Not disappear entirely, but most households won’t own desktop computers or HDDs.

You’re going to love Cyberchef

They can make it so much harder to do that, to the point where almost everyone just gives up.

If you’re upset that your hacked-to-bits, rooted, unlocked and/or unencrypted device is failing checks: I’d say, tough luck. Until we can create provably untampered app-containers, that level of access genuinely breaks TOS on apps and regulations on handling personal data.

Hard disagree. If you own the device, you should be in full control of what’s going on. Sure, attestation can give some extra security, but that decision should be up to the user. Everything else is just excuses for user hostile DRM: platforms levaraging technology to secure their own profit margin against the interests of user.

Websites do not have access to your IMEI. That’s only a concern when you use the app.

Sure. For the fact that many jurisdictions outside of the US also consider freedom of speech and other human rights to apply between private parties: this is called “horizontal effect” and covered extensively in case law by e.g. the European Court of Human Rights. See also this chapter for an international comparison and this paper for a European perspective.

As for the specific rules in the EU for platforms: Article 17 of the Digital Services Act requires that users who are banned or shadowbanned from any platform are provided with specific information of what rule they broke, which they can then appeal internally or in court. Article 34 and 35 requires very large platforms (such as X) to take broad measures to protect i.a. the users’ freedom of speech.

More to the point, one person who was shadowbanned by X in a similar way used the DSA and won in court

(Edited to add the last paragraph)

*in the US.

The EU recognizes that human right such as freedom of speech also should be protected against private parties. Platforms can’t ban or restrict you for arbitrary reasons here.

I’m of the opinion that having a lot of money shouldn’t, in fact, allow you to do what you want. No person should have this power to do mass censorship, not in the last place because manipulating online discourse means manipulating a fundamental aspect of democracy.

Musk specifically is meddling in elections, both in the EU and the US by e.g. bribing voters. Turning the dials of the algorithm lets him do this even more effectively.

As long as it’s not an exit node, nobody will be able to tell what the traffic is. It’s all encrypted including the metadata.

I think they mean uPnP

How does that increase the risk compared to something like JBOD or overlayfs? In both cases you will lose data if a drive fails. Keep in mind that this is btrfs raid0, not regular raid. If anything that decreases the chance of corruption because the metadata is redundantly stored on both drives.

No mention of systemd? This is unacceptable.

A disk failure will cause you to lose data, yes. But that’s also the case in all the other solutions discussed here. Backups should be handled separately and are not part of the original question.

Have you considered simply setting btrfs to RAID 0?

The fight for privacy and digital freedom is inherently political.

Unfortunately, the EU is planning something similar called the European Health Data Space. Mandatory data sharing, patients cannot opt out to everything.

That’s obviously not what this article is about. Notice how I said “above a certain age”?

It doesn’t. Self-hosted open source surveillance is still surveillance. Constantly monitoring your children (above a certain age) is still helicopter parenting.

Where’s the lie?

Even if you computer is not exposed to the internet: are you certain that every other device on the network is safe (even on public wifi)? Would you immediately raise the alarm if you saw a second printer in the list with the same name, or something like “Print to file”? I think I personally could fall for that under the right circumstances.