chuddletime
Chad LoderPeople with critically important privacy needs should never base their safety on the assumption that a Mastodon instance's data is secure from the feds.
Misuse Case@chadloder Don’t base your safety on the assumption that anything’s data is secure from the feds unless you are securing it yourself or have read it in the specs or user agreement.
@MisuseCase I would not trust a user agreement, personally.
@chadloder It’s a bit reductive because user agreements can change. Specs are better, like “we have set this up in such a way that we couldn’t turn data over to law enforcement if we wanted to, assuming you have put your settings on X Y and Z.”
bonk@MisuseCase @chadloder Honestly, for very secure use-cases, the only thing I trust is a open-source application that (ideally) undergoes independent security audits, or at least has a lot of reputation/trust from the security community. Anything else feels like baselessly trusting some random developers to tell the truth.
Mike (no not that one)@chadloder
Mastodon like any social media service is not meant to shield personal data. You should not post information here, even in private chats, that could be compromising or dangerous if shared or released.
Mastodon like any social media service is not meant to shield personal data. You should not post information here, even in private chats, that could be compromising or dangerous if shared or released.
NimbusIf you share your data with ANYONE, you shouldn't assume it's safe from the Feds. The J6 people thought they were secure on Signal, but the Feds ended up with their chats, because the Feds has plants in the chats. And if anyone gets rolled, or their devices taken while things, like your data, are viewable, the Feds get that too.
Olav@chadloder don't assume anything you put on the internet is private. Even if it's E2EE