conclusion is this: the focus on the article was to compare Chromium's Site Isolation to Firefox's implementation, however there are too many variables at play. Chromium may be more secure on one Linux distro than another. Debian is an example. Firefox supposedly has worse site isolation on Linux, but then how does Tails deal with that? It's based on Debian, so does that make it insecure for both browsers? Tor is based on Firefox ESR, which is an extended support release with less security, but Tor is also deemed a better option than Chromium browsers for anonymity. Isolating iframes doesn't really affect daily use, so is it really necessary to shame Firefox for that? Some variants of Firefox harden the browser for security, but some variants of Chromium (such as Brave Browser) try to enhance privacy. No matter what limits I set, how many operating systems or browser variants I set, there is no way to quantify which one is more secure.
"Is Chromium more secure? Yes, under XYZ conditions, with ABC variants, on IJK operating systems. Chromium variants XYZ are good for privacy, but ABC Firefox variants are better at privacy..." The article would be a mess. The idea for the article came because I was truly sick of the lack of true in-depth sources about the matter, and so I wanted to create that. I now realize it was a goal that is far too ambitious for me, or even a small group of people. Tor and Brave give different approaches to fingerprinting protection (blending in vs. randomizing), and there's no way to directly compare the two. The same goes for the security of each. There is no "Tails" for Chromium, but there is no "Vanadium" for Firefox. There's no one to one comparison for the code, because some of it is outside of the browser itself.
I regret making that initial post, because it set unrealistic expectations. It focused on a problem that can't tell the whole picture, and then promised to tell that whole picture. At a point, it comes down to threat model. Do you really need to squeeze out that extra privacy or security? Is someone going to go through that much effort? You know how to spot dark patterns, you know not to use privacy invasive platforms. Take a reality check. Both Chromium and Firefox are better than any proprietary alternatives, that's a fact. Don't bother trying to find the "perfect" Linux distro or browser for privacy and security, because you already don't use Windows. Privacy is a spectrum, and as long as you at least take some steps towards that, you've already done plenty.
Be careful next time you hear a software recommendation or a best practice. Be careful next time you recommend software or a best practice. Always think about where you heard that, and do your own research. There are some problems that are impossible or infeasible to solve, so just pick what you feel is best. I really am sorry that I wasn't able to provide what I promised, so instead I will leave a few of the sources I found helpful, just in case another ambitious person or group decides to research the matter. Not all of these sources are good, but it's a place to start:
GrapheneOS responded to my requests for a comment after this post was made, here: lemmy.ml/post/22142738
cvedetails.com/version-list/0/…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Site_iso…
madaidans-insecurities.github.…
news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3…
seclab.stanford.edu/websec/chr…
grapheneos.org/usage#web-brows…
reddit.com/r/browsers/comments…
wilderssecurity.com/threads/se…
forums.freebsd.org/threads/why…
GrapheneOS usage guide
Usage instructions for GrapheneOS, a security and privacy focused mobile OS with Android app compatibility.GrapheneOS
like this
poVoq
in reply to The 8232 Project • • •shaserlark
in reply to poVoq • • •refalo
in reply to shaserlark • • •shaserlark
in reply to refalo • • •Zagorath
in reply to The 8232 Project • • •There is no expectation of privacy in public.
By which I mean that things like blurring a house from Street View are unreasonable.
RiderExMachina
in reply to Zagorath • • •IMO, blurring a house in Street View could lead to the Streisand effect, especially when 99% of all other property is unblurred.
If you want to remain private, in the case of Street View, your best bet is to keep it as inconspicuous as possible, otherwise people will start looking closer and ask questions; the exact opposite of what you want, even if you have nothing to hide.
interdimensionalmeme
in reply to Zagorath • • •Nuclear war should do the trick at re-establishing this kind of privacy.
Hell, is other people
gibson
in reply to The 8232 Project • • •Private gun ownership e.g. via home manufacture (not illegal contrary to popular belief) or p2p sale. Also mandated gun registries.
Edit: so controversial I'm getting downvoted haha
refalo
in reply to gibson • • •TranquilTurbulence
in reply to The 8232 Project • • •propter_hog [any, any]
in reply to TranquilTurbulence • • •interdimensionalmeme
in reply to TranquilTurbulence • • •acockworkorange
in reply to interdimensionalmeme • • •propter_hog [any, any]
in reply to The 8232 Project • • •undefined
in reply to The 8232 Project • • •shield_87
in reply to undefined • • •m_f
in reply to The 8232 Project • • •Whether this guy should be forced to turn over his passwords or not:
theregister.com/2017/03/20/app…
'Sorry, I've forgotten my decryption password' is contempt of court, pal – US appeal judges
Thomas Claburn (The Register)would_be_appreciated
in reply to m_f • • •acockworkorange
in reply to m_f • • •Only if you consider corporations persons. They’re not.
Excellent suggestion, btw.
m_f
in reply to The 8232 Project • • •Sem
in reply to The 8232 Project • • •0x0
in reply to The 8232 Project • • •sntx
in reply to 0x0 • • •0x0
in reply to sntx • • •juliebean
in reply to 0x0 • • •that is generous of you. i'm on the same instance as them, and can find no discrepency between viewing your profile through lemm.ee vs on programming.dev
alas, i think they're just attacking their percieved quality of your posting, and it is not that they're missing all of the good stuff.
interdimensionalmeme
in reply to 0x0 • • •SpicyAnt
in reply to The 8232 Project • • •Step 1 of installing GrapheneOS for de-googling your life: Buy a Google Pixel phone
Look - I know, I know. I get it. Google allows you to unlock the bootloader while maintaining the phone's unique and excellent hardware security features. The argument makes sense. It is compelling. Other manufacturers do not give you this freedom. I am not arguing about that. I have a Pixel phone running GrapheneOS myself.
However... It is just so very obviously ironic that one needs to trust Google's hardware and purchase a Google product to de-google their life through GrapheneOS. I think that it is a perfectly valid position for someone to raise their eyebrows, laugh, and remain skeptical of the concept either because they do not want to support Google at all, or because they simply will not trust Google's hardware.
The reason why I think that this is "controversial" is because I have seen multiple instances of someone pointing out the irony, followed by someone getting defensive about it and making use of the technical security arguments in an attempt to patch up the irony.
interdimensionalmeme
in reply to SpicyAnt • • •N0x0n
in reply to SpicyAnt • • •tehn00bi
in reply to The 8232 Project • • •interdimensionalmeme
in reply to tehn00bi • • •m_f
in reply to interdimensionalmeme • • •This was recognized at least as far back as 1988:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Hor…
Analogy of internet criminals
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)Zagorath
Unknown parent • • •I don't even care about the privacy aspect per se. Phone number as user ID is a crappy UX that fundamentally does not work when international travel, multiple devices, or needing to get a number changed. It also doesn't work for shared accounts or people who might want multiple identities.
Some of these relate to privacy, secondarily, but my primary concern is the UX.
Zerush
in reply to The 8232 Project • • •Well, real privacy don¡t exist in the same moment you goes online. Google controls half the internet and MS and Apple the rest, direct or indirect. Even the Dark web isn't so private as people think.
An advanced user can reduce the privacy holes, gutting Windows, leaving it in an OS as is, the same with Google products, but also only up to a certain limit so as not to turn navigation into pure text or get blocked in most the pages.
For this reason, we must focus on which data deserves to be protected or hidden and which are of a purely technical aspect that ensure the proper functioning of the sites we visit.
I don't care that the page knows what country I live in, but if it has to be avoided that it knows my address, I don't care that it knows the OS I use and the exact resolution of my screen, since this helps the pages not to be out of order or download links take me to downloads for another OS.
This is all data that matches millions of other users and is not a privacy issue. These problems arise with data that identifies the user directly, such as email addresses, which are unique and perfectly traceable, personal photos published on the Internet, bank details in these very convenient mobile payment apps, posting on Fakebook until when are we going to go pee or when we go on a vacation trip (surely some of the 5637 followers are very interested when your house is empty)...
There is a lot that the user can do to have a certain privacy at the computer level, but the worst security hole is always the user themselves and the lack of common sense..
acockworkorange
in reply to Zerush • • •Zerush
in reply to acockworkorange • • •Go to Browserleaks and see how private you are
Yo can also take a look in Blacklight or Webbkoll to check what the pages you visit are looking for and who is looking over your shoulder. You can also look how well you bock ads and trackers with this one (mine 100% score)..
Blacklight – The Markup
themarkup.orgrefalo
in reply to The 8232 Project • • •F-Droid not being trusted. They build and sign a developer's code on their behalf, so there is a chance for injection there.
There are reproducible builds, but I would argue it's not taken seriously enough. Like right now nobody is publicly verifying Signal's supposed reproducible Android builds and they've historically had problems keeping it working.
Also how most (or all?) Play Store apps (including FOSS) contain proprietary code.