> Enabled by default can and should be the default for security-related features.
Not since Google uses the argument of increased security to justify data collection for quite some time in the interest of itself.
Not since Google uses the argument of increased security to justify data collection for quite some time in the interest of itself.
If you're in the minority, you should expect to have to do more work to get the right balance of security and privacy.
> If you're in the minority, you should expect to have to do more work to get the right balance of security and privacy.
It is exactly this false dichotomy that I am criticizing here, because it is completely baseless.
You are reading an article that hints to privacy violations.
You can only be secure if your privacy is protected. That is the causal relation between these two needs.
This isn't a veneer. It's a signature check to ensure a package is what it says it is. Have you seen the hassle npm routinely goes through because of this? A centralized, trusted server is a sensible "default" setting. The fact that they offer a self-hosted solution is a great benefit.
> You can only be secure if your privacy is protected. That is the causal relation between these two needs.
Nonsense. I can have a completely secure system and everyone knows who I am. I can have an entire insecure system with zero means of identifying the owner and thus, remain private.
You aren't just conflating privacy and security, you are implying a casual relationship between them. Both are nonsense.