shakedown.social is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
A community for live music fans with roots in the jam scene. Shakedown Social is run by a team of volunteers (led by @clifff and @sethadam1) and funded by donations.

Administered by:

Server stats:

243
active users

#e2ee

6 posts5 participants1 post today

DJ Slope's #YouTube ban, likely triggered by an automated #Google Drive flag, is a warning about over-reliance on big tech. One misstep can erase your digital life. To protect #privacy and control, self-host whenever possible, avoid centralizing data, use end-to-end encrypted tools, and keep services separate. Don’t wait for a ban to realize how fragile your online presence really is.

youtube.com/watch?v=H9zU00_I_H

"WhatsApp's intervention [in the Apple encryption case] shows the breadth of concern about the threat to privacy and security."

Many voices must be heard to "understand the full impact of what the Home Office is trying to do" with people's ability to access encrypted services in the UK.

🗣️ @jim, ORG's Exec Director.

bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgmjrn

The WhatsApp app displayed on a phone screen
BBC NewsWhatsApp backs Apple in its legal row with the UK over user dataThe messaging app says the UK government's demands over data access could set a "dangerous precedent."

My most recent project has been self-documenting cryptography, which seeks to make password hashes traceable or useless.

The basic idea is to add "this password is for Acme Corporation, Inc." onto the end of every password, automatically and outside the control of the user, before it is hashed.

The goal is to adversarially embed an organization's name and contact information into their password hash function, so that in order to be able to crack a password hash, you must know where to report it as stolen.

github.com/auth-global/self-do

GitHubself-documenting-cryptography/design-documents/g3pb2.md at prerelease · auth-global/self-documenting-cryptographyContribute to auth-global/self-documenting-cryptography development by creating an account on GitHub.

@silhouette @richi @signalapp @torproject

1. You completely miss the points! There is no "#TechnicalNecessity" to demand #PII like a #PhoneNumber - espechally for a "#privacy"-focussed messenger!

2. & 3. #Signal is able and willing to comply with #Cyberfacism and pushing a #Shitcoin (#MobileCoin) makes it trivial to criminalize the App for "illegal & unregilated banking". If #Moxie or @Mer__edith cared they'd yeet that thing (or didn't even integrate it to begin with!) to avoid the attention. And yes Signal does restrict the App functionality when using a phone number from #Russia & #Iran (among other nations), thus affecting not only those in need of safe comms but by sending a verification code to them, earmarking them for police & intelligence. Which bings.me to the 1st agrument.

4. #Tor has a stellar record in terms of stability, integrity and censorship circumvention. DIY'ing something instead if following almost two decades of solid progress is absurd and violates "don't roll your own crypto" as a rule!

5. Only with #SelfCustody can you protect your own data. Or do you really expect Staff from Signal to not talk when facing lifetime in jail? If they have the keys, they can decrypt it, thus their #E2EE is just a "#TrustMeBro!" concept. I mean, what prevents them from being forced into backdooring all comms to @icij as per #NSL? Any "guarantee" without self-custody is worthless by virtue of being unenforceable!

Signal pushing #TechPopulism instead of teaching folks that their #ComSec is worth diddly-piss wothout.#OpSec, #InfoSec & #ITsec is dangerous!

  • And yes claiming "JuSt UsE sIgNaL!" is dangerous in the era of #Trump's #cyberfacist regime acting as it does (like with the #ICC)!

Not to mention there are better options that don't do that shite (i.e. demand PII) and just work. @monocles / #monoclesChat & @delta / #deltaChat for example can adapt way better to said risks and ain't run by a #VCmoneyBurningParty!

dumbfuckingweb.sitePost by sleepy silhouette, @silhouette@dumbfuckingweb.site@kkarhan@infosec.space @richi@vmst.io @signalapp@mastodon.world @torproject@mastodon.social >PII afaik the only info is that you have registered to Signal and the last time you've connected. Other services do this too, for technical reasons. >USA irrelevant given the guarantees of their E2...
Replied in thread

@dangillmor If anyone with a @garmin watch is pissed off about #Garmin retroactively revoking owners' #RightToOwn in favour of #enshittification, or if anyone else is in the market for a new smart watch, ask the #UNAWatch company and its personnel what technical and legal means they will use to guarantee they can never follow Google #Fitbit and Garmin into the same anti-consensual ¹ business model.

A technical guarantee is a hardware-based means to flash the firmware which the firmware itself cannot prevent using, paired with complete published open-access documentation of the hardware for independent developers. A legal guarantee means a permanent and irrevocable commitment to a full refund if the company ever engages in coercive tied selling, as by making use of any watch feature dependent on an online service the feature can function without, on a paid or non-#E2EE online service (save only if the owner opts into sharing data, and then making that data available to those with whom the owner elects to share), or an an online service the owner cannot replace, at the owner's sole discretion, with self-hosting or a competing service of their choice.

¹ The standard word "non-consensual" means the person didn't voluntarily say "yes"; I use "anti-consensual" here to mean the person said "no"—or the perpetrator knew beforehand the person would say "no" if given a chance—and the perpetrator did it anyway. It's bad enough not to ask; companies enshittifying already-purchased goods are instead acting in knowing and direct defiance of owners' refusal. The business model Garmin is adopting, following Fitbit, is actively contemptuous of consent ².

² Burying supposed "consent" in a EULA doesn't ethically count: if the owner cannot effectively refuse the change, or if continued full use of the original functionality—or anything else for which consent isn't strictly necessary (in the GDPR sense)—is conditioned on supposed "consent," then it isn't freely given, and so isn't valid consent.

Here's a question: Can #Signal build into itself a way to prohibit ANY communication or interaction with the completely nonsecure clone of itself known as "TM SGNL," given that the latter is built from the same code and uses the same protocols? Because it sure seems to me that an impenetrable wall needs to be erected between the 2. #encryption #e2ee

Russian authorities continue to demand the impossible, namely that we give them user data we don't have. Today the Moscow City Court rejected our objections and sided with the communication surveillance authority Roskomnadzor and the Federal Security Buereau (FSB). Not too surprising. Many more details and next step considerations you can find in this press release

merlinux.eu/press/2025-05-14-r