freedomPusher

The flagship instance for Matrix demonstrates the use of Cloudflare, which was found to be necessary to defend against DoS attacks. This CaaC (Cloudflare-as-a-Crutch) design has many pitfalls & problems, including but not limited to:

• digital exclusion (Cloudflare is a walled garden that excludes some groups of people)
• supports a privacy hostile tech giant
• adds to growth and dominance of an oppressive force
• exposes metadata to a privacy offender without the knowledge and consent of participants
• reflects negatively on the competence, integrity, and digital rights values of Matrix creators
• creates a needless dependency on a tech giant

#CaaC needs to be replaced with a #securityByDesign approach. Countermeasures need to be baked into the system, not bolted on. The protocol should support mechanisms such as:

• rate limiting/tar pitting
• proof-of-work with variable levels of work and a prioritization of traffic that’s proportional to the level of work, which can be enabled on demand and generally upon crossing a load threshold.
• security cookie tokens to prioritize traffic of trusted participants

Sadly, #Matrix is aligned with another nefarious tech giant, and has jailed its project in Microsoft Github. And worse, they have a complex process for filing bugs/enhancements against the spec:

https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals/blob/main/README.md

Hence why this bug report is posted here.

cross-posted from: https://sopuli.xyz/post/8702045

(⚠ Enshitification warning: The linked article has a cookie wall; just click “reject” and the article appears)

Google is ending the public access to the cache of sites it indexes. AFAICT, these are the consequences:

• People getting different treatment due to their geographic location will lose the cache they used as a remedy for access inclusion.
• People getting different treatment due to having a defensive browser will lose access.
• The 12ft.io service which serves those who suffer access inequality will be rendered useless.
• Google will continue to include paywalls in search results, but now consumers of Google search results will be led to a dead-end.
• The #InternetArchive #WaybackMachine will take on the full burden of global archival.
• Consumers will lose a very useful tool for circumventing web enshitification.

Websites treat the Google crawler like a 1st class citizen. Paywalls give Google unpaid junk-free access. Then Google search results direct people to a website that treats humans differently (worse). So Google users are led to sites they cannot access. The heart of the problem is access inequality. Google effectively serves to refer people to sites that are not publicly accessible.

I do not want to see search results I cannot access. Google cache was the equalizer that neutralizes that problem. Now that problem is back in our face.

(cross-posting to privacy forums because cache access enables privacy seekers to reach content that otherwise requires them to step outside of Tor)

(⚠ Enshitification warning: The linked article has a cookie wall; just click “reject” and the article appears)

Google is ending the public access to the cache of sites it indexes. AFAICT, these are the consequences:

• People getting different treatment due to their geographic location will lose the cache they used as a remedy for access inclusion.
• People getting different treatment due to having a defensive browser will lose access.
• The 12ft.io service which serves those who suffer access inequality will be rendered useless.
• Google will continue to include paywalls in search results, but now consumers of Google search results will be led to a dead-end.
• The #InternetArchive #WaybackMachine will take on the full burden of global archival.
• Consumers will lose a very useful tool for circumventing web enshitification.

Websites treat the Google crawler like a 1st class citizen. Paywalls give Google unpaid junk-free access. Then Google search results direct people to a website that treats humans differently (worse). So Google users are led to sites they cannot access. The heart of the problem is access inequality. Google effectively serves to refer people to sites that are not publicly accessible.

I do not want to see search results I cannot access. Google cache was the equalizer that neutralizes that problem. Now that problem is back in our face.

cross-posted from: https://sopuli.xyz/post/8557194

This is a FOSS tool that enables people to check a website for #GDPR compliance.

This is a FOSS tool that enables people to check a website for #GDPR compliance.

cross-posted from: https://sopuli.xyz/post/8481789

#poll

#poll

Every 4 years the Commission is willing to hear from individuals as to whether the GDPR is working. It’s obviously not working one bit for those of us who actually attempt to exercise our #GDPR rights.

That link goes to a PDF which contains a link to another PDF which is a questionaire that can be emailed to the Commission. The email address they give is not on a Google or MS server, thus apparently usable.

Note that the questionaire mentions a deadline of 18 November 2023, but that was for feedback from select groups. The deadline for the general public is 8 Feb.

cross-posted from: https://sopuli.xyz/post/7625705

According to the linked article, 72 studies suggest that wi-fi radiation harms/kills #bees -- and by some claims is a threat to their continued existence. I suppose if extinction were really a likely risk there would be widespread outrage and bee conservationists taking actions. It seems there is a lack of chatter about this. This thread also somewhat implies disinterest in even having wi-fi alternatives.

In any case, does anyone think this is a battle worth fighting? Some possible off-the-cuff actions that come to mind:

• ban the sale of wi-fi devices bigger than a phone in Europe¹ if they do not also comply with these conditions:
  • include an ethernet port as well. So e.g. macbooks would either have to bring back the ethernet port or nix wi-fi (and obviously Apple wouldn’t nix Wi-Fi).
  • have a physical wi-fi toggle switch on the chassis (like Thinkpads have)
• force public libraries with Wi-Fi to give an ethernet port option so library users at least have the option of turning off their own wi-fi emissions.
• ban the sale of Wi-Fi APs that do not have:
  • a configurable variable power setting that is easily tunable by the user; maybe even require a knob or slider on the chassis.
  • bluetooth that is internet-capable
• force phones that include wi-fi to also include bluetooth as well as the programming to use bluetooth for internet. Bluetooth routers have existed for over a decade but they are quite rare.. cannot be found in a common electronics shop.

Regarding bluetooth, it is much slower than wi-fi, lower range, and probably harder to secure. But nonetheless people should have this option for situations where they don’t need wi-fi capability. E.g. when a phone is just sitting idle it could turn off wi-fi and listen over bluetooth for notifications.

I suspect the 1st part of this quote from the article explains the lack of concern:

“The subject is uncomfortable for many of us because it interferes with our daily habits and there are powerful economic interests behind mobile communication technology.”

1. I say /Europe/ because it’s perhaps the only place where enough people would be concerned and where you also have the greatest chance of passing pro-humanity legislation (no “Citizens United” that human needs have to compete with).

cross-posted from: https://sopuli.xyz/post/7625705

According to the linked article, 72 studies suggest that wi-fi radiation harms/kills #bees -- and by some claims is a threat to their continued existence. I suppose if extinction were really a likely risk there would be widespread outrage and bee conservationists taking actions. It seems there is a lack of chatter about this. This thread also somewhat implies disinterest in even having wi-fi alternatives.

In any case, does anyone think this is a battle worth fighting? Some possible off-the-cuff actions that come to mind:

• ban the sale of wi-fi devices bigger than a phone in Europe¹ if they do not also comply with these conditions:
  • include an ethernet port as well. So e.g. macbooks would either have to bring back the ethernet port or nix wi-fi (and obviously Apple wouldn’t nix Wi-Fi).
  • have a physical wi-fi toggle switch on the chassis (like Thinkpads have)
• force public libraries with Wi-Fi to give an ethernet port option so library users at least have the option of turning off their own wi-fi emissions.
• ban the sale of Wi-Fi APs that do not have:
  • a configurable variable power setting that is easily tunable by the user; maybe even require a knob or slider on the chassis.
  • bluetooth that is internet-capable
• force phones that include wi-fi to also include bluetooth as well as the programming to use bluetooth for internet. Bluetooth routers have existed for over a decade but they are quite rare.. cannot be found in a common electronics shop.

Regarding bluetooth, it is much slower than wi-fi, lower range, and probably harder to secure. But nonetheless people should have this option for situations where they don’t need wi-fi capability. E.g. when a phone is just sitting idle it could turn off wi-fi and listen over bluetooth for notifications.

I suspect the 1st part of this quote from the article explains the lack of concern:

“The subject is uncomfortable for many of us because it interferes with our daily habits and there are powerful economic interests behind mobile communication technology.”

1. I say /Europe/ because it’s perhaps the only place where enough people would be concerned and where you also have the greatest chance of passing pro-humanity legislation (no “Citizens United” that human needs have to compete with).

According to the linked article, 72 studies suggest that wi-fi radiation harms/kills #bees -- and by some claims is a threat to their continued existence. I suppose if extinction were really a likely risk there would be widespread outrage and bee conservationists taking actions. It seems there is a lack of chatter about this. This thread also somewhat implies disinterest in even having wi-fi alternatives.

In any case, does anyone think this is a battle worth fighting? Some possible off-the-cuff actions that come to mind:

• ban the sale of wi-fi devices bigger than a phone in Europe¹ if they do not also comply with these conditions:
  • include an ethernet port as well. So e.g. macbooks would either have to bring back the ethernet port or nix wi-fi (and obviously Apple wouldn’t nix Wi-Fi).
  • have a physical wi-fi toggle switch on the chassis (like Thinkpads have)
• force public libraries with Wi-Fi to give an ethernet port option so library users at least have the option of turning off their own wi-fi emissions.
• ban the sale of Wi-Fi APs that do not have:
  • a configurable variable power setting that is easily tunable by the user; maybe even require a knob or slider on the chassis.
  • bluetooth that is internet-capable
• force phones that include wi-fi to also include bluetooth as well as the programming to use bluetooth for internet. Bluetooth routers have existed for over a decade but they are quite rare.. cannot be found in a common electronics shop.

Regarding bluetooth, it is much slower than wi-fi, lower range, and probably harder to secure. But nonetheless people should have this option for situations where they don’t need wi-fi capability. E.g. when a phone is just sitting idle it could turn off wi-fi and listen over bluetooth for notifications.

I suspect the 1st part of this quote from the article explains the lack of concern:

“The subject is uncomfortable for many of us because it interferes with our daily habits and there are powerful economic interests behind mobile communication technology.”

1. I say /Europe/ because it’s perhaps the only place where enough people would be concerned and where you also have the greatest chance of passing pro-humanity legislation (no “Citizens United” that human needs have to compete with).