A website doesn’t need to ask you for consent if the cookie is “strictly necessary”. I’m not sure how those anti bot protections work, but I bet they made it fit the definition of a “strictly necessary” cookie.

It doesn’t really matter if they got it right or wrong, as long as it’s consistent. The goal isn’t to know your location, screen res, or cpu core count, it’s to track you across websites.

Surprised and disappointed that a Swiss company must comply with Swiss law?

There is no company that will refuse to comply with the authorities of the country they are headquartered in.

Proton and similar privacy focused companies at least do as much as they can to have as little data to share as possible. The emails, for instance, are not data that Proton can share no matter how insistant the law is.

But the metadata of the account? Like the credit card you decide to pay with? That’s not encrypted and it’s absurd to think that a company will refuse to comply with the law of their country.

That’s not entirely true. It’s only impossible without governments working toward it.

We have plenty of tech options to develop a secure way to have a government-issued digital ID that is able to only share selected information, like your age. But that has to come from governments, not companies needing to verify your age.

The best part is that it can be private, as in: The government doesn’t need to know who requested your age, and the website doesn’t need to know anything else than your age and which government is confirming it.

And the tech required isn’t even necessarily new or recent.

Be careful with being explained politics from other countries, even sourced. If you asked a big part of the french population what are LFI’s politics they’d tell you all sort of horrors that the media baselessly accuses them of simply because they are dangerous to the capitalistic system we live in. The formerly mainstream french “left” hates them too and always has.

Unfortunately more and more media all around the world is owned by more or less hidden oligarch wannabes.

I don’t know swedish politics either, but I wouldn’t trust random strangers on the internet to tell me what they are.

Do you not understand why people don’t want to link their mobile to every website they visit?

I’ve grown increasingly disappointed with fairphone

It would be nice to include why!

Capitalism does not work because companies will always seek to grow more and more and more. It’s the core of capitalism. You need anti-capitalist policies to keep companies small.

The public IP location is not precisely your location because your IP address does not convey that information at all. Services that locate an IP guesstimate based, mostly, on what range your IP is a part of, and what public data is available about that range.

I’m not sure about Spain (pretty confident it is the same, only a capitalist hellhole would do what you suggest), but in France and the Netherlands at least, your IP (the one a website sees) is always yours and yours only, not the IP of some ISP server.

If you can open your ports in your router and access them from the internet, then your public IP is yours. Most people can (even with a dynamic IP). If it was an ISP server, you wouldn’t be able to.

The thing a european ISP usually do is assign a dynamic IP, so that while your IP is assigned to your home router and yours only at a moment in time, it will likely change the next day, and will always change on a reboot of your router. But it still is your router’s IP at that moment in time, not a random ISP server. IPs are not physically assigned to a device

My home IP is mine, fixed, and I can verify that it is indeed my router. Yet the location of it according to locators is the other side of the country. The location locators give you for your IP being different to your actual location is not a proof that your public IP is not your actual home IP at all. And that is because an IP is not tied to a location and only your ISP can tell the location of their IPs.

I’ve never heard of that kind of network, is that a US thing? I can’t imagine having my traffic routed, as the person I replied to said, to the other side of the country before being routed to the proper destination. That is so incredibly inefficient and unnecessary. Not to mention the single point of failure.

Edit: And it makes hosting a public facing server at home a nightmare… I see no benefit to this except not having to get a large IP range to properly assign them to your customers, which sounds like capital efficiency rather than decent user experience. Did I get it right, is this a US thing? :D

Edit 2: And there are a lot of systems IP-banning abusers (it is, in fact, one of the most basic recommendations), meaning that if someone sharing that public IP gets IP banned, the entire customer group sharing the IP is troubled. Even worse if it ends up on a shared blacklist…

Absolutely not, the public IP a website sees is your home IP. The resolved location will be inaccurate by design, but the IP definitely identifies you at that time.

Oh yeah, it’s insane. The only way to truly protect your identity on the internet is by not using the internet. Second best would be tor, I suppose

That is not true, a lot of it is sent willingly by your browser.

And they could display it if the website was well done

And then you become even more identifiable cause you’re part of the 10 madmen in Google’s database who do it

The point is not that they know your IP, but that even your IP already gives away information. That’s why they start with the information, rather than the IP being the source.

This is not intended to be for people who understand how this works.

And as someone else said, probably vibe coded.

deleted by creator

The definition of E2EE has evolved since the concept surfaced. You seem to be stuck with the original meaning.

TLS does not fit the modern definition.

E2E is about the sender encrypting, and only the intended receiver decrypting, with nothing in the middle able to read the data.

TLS is not designed for that, as the server you connect to is not necessarily the intended receiver, yet it can see everything.

With E2E, you can send data to a server, which is not the intended receiver, and it won’t be able to read it.

They’re missing the point, I think. We don’t want an opt out, we want them to stop investing in AI altogether. I don’t care that they have a “no ai” engine, I want to support companies who don’t fall to the destructive AI hype.

I’ve given up on all these tools, as I have found working with your usual test framework (depending on your language) much more convenient after all.