TalkingCodeMonk

see other comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48772802

That's the whole point of E2EE.

No it's not. The point of E2EE is that only the client apps decrypt/encrypt content, and the server just processes the encrypted bits. Most E2EE service providers do this by encrypting your encryption key. That's how you can login on other devices without you having to store and import an encryption key every time. When you login they send you an encrypted blob that contains your encryption key, which is decrypted client side, then the key is used to decrypt your data locally on the client. This does not break E2EE, but it does mean you have to trust the provider, which is why most of them are entirely open source.

Sharing and emergency access also use similar public key cryptography techniques to provide shared access to E2EE data. A similar principle applies to your phones encryption aswell, and is the reason you can wipe/reset your device in seconds, instead of minutes/hours. They only wipe the encryption key; not the encrypted data.

FYI the setup you mention is not "end-to-end" encrypted. E2EE means client-to-client encrypted, with the server processing encrypted bits only. Your approach is encryption in transit and at rest. At rest is relatively irrelevent for large cloud providers, as they are probably better at managing the lifecycle of disks than most businesses or people. It's unlikely someone's going to physically rob a data center or end up with a refurb drive that hasn't been thoroughly processed and wiped.

It's not necessarily more secure than managed providers either, simply because you are probably not a security engineer, and have far less resources to secure your server. It does prevent Google/iCloud from scraping your data, but it certainly does not mean Hetzner can't access your data. They control the overarching hypervisor and control plane managing your servers/VM's, so there's no way to know what capabilities have been implemented. The majority of what intelligence agencies are capable of has not been leaked or documented publicly.

Sounds like you want your photos on a unencrypted HDD, which you can do regardless of whether or not a cloud service is E2EE, so I don't see how E2EE is an issue...

Why is there "a very good possibility" of losing your photos because they are E2EE? Do you not use a password manager and backup your data?

There is no reason why E2EE services can't provide recovery or emergency access mechanisms, or implement plaintext export functionality from clients for storage elsewhere. Most reputable providers already have functionality to enable recovery and backup.

Seriously! How do techies and devs of all people not understand that the cloud is someone else's computer, and that the best way to prevent leaks, exploitation, or abuse of user data is to prevent anyone from being able to decrypt it but the end users themselves.

IMO this is the single greatest problem with the selfhosted community; the idea that E2EE is only necessary for passwords and other highly sensitive PII. It should be standard for anything hosted on someone else's computer.

You might argue it's not neccessary for cat photos, but mistakes happen and you can accidentally upload things you don't intend to. You might argue it's not neccessary for games, ebooks or other copyrighted media, but the cloud provider could scan and delete anything you own that matches a hash of copyrighted material, at any time. You can accidentally paste a password, or other sensitive piece of text, into any text field of any website or application, and have it distributed to computers around the world.

E2EE can mitigate against numerous attack vectors, and reduces the surface area and blast radius of most attacks. That also applies to your own computers, if someone steals your hardware or hacks into your network. It is vital in the age of AI where all of your data could be exploited for training and profit, or used against you. The only data that should not be E2EE is situations where it is technically impossible, or the data is explicitly shared as "public" (e.g. the clearnet).

A link at the bottom of the page goes directly to a US directory (of only 476 entities): https://www.usworker.coop/directory/

Because of the principle of least privilege: https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_privilege

All current age verification measures open up a torrent of attack vectors on user PII and privacy. Limiting the number of entities that are able to access data is one of the best ways to prevent it's leak or abuse. Don't let perfection be the enemy of good.

But therein lies the fundamental problem with surveillance capitalism. Until the sale of personal data/metadata is outlawed, the practice of targeting content based on an individuals personal data/metadata is outlawed, there is a highly punitive cost for violations and leaks that make storage outside core business functionality a major criminal and financial risk, and the compilation of this data by "intelligence" agencies it treated as a critical attack vector to national security – the attack on each citizens civil rights that it truly is – most privacy laws and regulations are just virtue signals designed specifically avoid the root causes, and further entrench the power of monopolies and incumbents.

FYI I don't believe Google sells user data. They sell products which leverage user data to give them a critical advantage over every competitor who does not have trackers in everyones pockets/computers, does not store their entire web search/browsing history, etc. It's in the interest of big tech to protect their market advantage (like ZKP, which would prevent competitors from having a new gov-mandated vector to compile user data).

So, if the majority chose to get microchipped, you believe either we should force the minority to get microchipped against their will, or just exclude them from society?

"Your papers, please"

because of rising prices for consumer electronics, particularly high-end Apple products

Here's your problem. This is not a consumer or Apple-specific issue whatsoever. Computing hardware is critical infrastructure in the digital age. The AI boom is inflating the cost of almost all compute for every business, including the cost of all cloud computing.

It's alot like housing, in that the average cost of housing directly inflates the average cost of living, impacting the poorer many orders of magnitude more than the richer. When all governments, companies, and individuals depend on computers to amplify productivity or deliver services, a significant increase in price will impact every government, company, and indiviudal.

An extremely small number of individuals or orgs being able to dramatically impact critical infra, and the cost of living – regardless of why – is a major national security and supply chain failure. This is the entire reason why monopolies and too-big-to-fail entities are bad for everyone, and anti-trust laws were created to being with; to prevent an extreme minority from influencing markets in such a way that it is detrimental to consumers and other market players or sectors.

They also inexplicably snuck in a 50% increase for the TV 4k, just to be extra greedy.

Treat yoself Tim Apple!

The fact that a dozen companies are allowed to buy up the entire global supply of core components, and increase the cost of living for every human on Earth, is full blown dystopian.

Agreed. More importantly, this long documented history of massive recurring multi-billion dollar fraud and theft – mostly from domestic and international retirement funds – indicates that America is essentially, for all intents and purposes, a plutocratic dictatorship with the illusion of democracy. Ticking a box every few years, when all your options are pre-positioned to continue a criminal status-quo, is neither "democracy" or "by/for the people". This systemic corruption did not materialise out of thin air recently. It has arguably been present all of history (in every economy). It's just accelerated to psychopathic levels of obscene gratuity over the last 2 decades.

This is why I've voted with my wallet the only way I can, by moving all of my investments (including retirement) out of the American market. The rot is far too deep. The few bad apples have entirely spoiled the bunch. I'm not under any illusion other markets will be safe from the fallout, or that I'll make better returns long term, but I do not care. I'm voting the only way I can given the current system. If I'd moved my investments earlier, when I came to this conclusion, I would have actually made significantly larger gains over the last couple of years.

Persona is also a core provider in jurisdications implementing ID laws for social media and other web services.

Considering the ties to Palantir and America's mass surveillance apparatus, one could even argue that a primary goal of the admin could be to use the USA's current AI lead to accelerate the adoption of web ID laws, and global push to deanonymize all web traffic.

I'm not arguing against a base level of empathy and care for maintainers.

I'm arguing FOR a base level of empathy and care FROM maintainers WHO CHOOSE to build for-profit products in the open, and that empathy for all parties should be the base expectation from a healthy community, rather than the narcissistic view of "nobody owes their communities anything, regardless of context".

The narssisist view leads to the behaviour of Minio, Bambu, etc becoming an accepted norm; to the abuse, exploitation, and deterioration of open source communities by for-profit orgs.

Your post changed my prespective on atproto! It also solidified the architectural issues I've had all along with the fediverse, and view that it's more of an interim solution which doesn't resolve the core centralisation and censorship issues; often exacerbating them to the extreme.

Just noticed who you are. Big fan of you're work and approach to problem solving! Do you have any similar posts about alternative protocols in this space, like nostr et al?

I've been ruminating on the incorporation of censorship resistance by adopting core concepts from tor/I2P and Monero using cryptographic techniques for validation and obfuscation that enable users to subscribe to specific communities, chatrooms, or channels within a PDS, so they also operate like private/public-PDS's to replace messaging providers with a uni/multi/any-cast rss. The reason I think this should coexist in the same protocol is that if the hosting provider itself is untrusted by default, and all comms are E2EE between all consumers from the ground up (public comms could contain a decryption key in the response, or one assembled by relays), the individual hosting providers can't choose to selectively filter or censor individual comms they disagree with at any layer, because they can't see the speech, where it's coming from, or where it's going; even for publicly broadcasted comms, until at least after the response has been transmitted to relays (enforced by the protocol).

jhack's perspetive is something that is all too common in tech. The implication that if code is open source the owners and maintainers don't owe consumers anything because "you can always fork or build it yourself"... as if that were ever possible for the average user, or in a digital world where anything you do with a computer depends on endless recursive sub-dependencies.

It's analogous to saying "it's your fault because you didn't read the T&C's", when all the T&C's you've implicitly agreed to already would take more than a human lifetime to read and understand. That is not a reasonable implication or expectation for the vast majority of people, the vast majority of the time; therefore it is logically corrupt, and should not be entertained.

This is ofcourse a fair point of view for 1-few person codebases built for fun, or to solve their own problems, open sourced out of the kindness of their hearts, but when the open source code is built or maintained as part of a job function (receiving a paycheck) &/or to generate profit (either directly or indirectly to influence standards, gain market share, etc) the open-sourcing is more of a means to build trust and becon attention or adoption in the age of relentless enshittification.

Open sourcing should not be an accepted path for profit seeking orgs or individuals to exploit and screw over consumers, as though they are eternal beta testers whose trust and dependence are worthless externalities. It also completely ignores the time and effort consumers must invest themselves to learn your product, workaround any errors, and build it into their workflow. That is arguably worth significantly more than whatever fee they could pay you for your code.

I find it simultaneously amusing and depressing that you took my comment as a promotion of bribery, rather than a stark commentary on the sytemic corruption that has destroyed Americas democracy, and is destroying liberal democracies worldwide.

How the system has self-corrected to empower the most greedy and sociopathic of behaviours, across all private and public institutions, the entire time; so much so that the average person can't even comprehend the root causes, or any solution beyond a simple band-aid non-solution.

Microsoft had it worse because Gates was a megalomaniac who was so self-absorbed he didn't understand he was supposed to bribe via "donations". Tech companies all learned the same as other sectors; it's more profitable to have lobbyists greasing the wheels of corrupt politicians from the get go, and "donate" to their success for a lifetime of consultation and quid pro quo.

This is also why all virtues signaled by corporations should be treated as lies unless they are legally bindable, and there are actual consequences for false and misleading advertising, fraud, etc other than a rounding error and cost of doing business.

It's only been several years since all AI companies signaled virtues about morality and ethics by not working with the military. Now they all do.

For the EU taxpayer, nothing was gained and nothing was lost.

Except for the "massive" subsidies you advocated for, right? Except for the massive cost to provide utilities and infrastructure to support those businesses? Except for the cost to support the employees they refuse to provide minimum "protections" for? Except for any damage they do to the local environment?

You seem to think that businesses exist in a vaccum where they have no impact on society or its population, except when they succeed and everyone should be eternally grateful. This is the systemic greed and narcissism America exports to the world; not just through its businesses, but its media and population across forums such as this one, and is exactly what I'm talking about.

Why should taxpayers anywhere pay private enterprises to create infrastructure they own and control for-profit, rather than just cutting out the monopoly middle man and establishing that infrastructure as a public utility who services the domestic economy, equally?

This is the kind of madness I'm talking about. If taxpayers have to subsidise products and services the "free" market refuses to provide, they should have direct ownership in the profits; not just the losses. Why is the default for society to subsidise expenses and privatise profits? That is ideologically-driven dogmatic insanity, which allows select individuals and foreign entities control over the national economy and its security, and is the entire reason madmen in the USA have the EU (and world) by the balls.

I suggest you take the time to read independent analysis on the benefits of corporate subsidies in America.

I know I've read of many cases where they cost cities and communities far more than the economic activity they promise to generate (eg Amazon warehouses and sportsball stadiums).

Subsidies could make strategic sense in the case of AI, but it's terrible economics to encourage businesses that take more from communities than they give back, especially those that don't employ many people.

"US, for 1st time in 50 years, experienced negative net migration in 2025" [0]

Curious how they jumped for nearly decade old stats, huh?

[0] https://abcnews.com/US/us-1st-time-50-years-experienced-nega...

This "greed is good, and should be rewarded" philosophy is one I see all too often on HN, and the entire reason why Americas political, regulatory, and business leadership have been overrun by the countries most criminally corrupt narcissists and psychopaths; why its democracy has collapsed.

When you reward the most selfish, corrupt, and antisocial behaviours with wealth and power, you're guaranteed to create a selfish, corrupt, and antisocial society. IMHO it's indicative of what I have dubbed Americas "mental illness epidemic"; specifically cluster B personality disorders [0] which are characterised by socially-destructive and self-destructive behaviours.

If that's the world you want for you and your loved ones, congratulations. You've earned it!

[0] https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_of_personality_dis...

Also remember that the Koch Bros (plus numerous other billionaires) have spent billions [0] poisoning economics academia by funding their narcissistic version of pseudo-libertarianism across think tanks, lobbyists, and colleges... They're so "Libertarian" they believe corporate dictatorship is freedom and poisoning their communities is the communities problem.

I remember first going to a party at an Economics students house 20 years ago, and thinking they all seemed like they were in a cult. Wasn't until fairly recently I figured out it was from propaganda.

[0] https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_network

It sounds like the key difference people are missing is that VPN's operate at the network layer, so they require separate integrations for every device os/arch and network stack, where Iroh is embedded at the application layer, so any app can be a P2P VPN client without worrying about device network integrations.

Sounds great to me, and would be a boon for self-hosting and decentralization in general, which is sorely needed considering how captured, authoritarian, and anti civil liberties every democracy is becoming. If I'm not mistaken, I believe I read a tailscale blog about them envisioning application layer embedding at some point as well.

The premise here is rather ridiculous, and only entertainable if you don't know about the recent history of the admin declaring Anthropic a supply chain risk because they required the government to agree to ethical clauses that would've been considered unthinkable until recently.

Remember, all AI companies openly claimed to oppose military usage just a few short years ago. Now they all have government contracts that allow the government to use them "lawfully", while also being able to decide that anything they do with them is lawful. Anthropic is the only one who required clauses against killbots and domestic mass surveillance.

Anthropic never asked for arbitrary or opaque shutdowns. They asked for clearly defined regulations to apply equally (which would've helped their market position and advantage, coincidentally I'm sure /s), moreso to reduce their own risk and liability.

I'm not sure why you got down voted. Maybe people are perceiving some subtext that I'm not.

Probably because the vast majority of politicians who attack taxation do so specifically to destroy social programs and quality of life multipliers, instead of the war machine or any other area of bearucratic waste, inefficiency, or corruption.

For example "No new wars" becomes "No, new wars!" and all the people who screamed about government spending clap as the military spend doubles, or feign disgust but fall in line eventually because "the other guy would've done the same" as admitting they were wrong or conned is inconceivable.

Also, literally nobody is paying a 70% effective tax rate anywhere. I'd be surprised if you could find anyone paying more than 50% without misinformation. Even when taxes were 90% for a short period of time, for an extreme minority, there were loopholes that meant none of them ever paid anything close to 90%.

From their about page: "Thunderbird operates in a separate, for-profit subsidiary of the not-for-profit Mozilla.org. This structure gives us the flexibility to offer optional paid services to sustain Thunderbird’s development far into the future."[0]

The whole "Thunderbird Council" approach sounds good in theory, but I don't see any assurances that my donation would not fund for-profit service or feature development that could be locked behind a paywall, or that the whole product can't be sold off or transitioned to some closed offering at any time.

The core problem is not Mozilla specific. It's that our legal and political systems are now corrupted and offer no safeguards to prevent this type of fraud from taking place. Tech companies from the very beginning have been given carte blanche to lie, cheat, and pivot any way they please; to betray user/customer investment and change their entire value proposition on a dime. That was the growth and funding model of tech startups; build users by offering product for free (at a loss) until they become dependent on your product, then bait-and-switch. When companies are consistently rewarded for this, and there are no meaningful financial or legal reprecussions, I see no reason to believe that this will change any time in the near future.

[0] https://www.thunderbird.net/ach/about/

I wouldn't say Mozilla has reached this stage of fraud or exploitation directly yet (to my knowledge), but the decisions they make consistently indicate they are on the path to that level of corruption and enshittification, and history has taught us there are zero guardrails in place to effectively prevent it.

In the Reddit example I gave, the crime is essentially a form of "bait-and-switch", false advertising, or charity fraud; scamming volunteers into donating their time and labor to build a product under deceptive and misleading pretences then, once achieving a certain threshold of success, changing the value proposition to a state where they would not have donated their time or labor to begin with. The same applies to an open source product which switches to closed-source. When you change the value proposition on volunteers like that, you have transformed their time and labor from a donation to unpaid wages, as they literally built your product and company for free, and are the reason your product exists at all. If you do not pay them out or backpay them in some way, or you can't, you are no different to any other white collar ciminal scammer, exploiting charity for profit.

Allowing this type of fraud to succeed, and become an accepted business practice, is socially corrosive and destructive. It's a strong indicator of corruption to the rule of law in the legal, political, and economic system.