1,434 karma · joined September 4, 2019
The problem remains as who defines what is intolerant. But in this case I think the argument is sound. This like was clearly endorsement. And the act was inexcusable no matter how offended anyone can be in their religion.
Some accept anonymous cash payments like mullvad and do not require any information.
Everyone here probably knows VPNs are not an all-in solution for privacy nor security but they're certainly a good added layer to add and most likely have better privacy standards than most ISPs.
A person more concerned about privacy should just add one or more layers above/below the VPN ... like ISP > VPN > Tor for instance at the price of substantially lower performance ...
Or you could do the opposite with a cash accepting VPN such as Mullvad ... and only connect to them using ISP > Tor > VPN which would also provide a decent layer that would avoid the massive "maicious high risk flagging" of Tor Exit nodes everywhere while preventing the VPN provider from knowing your IP. You certainly have to hit less captchas with VPNs than with Tor ...
There are also quite a few VPN/VPS providers accepting Monero that can be used and paid for "anonymously" for adding more layers.
If you live in a large city with a decent view on places offering free legal public wifi, you could also buy a long range Wifi Directionnal Antenna and USB Wifi adapter to add such layer while remaining at home and avoid having to move to such places. Mac address randomization is trivial and integrated in most OSes now. Again it's not perfect but it's an added "convenient" layer not requiring physical moving.
Shifting the burden of indexing e-mail (and decrypting/encrypting the at rest) on the client willing to achieve this?
Edit:
The webmail/imap/pop provider would only have to receive an e-mail and use a client provide public key to encrypt the mail and let it rest.
The webmail client could (in browser) or through their app do the decryption/indexing locally. Could be done with an extension.
This combined with new laws proposals from Germany could soon have a substantial impact on Tech by mandating various regulations on such platforms.
The effect of such regulations that could be endorsed by the two biggest and most influential members of the EU and could lead to a drastic change in the tech world in Europe.
I thought it was quite important to report on it despite the absence of English media coverage.
I apologize for the title being wrong in this case but some other German media press articles have used the word backdoor instead of Trojan. I should have used the word Trojan instead of Backdoor in relation to this particular article and apologize for the mistake. But I'm not really sure which is worse to be honest... and I also suppose they don't want the suspects aware of the Trojan being on their phone. Which leaves many wondering if they don't mean that they want the Trojans at tech companies instead (which then would become backdoors).
Same issue as the US where the Supreme Court should still rule about this whole right to not incriminate yourself / remain silent by not revealing a password.
No such cases have reached those jurisdiction yet as far as I know?
And some member states never really ruled on the matter clearly.
Now it's pretty clear and I have to agree and re-reading this ruling entirely that this is in fact making mass surveillance legal under an apparent cover of limiting it. Making your initial ending remark completely true.
And from what I read the summary is wrong.
This ruling applies to all EU+UK (including post Brexit for now) states but was requested by UK/France/Belgium lawyers initially.
This ruling also seems to mandate that all EU+UK states cannot keep metadata indefinitely/permanently unless it's highly targeted (as in "individually targeted"), within a judicial framework and only for specific high security issues.
So it doesn't forbid mass surveillance per se but only seems to mandate that they can't keep the data forever unless strictly necessary.
Some could even interpret this ruling as permission to do mass surveillance as long as they don't keep the data for too long (a year? 10 years? it's unclear)
https://torrentfreak.com/images/1-20-cr-00018-US-v-George-Br... https://torrentfreak.com/images/1-20-cr-00018-US-v-Umar-Ahma... https://torrentfreak.com/images/1-20-cr-00018-US-v-Jonatan-C...
Regarding your German link. It's about tampering with evidence which I suppose means it's about changing the IMEI after a crime to hide yourself. I suppose that would be illegal everywhere?
Regarding your UK example, the law in question (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/31/section/1) mentions circumstances and gives exceptions:
" But a person does not commit an offence under this section if—
(a)he is the manufacturer of the device, or
(b)he does the act mentioned in subsection (1) with the written consent of the manufacturer of the device. "
So I guess it's okay in the UK if the manufacturer allows it and is okay with it?
But of course I'm not trying to promote this feature for illegal use but mostly to hinder "inescapable" tracking from Advertisers , Mobile Operators, ISPs, Phone Manufacturers and ...
Including randomized IMEIs and randomized Android ID (In addition to the already offered randomized MAC and Ad tracking ID changes). Especially IMEIs which are commonly used by many applications and law enforcement to track users (see Banking apps for instance that all require your phone permissions to read such IDs).
Nor Librem nor Pinephone offer this functionality from what I know.
And no, it's not (yet) illegal (but might be against some ToS) in many countries to change your IMEI including the US (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Mobile_Equipment...).
It's quite a lot.