tombrossman

Not OP but I'm privacy conscious and have multiple restrictive add-ons installed in Firefox so I had a look. Here's a screenshot of how your most recent article appears with Firefox + uBlock Origin + NoScript + Privacy Badger - not bad! - https://i.imgur.com/FhH0vkx.jpg

The site loaded very quickly and the top menu worked fine with JavaScript disabled. The ads in the right sidebar aren't explicitly marked as ads but it's pretty obvious what they are. I don't mind visiting a site like this and seeing a mix of original content and ads, all of which are relevant.

If more sites followed you lead here, more people like me would see ads. And if they upped their technical game and used server logging to measure visits instead of outsourcing it to third-party analytics providers, they would have a more complete picture of who is visiting their site.

How are you connecting to the site? Genuinely curious as it definitely does not support HTTPS which the sibling comments confirm. Are you on a work computer with proxied MITM certificates, maybe some badly-configured security software (like Superfish), or something else? It would be good to know why this is happening.

These are some good points but when you say "He only wants distribution through channels that provide the same security assurances and deployment features that Google does through the Play Store." it must be noted that this isn't a guarantee of security.

A quick search of 'Google Play malware' returns many results from 2016 and going back to when it was still called Android Market. This isn't hand-waving, there are many concrete and specific examples of security lapses in the Google Play store and this is a persistent problem. Plenty of bright people over there who care and are working on it I'm sure, but not solved yet.

Bottom line is it's his decision to make, but the only certainty that using Google's store brings is that you must have a first-party relationship with Google to use his app. It's better than downloading APKs from some warez site but not a guarantee of security. Framing it this way misses the bigger picture.

Check out how DigitalOcean does this, on their tutorials. As you scroll down, a small box appears in the left margin asking you to sign up for the newsletter. It doesn't block any of the content and you can ignore it while you continue reading. That's nearly perfect, and an example of how to do it right.

I still find the animation of it appearing distracting and I think it interrupts the 'flow' of reading the article, but it was easy enough to block the element with my ad blocking extension.

As an aside, Firefox + Noscript are a thing of beauty. Using them I just don't see most of these annoyances. Yes, it 'breaks' many websites but this usually means a much faster page render without all the annoying stuff.

I understood this beginning in my fifth-grade math class, when I started bringing in books to hold in my lap and read while the rest of the class did busy work. The teacher had created 'packets' of repetitive worksheets and students were supposed to collect them and fill them out, then she would sit at her desk the entire period and grade them. You got a star by your name on a wall chart for each packet you completed. I got the first packet to sit on my desk as a prop, but never wrote on it. That was the whole class, even as a child I recognized this had to be the dullest and laziest teacher ever. I tuned out and read some great books instead. The math wasn't that hard and I did okay on my tests.

The fun part was several months later when the students began to notice that while everyone had dozens of stars by their names, one student had none at all. One of the other students raised their hand and asked her about it in front of everyone else (I was amazed the teacher had never noticed). She was upset and berated me about it in front of the class, then sent me to the Principal's office. I knew instinctively that she was totally fucked for being so clueless, and I happily explained exactly what I did to the Principal and later to my parents. I wasn't in trouble and I knew it. About a week later a new teacher was brought in and she was great, she interacted with the class and I started participating because class was once again more interesting. I don't know how a teacher that bad ever got hired, but at least the school did the right thing later.

If you just want to have nicer webfonts without the 'phoning home to Google' issue try Brick webfonts at http://brick.im/.

If the goal is to get rid of all third-party dependencies you can still use the Brick repository on GitHub to download the better looking fonts and self-serve them, just as you are now with the Google served ones.

The only 'gotcha' I found with using Brick is that NoScript users won't see the fonts and won't see the Brick URL in the menu for whitelisting. They will need to inspect the page and learn that they must manually add brick.im. Not exactly user-friendly but then again NoScript breaks lots of things and users are used to it.

Why the obfuscated referral links? I won't flag this because submitting your own blog post with a list of hidden referral links is technically not against the submission guidelines, but credibility is important when reading recommendations from strangers. Hiding referral links behind redirects isn't helping build credibility.

I checked the first link with a third-party link expander and saw the referral code, then closed the tab without reading further.

I'll upvote because it's a fair point but I think it could use more nuance. Here's an example:

"The scientists on this ship have a sense of humour and are fun people" meaning that while they take the science seriously, the are approachable and not too worried about what you call their ship.

Also, Sir David Attenborough is a national treasure and while I would have preferred the funny name, this is a very solid alternative.

Not really, the host is already trusted (as explained in the parent comment). The domain owner is free to obtain a different certificate with a new private key that only they know if they wish. When you choose to use shared hosting you are already delegating plenty of trust so it's reasonable to use the host's private key.

Bank of England blog: HTTPS only

Bank of England primary website: HTTP only

They get bonus points for their Let's Encrypt cert and a solid 'A' on SSL Labs (some amusing alt names on the cert though - not their fault and no big deal).

Maybe someone at the bank will realize soon that HTTPS is for more than protecting log-ins, it guarantees the integrity of the page and makes sure the browser displays only and exactly what was sent, with no tampering in transit.

It's not awful advice but it's definitely risky. Probably okay when you are a small one-person shop with nothing to lose and no significant assets but maybe not acceptable for anything larger, unless everyone is on board with the extreme risk-taking.

That said, agreeing to onerous terms and having the company actually enforce them later are two different things. This is a good explanation from an earlier HN thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6366912 (yes, it's the pud 'Fucking Sue Me' thread which is evergreen).

I flew from Atlanta a while back with a bunch of Trader Joe's 'Pound Plus' chocolate bars and a ten pound (!) Ghirardelli chocolate bar in my carry-on which got quite a reaction. The poor girl doing the screening seemed to think an explosion was imminent and was visibly distressed, quickly leaving her post and grabbing a supervisor. For those that don't know, big chocolate bars are organic material and look like explosives and I've seen this happen before - I was waiting to see the reaction.

The supervisor and the girl came back and I laughed and said 'clearly you have spotted my giant chocolate bar', and volunteered all the standard answers (yes I packed this myself, it's been with me the whole time, etc) and they calmed down. I was worried they were going to want to open the package which was a gift and I didn't want them all riled up.

We all learned something that day, they learned that big ten-pound chocolate bars are a real thing and I learned that terrorists can probably carry bombs on board as long as they are sealed in a Ghirardelli box. TSA didn't even bother with the swabs or sniffer dog.

Bottom line is that TSA agents have no skin in the game, if they miss dangerous items it's the passengers who suffer the loss, not the agents standing safely at their posts on the ground at the airport.

Okay, fair point. Perhaps I did not explain myself thoroughly.

When I see bank + policy + not just some random bank but the BANK OF ENGLAND, I do expect to see HTTPS guaranteeing the integrity of what is unquestionably important and influential data being served to decision makers.

This amused me, but maybe I'm just easily amused.

There are many reasons to switch to HTTPS - protecting financial data in transit is just one of them. Here's an overview with further explanations but many similar examples exist: https://snyk.io/blog/10-reasons-to-use-https/

Slightly off-topic but did anyone else find it amusing that the Bank of England website does not support HTTPS? I think that's the first bank website I've ever seen that uses HTTP only.

Sites that detect ad-blocker usage have bigger problems to worry about, at least here in Europe.

I haven't seen this reported in the media yet but here is a Twitter message from privacy researcher Alexander Hanff with photos of an official letter confirming that detecting ad-blocker usage client-side is illegal in the EU. https://twitter.com/alexanderhanff/status/722861362607747072

Here's his initial message from yesterday, kicking off the thread: https://twitter.com/alexanderhanff/status/722506381451010048

I've got my popcorn ready and I'm waiting for what may be a very amusing discussion between publishers, advertisers, and lawyers in various European countries. Fascinating, regardless of which side of the debate you are on.

Stealing a car isn't 'minor property crime' it's a serious felony, but I agree that I don't want car thieves locked up for decades as this is unreasonable. The real problem is often drug abuse or mental health issues and those don't get fixed in prison.

I had my car stolen a few years before I got seated on that jury and while it was unpleasant, I got my car back a couple weeks later in perfect condition. The most annoying thing was that the police had it towed to an impound lot and didn't tell me for several days, and I had to pay for the tow and daily impound fees! I explained this during the jury polling and was really surprised to still be seated.

It was a different police force handling my stolen car and I remember thinking that they were total clowns compared to the ones I saw years later as a juror.

This happened when I lived in California and it was my understanding that for any potential 'third strike' (any serious crime that could be a felony) a trial was mandatory. No deal could be offered. The judge explained this very briefly and I didn't read up on it to clarify afterwards.

This 'Three Strikes' rule is a real problem in America, removing a judge's ability to exercise discretion and well...judge. Also, the jury may not be informed about it before deliberating.

I sat on a jury once for a car thief. He totally did it, the police detective who testified was very thorough and professional, plus the accused did not dispute that he'd been caught driving the stolen car (he blamed someone else for the actual theft) but we listened to both sides and deliberated for a couple hours, considering everything. There was a lot of solid evidence, I am certain he did it even though I'm sceptical about what the police say (I have absolutely seen them lie under oath on multiple occasions). I am well aware of the concept of jury nullification.

We were a little confused why the guy didn't take a plea deal and went to trial but we took the job of jury seriously and after looking at the evidence we were comfortable saying he was guilty. The problem was that we had no idea this was the guy's 'third strike' and the judge mentioned this only a moment before sentencing him to life imprisonment. Several on the jury were clearly surprised by this and I think had we known it may have changed our verdict.

The defendant was a young man, and I am not convinced that sending him to prison for several decades for stealing a car (which was recovered undamaged) is of any benefit to society. Being on a jury means you are definitely not going to see the 'big picture' and when combined with mandatory minimum sentencing, this can be a problem.

Upvoted, this should be the top comment! I did go to the site looking for this but didn't find it.

The no questions asked de-listing is a good thing though, easy in and easy out. Like one click unsubscribe for email.

No, it's not the same. In the US you would usually have your land-line and address listed in the phone book by default, and you could pay a very nominal fee to have it be 'unlisted'. Your mobile number would never be listed at all.

As an American living in Europe, I was surprised to see all land-line and mobile numbers published in our local directory (I'm in Britain) which even included a reverse look-up index so you could scan tables of numbers and see the corresponding names! That disappeared a few years back but most of the numbers are still listed if you know the person's name.

I'm all for privacy but I think the fear of having your number posted is overrated unless you have an actual reason (stalker, abusive ex, etc...) in which case a free and easy way to totally opt-out should exist. I've had my phone numbers and email address publicly posted for years and while I get the occasional weirdo, it's totally worth it for the random interesting calls from strangers.

It's a European company so they must be aware of the dreaded 'Data Protection' rules here. Users opting in to the service should be okay, but scanning and uploading their entire address books (the pre-selected default) with everyone else's contact info looks questionable. It's been done though, I know the Android Twitter app does this (it asks permission after installing and it's easy to opt-out) so there's probably a way of doing this without getting sued.

If you visit their site and try to search your number to opt-out, you get a modal asking you to sign in with a Google or Microsoft account - no other options are provided. In miniscule font, an even smaller tooltip says "Sharing is caring, and in the Truecaller community we care about accurate results. By sharing your contacts with Truecaller, you will receive more accurate results and help improve the experience for millions of users around the world."

It's a tried and tested business model but I'm just not interested in doing data entry for someone else's silo for a marginal benefit to myself. Maybe I'm old-school but I'm fine with figuring out who is calling from an unknown number by simply answering and speaking with the caller.

One very minor annoyance I had was using it with BBC iPlayer. It works, but downloads the video as many dozens of tiny parts to reassemble. Since I use ~/Desktop as my default downloads folder, I created this to keep my desktop uncluttered while it runs:

  ytdl()
  {
    mkdir /tmp/ytdl && cd /tmp/ytdl
    for item in "$@" ; do youtube-dl "$@" ; done ;
    mv /tmp/ytdl/* ~/Desktop/
    rm -rf /tmp/ytdl
    exit
  }

Now I can Ctrl + Alt + T a new Terminal window, type ytdl http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/... (can use multiple links) then minimise the window and move on to other things.

Let's say you attain this goal and the protest votes are in, signalling to YC that a (no longer) silent majority feel this way. Now they get the message that the community is "uneasy about the values of its founders and more broadly, Silicon Valley". What's next? I imagine reading posts by the community here does not play a huge role in day-to-day operations at the company, they still have day jobs and financial pressures to deal with whether we like them or not. Is there a plan or end game or is this pure trolling (or maybe I put it more kindly and call it 'performance art' or something like that)?

I'm pretty sure Silicon Valley are quite well aware that privacy is an issue and a growing number of users are uncomfortable with the surveillance-as-a-service business model, but it pays the bills so why would they change? How can you create this demand so that the pro-privacy business model works?

I'm curious to see what you can make of the opportunity, if one even exists here.

It's entirely possible that GitLab could integrate Let's Encrypt and generate their own private keys. Some large shared hosting providers already do this (e.g. DreamHost).

Keys are cheap and plentiful, just regenerate & reissue however often you like. The paid CAs I've used do free reissues with new CSRs no problem. You are already trusting them to serve your site so adding a private TLS key isn't a big deal.

The only downside I could think of is if you are using HPKP with a long duration, you could have issues with rapidly changing keys. But I wouldn't expect GitLab Pages to support setting those headers so probably another non-issue.

I'll second this to amplify the message to please not add CloudFlare for all custom domains and if you feel you must add it then at least make it optional.

This would be an absolute showstopper bug which would prevent some of us from using GitLab Pages if it became a requirement. Definitely do not want.

Okay good to know. Not sure who's downvoting you because this is useful info.

Now if we can forget the comparison between smartphones and computers, it would be great to know exactly which smartphones are a good choice for users of encrypted email. I'm on Android now only because it easy enough to root and use without any Google services (I prefer to self-host and use F-Droid for apps). I don't particularly like Android but it is the 'lesser of two evils' for now.

If I can do the same with an iPhone and never have an account with Apple I would definitely be interested as the iPhone hardware seems pretty good.

Not a good argument for the tiny fraction of smartphone users who happen to use iPhones, or not a good argument at all?

The comment I replied to mentions the iPhone, but made the blanket statement "Your mobile..." plus the article I linked to addresses multiple mobile OSs.

It would be helpful to explicitly state which make and model smartphones you believe are not susceptible to baseband threats. I think Blackphone has also integrated countermeasures but information on this topic is pretty sparse.

> "Your mobile should be one of the safest places to store a key."

I have to take issue with this. I think your mobile is probably one of the least secure places to store a key, due to the 'baseband problem'[0]. Your mobile in its normal (powered-on and connected to a network) state is probably less secure than using a fresh un-patched install of Windows XP today. I mean the original version of XP, pre-SP1 with the firewall disabled.

This is why people say to choose a device without a mobile radio chip at all for secure communication, such as an iPod Touch[1].

I'd really like to have PGP/GPG encrypted emails on my mobile and I had it tested and working for a little while before looking into the baseband issue. I've since revoked the keys I used for that test and I am resigned to the fact that I will not be able to securely use encrypted email on my mobile phone for the foreseeable future.

I keep my keys off the phone now, along with an unpublished email address at a different domain which is to be used for account recovery for those email accounts in use on the phone.

[0]http://mobile.osnews.com/story.php/27416/The_second_operatin...

[1]https://twitter.com/csoghoian/status/686035633949818881

With a name like Privacy.com I was hoping to see your use of Google Analytics visitor tracking in your privacy policy: https://privacy.com/#privacy-policy

It isn't there, and disclosing it is mandatory under the Google Analytics T&C's (Section 7 here, it's crystal clear with the language "You must..." https://www.google.com/analytics/terms/us.html )

Can you please add it to your privacy policy? It's one of the first things privacy-conscious users look for when evaluating a website or service.