Privacy

4358 readers
114 users here now

Icon base by Lorc under CC BY 3.0 with modifications to add a gradient

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
26
27
28
 
 

UKHSA will explore options to work with ‘big tech’ to use live location data and artificial intelligence (AI) for a more rapid, large-scale detection and alert system during pandemics. These services will adopt a whole-of-society approach with accessible and multilingual formats, and UKHSA will work to consider and build the equivalent tools needed for digitally excluded communities.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pandemic-preparedness-strategy-building-our-capabilities/uk-government-approach-to-implementing-the-strategy-england-only

29
30
 
 

Google is tightening control over Android under the guise of 'security,' but this crackdown on sideloading is a direct hit to digital sovereignty and FOSS. I've written about why this matters for our privacy and the future of open platforms. What do you think—is this the end of Android's 'open' era?

31
32
33
 
 
34
 
 

Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.

35
36
37
38
39
40
41
 
 

Paper by,

Simon Lermen, Daniel Paleka, Joshua Swanson, Michael Aerni, Nicholas Carlini, Florian Tramèr

It talks about deanonymizing those who writes under a pseudonym. Sites like reddit, lemmy would be that type.

From the paper,

Given two databases of pseudonymous individuals, each containing unstructured text written by or about that individual, we implement a scalable attack pipeline that uses LLMs to: (1) extract identity-relevant features, (2) search for candidate matches via semantic embeddings, and (3) reason over top candidates to verify matches and reduce false positives.

Our results show that the practical obscurity protecting pseudonymous users online no longer holds and that threat models for online privacy need to be reconsidered.

They can match writing styles, interests, details to infer a job or city, or other unstructured information. That allows to match unrelated pseudonyms to the same person. Like, FooFighterGroupie and Yolanda43905 are the same human, despite they never said it. It can allow also, to match a pseudonym to a real identity across sites. Like someone posted on LinkedIn with a real name. It takes less info than most people expect, to figure out Julia Greenberg of Cedarville, NH is FooFighterGroupie.

You can protect yourself by never giving away much info. But ofc sometimes that's the whole point! Think talking about specific hobbies or w/e, gives away info. Also change up writing styles + vocab use, b/c it is a unique fingerprint.

I doubt this technique is used in a dragnet way... YET! But no reason it can't scale, if the cost of resources goes low enough. We could eventually see it become standard, analysis to link people across sites and identities.

42
 
 

Mar 26, 2026 9:32 AM

Using a VPN May Subject You to NSA Spying

US lawmakers are pressing Tulsi Gabbard to reveal whether using a VPN can strip Americans of their constitutional protections against warrantless surveillance

Six Democratic lawmakers are pressing the nation's top intelligence official to publicly disclose whether Americans who use commercial VPN services risk being treated as foreigners under United States surveillance law—a classification that would strip them of constitutional protections against warrantless government spying.

In a letter sent Thursday to Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, the lawmakers say that because VPNs obscure a user's true location, and because intelligence agencies presume that communications of unknown origin are foreign, Americans may be inadvertently waiving the privacy protections they're entitled to under the law.

Several federal agencies, including the FBI, the National Security Agency, and the Federal Trade Commission, have recommended that consumers use VPNs to protect their privacy. But following that advice may inadvertently cost Americans the very protections they're seeking.

The letter was signed by members of the Democratic Party’s progressive flank: Senators Ron Wyden, Elizabeth Warren, Edward Markey, and Alex Padilla, along with Representatives Pramila Jayapal and Sara Jacobs.

The concern centers on how intelligence agencies treat internet traffic routed through commercial VPN servers, which may be located anywhere in the world. Millions of Americans use these services routinely, whether to access region-restricted content like overseas sports broadcasts or to protect their privacy on public Wi-Fi networks. Because VPN servers commingle traffic from users in many countries, a single server—even one located in the United States—may carry communications from foreigners, potentially making it a target for surveillance under authorities that allow the government to secretly compel service from US service providers.

Under a controversial warrantless surveillance program, the US government intercepts vast quantities of electronic communications belonging to people overseas. The program also sweeps in enormous volumes of private messages belonging to Americans, which the FBI may search without a warrant, even though it is authorized to target only foreigners abroad.

The program, authorized under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, is set to expire next month and has become the subject of a fierce battle in Congress over whether it should be renewed without significant reforms to protect Americans' privacy.

Thursday’s letter points to declassified intelligence community guidelines that establish a default presumption at the heart of the lawmakers' concern: Under the NSA's targeting procedures, a person whose location is unknown is presumed to be a non-US person unless there is specific information to the contrary. Department of Defense procedures governing signals intelligence activities contain the same presumption.

Commercial VPN services work by routing a user's internet traffic through servers operated by the VPN company, which may be located anywhere in the world. A single server may carry traffic from thousands of users simultaneously, all of it appearing to originate from the same IP address. To an intelligence agency collecting communications in bulk, an American connected to a VPN server in, say, Amsterdam looks no different from a Dutch citizen.

The letter does not assert that Americans' VPN traffic has been collected under these authorities—that information would be classified—but asks Gabbard to publicly clarify what impact, if any, VPN use has on Americans' privacy rights.

Among those pressing the question is Wyden, who as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has access to classified details about how these surveillance programs operate and has a well-documented history of using carefully worded public statements to draw attention to surveillance practices he is unable to discuss openly.

The letter also raises concerns about a second, broader surveillance authority: Executive Order 12333, a Reagan-era directive that governs much of the intelligence community's foreign surveillance operations and permits the bulk collection of foreigners' communications with even fewer constraints than Section 702.

While 702 is a statute with congressional oversight that requires approval from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, EO 12333 surveillance operates under guidelines approved by the US attorney general alone.

The letter warns that the same foreignness presumption applies under both authorities, meaning Americans on foreign VPN servers could be exposed not just to targeted collection under 702 but to what the lawmakers describe as “bulk, indiscriminate surveillance of foreigners' communications.”

Americans spend billions of dollars each year on commercial VPN services, many offered by foreign-headquartered companies that route traffic through servers located overseas. The letter notes that these services are widely advertised as privacy tools, including by elements of the US government itself.

Despite the scale of the market, the letter suggests consumers have been given no meaningful guidance on how to protect themselves.

The lawmakers urge Gabbard to “clarify what, if anything, American consumers can do to ensure they receive the privacy protections they are entitled to under the law and the US Constitution.”

Updated at 12:38 pm ET, March 26, 2026: This story has been updated with additional details to clarify the scope of the potential surveillance addressed in the letter.

43
 
 

There are at least a dozen people spending at least several hours attacking GrapheneOS across platforms on a daily basis. It's a very strange situation. How do these people have so much time and dedication to keep making posts across platforms attacking us? It's relentless.

Every day, dozens of new accounts join our chat rooms to spread the same fabrications about GrapheneOS including via direct messages.

On Hacker News, one of the accounts making personal attacks based on fabrications in most threads about GrapheneOS has been doing it for 8 years.

Y Combinator has a financial stake in numerous surveillance and exploit development companies. Hacker News is a platform they own and the moderators on it have permitted years of vile harassment towards our team which they'd normally remove if others were targeted.

Hacker News mods micromanage it enough to repeatedly ask us not to reuse a bit of text across our comments. Meanwhile, they do nothing about disgusting personal attacks and harassment content consistently being spread in threads about GrapheneOS on their heavily moderated site.

The largest privacy community on Reddit /r/privacy bans any discussion or mentions of GrapheneOS. A bot automatically removes any post mentioning GrapheneOS they'll very actively ban people who evade their filters. The mods of the subreddit misrepresent this as something we want.

Many privacy subreddits have mods who are hostile towards GrapheneOS. We were banned from posting on /r/Android for multiple years. The mod who banned us said our official project account on Reddit was ban evading because they once unjustifiably banned one of our team members.

On Wikipedia, a company attacking GrapheneOS project made years of edits to the site pushing false narratives about us. They cited articles based on their own press releases. Other content was made paraphrasing Wikipedia which ended up being cited by it. It continues to this day.

Articles about GrapheneOS on most platforms often have comments engaging in baseless personal attacks towards our team, linking to harassment content and making many clearly inaccurate claims about it. We've found chat rooms coordinating this including attacks on the X platform.

Privacy projects are more vulnerable to these attacks because the userbase and supporters largely avoid social media and other platforms where it happens. Many people believe what they read on social media if it isn't countered and it builds echo chambers hostile to GrapheneOS.

Many people think these must be state sponsored attacks. However, our experience is these attacks are primarily orchestrated by companies selling dubious products marketed as private and secure. We did get targeted by state sponsored smear campaigns in France and Spain though

44
45
46
47
 
 
48
49
50
view more: ‹ prev next ›