Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45317802

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45267422

Points: 4

# Comments: 0

Make a law that says companies have to protect the data of their citizens without the possibility of any intentional backdoor, perhaps. Make a law that says companies can't require people to dox themselves with ID scans simply to use a publicly available internet platform that provides no services in the physical world. Make a law that says OS developers can't create client-side scanning services that upload results off-device without revocable user consent.

Then the US on the other hand does decently protect its citizens from the government itself (well, this recent year/administration notwithstanding), only because the US government knows full well they can just turn around and grab all the data they want from the private American companies they don't regulate at all.

Two approaches with the same outcome, absolutely.

This is the direction places like the UK have gone in, yes. Can't decrypt something? Then we assume it is illegal content.

Yes, the lawmakers literally exempt themselves from this law in this law.

What we need is for legislatures to pass "NO Chat Control" and "NO KOSA" bills that specifically block this behavior, but unsurprisingly governments don't seem to be too keen about limiting their own rights, only those of their citizens.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43349752

Points: 9

# Comments: 0

https://www.reddit.com/r/PrivacyGuides/comments/thnjjf/comme...

> Like Tor Browser, Mullvad Browser is designed to prevent fingerprinting by making your browser fingerprint identical to all other Mullvad Browser users, and it includes default settings and extensions that are automatically configured by the default security levels: Standard, Safer and Safest. Therefore, it is imperative that you do not modify the browser at all outside adjusting the default security levels. Other modifications would make your fingerprint unique, defeating the purpose of using this browser.

[0] https://www.privacyguides.org/en/desktop-browsers/#mullvad-b...

It is called privacy guides and not security guides for a reason, and many of our basic "recommendations" are geared towards a specific threat model that does not include, for example, being targeted by law enforcement or others with access to zero-day vulnerabilities or similarly targeted exploits. They are geared towards avoiding commercial-grade tracking, especially by corporations, and dragnet mass surveillance programs.

This is why we place so much of an emphasis on threat modeling before suggesting recommendations in the first place though, to make sure readers know exactly when the recommendations apply to them and when they instead need to seek additional resources. We have countless pages within our community forum detailing why and when Chromium is technically superior to Firefox.

This is also why we don't recommend Firefox on mobile devices at all, because while we do feel Firefox on desktop is adequately secure for many people, we don't feel that is the case on Android, unfortunately.

Anyways, thank you for your insight. I will look into making this more clear at a glance.

I think our position on Brave is clear enough from the very first paragraph in the guide:

> We recommend Mullvad Browser if you are focused on strong privacy protections and anti-fingerprinting out of the box, Firefox for casual internet browsers looking for a good alternative to Google Chrome, and Brave if you need Chromium browser compatibility.

edit: ninja'd by justin lol

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41482178

Points: 3

# Comments: 1

This may be true, and yet it's also true that it was still a terrible plan. This is exactly why it simply shouldn't be done at all.