Privacy

35326 readers

443 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
Don't promote proprietary software
Try to keep things on topic
If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
Be nice :)

Related communities

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

Signal CEO dismisses Snowden archive research about NSA supply chain attacks, backdooring, civillian surveillance (feddit.nl)

submitted 13 hours ago by SLfgb@feddit.nl to c/privacy@lemmy.ml

9 comments fedilink hide all child comments

https://x.com/mer__edith/status/1705639399503929643 (https://archive.md/yEaDA)

https://x.com/lorenzofb/status/1705341371014422845 (https://archive.md/0DMFA)

https://www.computerweekly.com/news/366552520/New-revelations-from-the-Snowden-archive-surface (https://archive.md/q95Al)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 34 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

It looks more like she's saying that the tweet about Applebaum is less important, not the article about him

[–] rcbrk@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Whittaker's phrasing is ambiguous. Could be read as expressing one of a number of things:

The paper/article is misleading and distracting from meaningful threats to privacy.
That the original tweet is using misleading accusations to distract us from the article's revelations of meaningful threats to privacy.
That Appelbaum's authorship of the research is an unwanted negative association which undermines the attention deserved by the threats documented in the paper which are misleadingly justified as necessary by eg. governments.

It's difficult to know without a better understanding of Whittaker's position on the various matters at hand, so I don't know.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

And if we can't tell for sure, it's stupid to start pointing fingers. If you don't have the facts, reading your (general) own narrative into her very short statement and presenting that as the objective truth is irrational. That's how conspiracy theories are made.

Personally, it sounds like the person on top is recommending backdoors to "protect the children," and Whittaker is rightly pointing out that that's a stupid take, given who is in charge in various governments and the dumb reasons many of them have used as justification for implementing backdoors.

Exit: clarification