freedomPusher

joined 4 years ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] freedomPusher@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It last worked in 2024. Throughout 2025 it presents the forms, accepts the document, then gives an instant permission denied when sending. Tried creating a new acct and same problem.

[–] freedomPusher@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

It’s something boycotters of Microsoft use to communicate to MS-hosted agencies to avoid supplying recipients with an email address. It gives us control over what MS is allowed to see.

It also channels money better. The recipient who needs to respond is forced to support the postal service instead of Microsoft.

[–] freedomPusher@sopuli.xyz 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

How will they know the difference between an HTTPS connection to a website and a corkscrew (VPN nested inside of HTTPS)?

There is also a human rights issue here. Some servers discriminate depending on where vistors come from, which is determined by IP address. Getting equal treatment sometimes requires us to appear as the unmarginalised group by using a VPN.

 

cross-posted from: https://sopuli.xyz/post/40633635

PDF24 used to be a way to send a fax to European fax numbers. It was a gratis service. It’s still advertised as such but it’s broken now.

The US is covered by faxzero.com, but for faxing outside the US they charge an absurd $2.09 per fax (more than postage in a lot of places). They are also Paypal-only. Fuck paypal.

Any suggestions?

 

PDF24 used to be a way to send a fax to European fax numbers. It was a gratis service. It’s still advertised as such but it’s broken now.

The US is covered by faxzero.com, but for faxing outside the US they charge an absurd $2.09 per fax (more than postage in a lot of places). They are also Paypal-only. Fuck paypal.

Any suggestions?

 

When filing a complaint in an agency of a government or ombudsman/mediator, the traditional workplace where everyone is on-site yielded more privacy for complainants because there were more meetings and verbal discussions over the processing. So fewer records were made about complaint processing and decision making.

Now with all the post-pandemic teleworking, most office workers collaborate on cases remotely. Thus more personal data ends up in internal email between case workers. Superficially that’s a detriment to data subjects. Most agencies are Microsoft boot-lickers so MS is needlessly in the loop on your sensitive data. Yikes!

To reduce exposure to MS, I only submit complaints offline on paper. In some cases, MS is at least out of the loop on correspondence to and from me. In other cases, MS sees it anyway because some receptionists are tasked with scanning postal mail then emailing it (indeed, we are fucked in this regard because there is no MS opt-out in those situations).

The advantage we can exploit

There is one little known advantage to this shitshow: when your case or complaint yields an unsatisfying result without rationale or with clumbsy/broken rationale, you can do a GDPR access request for all records. This includes all internal email among case workers and their advisors. It’s a way to gain powerful insight into the REAL reason your case was treated adversely. And that can be used against them.

Snag 1

Privacy policies sometimes give an email address for the DPO but either no offline contact information or the general mailing address for the whole agency. This means your snail mail letter could be internally delivered to your case worker based on your return address. Thus, the staff who fucked you over to begin with sees your request first, which triggers them to delete all email that embarrasses them about the case. Their CMY¹ move likely works. By the time the DPO gets the request on their desk, they have no incentive to assume malice and try to dig up deleted messages (assuming that’s even possible).

¹ CMY: cover my ass

Snag 2

Some orgs wildly interpret what “personal data” is. I’ve known a data controller to deny a GDPR request on the basis that “someone’s email address is not personal data”. So there is not much to stop them from claiming information about a case is not the personal data of the complainant.

[–] freedomPusher@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

FWIW, I’ll just add that Hexbear’s user count is more than 2 standard deviations above the mean. So some would also regard them as somewhat centralised, which goes against fedi principles. OTOH, at least they are not Cloudflared.

IMO being centralised is sufficient for defederating.

[–] freedomPusher@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Not quite sure what you mean. What are numbers stations? Do you mean FM where the frequency is a memorable number?

[–] freedomPusher@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I get the impression they would rather you listened via them then broadcast.

Yeah it’s a bit annoying how BBC keeps mentioning their digital services. They want you to have their content and they want to track you. But I think their top priority is just that you tune in one way or another. Offgriders give them the advantage of undivided attention. They don’t have to compete very hard for the attention of those without Internet.

OTOH, BBC is a special case because they get nothing from broadcast ads. I don’t even know how they are funded. Sure they get tax funded in the UK, but what’s their incentive to broadcast in continental Europe which apparently does not fund them?

(edit) a lot of FM and DAB stations have no digital resources that would track you (extremely basic websites without even a schedule). Some stations seem to have no web presence at all. So in those cases it would be interesting for them to emphasise their privacy alignment.

 

cross-posted from: https://sopuli.xyz/post/39004447

As someone who pulled the plug on residential Internet, I have naturally clung onto broadcast radio. It occurs to me that tuning into broadcast content gives a rare media source where you are not tracked. There is no digital footprint on your listening.

Tor (along with a couple even more obscure technologies like i2p) are the only viable cloud-sourced ways to escape consumption tracking. Tor is indispensible but it’s not as traceless as tuning broadcast signals. And Tor users are plagued with access discrimination.

Yet broadcast radio must be struggling. They likely lost copious listeners to the Internet. Seems like there is a missed opportunity to promote their stations and privacy along with it. Radio stations should inform people that tracking online is not just to advertise but it’s also used for personalised political manipulation.

Duckduckgo’s privacy theatre demonstrates that privacy promotion works. But DDG relies on trust and it’s rife with scandals. OTA¹ broadcasts do not rely on trust. Promoting privacy would have a long-term self-promotion effect. That is, as listeners come to develop their value of privacy more, their listenership becomes stronger.

Some (most?) stations likely also stream online. But they could still play a different jingle on the broadcast service, no?

¹ OTA: over the air

 

As someone who pulled the plug on residential Internet, I have naturally clung onto broadcast radio. It occurs to me that tuning into broadcast content gives a rare media source where you are not tracked. There is no digital footprint on your listening.

Tor (along with a couple even more obscure technologies like i2p) are the only viable cloud-sourced ways to escape consumption tracking. Tor is indispensible but it’s not as traceless as tuning broadcast signals. And Tor users are plagued with access discrimination.

Yet broadcast radio must be struggling. They likely lost copious listeners to the Internet. Seems like there is a missed opportunity to promote their stations and privacy along with it. Radio stations should inform people that tracking online is not just to advertise but it’s also used for personalised political manipulation.

Duckduckgo’s privacy theatre demonstrates that privacy promotion works. But DDG relies on trust and it’s rife with scandals. OTA¹ broadcasts do not rely on trust. Promoting privacy would have a long-term self-promotion effect. That is, as listeners come to develop their value of privacy more, their listenership becomes stronger.

Some (most?) stations likely also stream online. But they could still play a different jingle on the broadcast service, no?

¹ OTA: over the air

[–] freedomPusher@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Facebook also likely has active communities. I personally would not promote Facebook or Cloudflare or similar technofeudal fiefdoms for any reason. But neglecting that, it might be worded in a way that’s fully informative to let people choose for themselves. E.g. something like this:

For novices who prioritise visibility and engagement above digital sovereignty and decentralisation, you can maximise engagement in Facebook or at !python@programming.dev.

For free world, we have:

 

The !python@sopuli.xyz community is locked and redirecting people into Cloudflare. That’s not good for privacy, digital sovereignty, and decentralisation.

I suggest either deleting it entirely (it’s empty), or redirecting to !python!python@lemmy.sdf.org.

[–] freedomPusher@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I have a script which searches an aggregation of 3 different datasets, and tags them based on freedom and digital sovereignty factors. So instances with “🗽☯” symbolise freedom and balance (thus not so big as to effectively be centralised). Those tagged with a warning (“⚠”) are not in Cloudflare’s walled garden, but they have allowed themselves to grow more than 2 standard deviations above the average node size and thus approach centralised places. Those with a castle 🏰 are in Cloudflare and should simply be avoided by anyone who opposes tech giant tyranny.

Other symbols are either non-lemmy or nodes not known to the dataset that tracks cloudflare. lemm.ee is Cloudflare, btw.

programming.dev is not a good choice because it sends people to Cloudflare. It’s like sending people to Facebook.

When I search for “privacy“, I get:

🗽☯europe.pub/c/privacy (239/463) “Privacy”
🗽☯sopuli.xyz/c/FightForPrivacy (64/455) “Fight For Privacy”
🗽☯diggita.com/c/sicurezza (789/66) “Sicurezza Informatica, Privacy e lotta al capitalismo della sorveglianza”
🗽☯sopuli.xyz/c/privacy (897/53) “Privacy”
🗽☯europe.pub/c/PrivacyGuides (119/28) “Privacy Guides”
🗽☯feddit.it/c/privacypride (391/27) “Privacy Pride”
🗽☯lemmygrad.ml/c/privacy (240/12) “Privacy”
🗽☯sopuli.xyz/c/privacysecurityosint (412/1) “Privacy, Security, and OSINT Show”
🗽☯rqd2.net/c/websafety (1/1) “online safety and privacy, for paras”
🗽☯lemmygrad.ml/c/digitalprivacy (118/1) “Digital Privacy”
🗽☯lemmy.libertarianfellowship.org/c/sap (5/1) “Security Anonymity Privacy”
🗽☯l.posterdati.it/c/privacy (2/1) “Privacy 🕵”
🗽☯feddit.uk/c/privacysecuk (264/1) “Privacy & Security UK”
🗽☯krabb.org/c/privacy (5/0) “Privacy”
🧺fedia.io/emailprivacy “Email Privacy”
🧺fedia.io/privacy “Privacy”
📰!privacy@lemm.ee
⚠feddit.org/c/datenschutz “Datenschutz - Privacy - Digitale Selbstverteidigung”
⚠lemmy.blahaj.zone/c/thenexusofprivacy “The Nexus of Privacy”
⚠lemmy.dbzer0.com/c/privacy “Privacy”
⚠lemmy.ml/c/vpn “Privacy is a right. Learn about how you can best protect your privacy in this channel”
⚠lemmy.ml/c/privatelife “privatelife - privacy, security, freedom advocacy”
⚠lemmy.ml/c/privacypride “Privacy Pride Europe”
⚠lemmy.ml/c/privacyonandroid “Privacy on Android”
⚠lemmy.ml/c/privacyinternational “Privacy International”
⚠lemmy.ml/c/privacyguides “Privacy Guides”
⚠lemmy.ml/c/privacydo “Do Privacy”
⚠lemmy.ml/c/privacy “Privacy”
⚠lemmy.ml/c/extremeprivacy “Extreme Privacy”
⚠lemmy.ml/c/exodus “Exodus privacy”
⚠lemmy.ml/c/europrivacy “Europe Privacy”
⚠lemmy.ml/c/dataprivacy “GDPR (RGPD) / Apply LegalTech to Defend European Dataprivacy Rights”

↓ Kingdoms under the imperial Cloudflare empire ↓
🏰lemmy.ca🌩|privacycanada “Privacy Canada Edition”
🏰lemmy.ca🌩|privacy “privacy”
🏰lemmy.one🌩|theprivacypodcast “The Privacy, Security, and OSINT Show”
🏰lemmy.one🌩|privacyguides “Privacy Guides”
🏰lemmy.world🌩|thenexusofprivacy “The Nexus of Privacy”
🏰lemmy.world🌩|protonprivacy “Proton ”
🏰lemmy.world🌩|privacypride “Privacy Pride International”
🏰lemmy.world🌩|privacyhub “Privacy Hub”
🏰lemmy.world🌩|privacycoins “Privacy Coins”
🏰lemmy.world🌩|privacy “Privacy”
🏰monero.town🌩|privacy “privacy”
🏰programming.dev🌩|privacy “Privacy”
🏰sh.itjust.works🌩|digitalescapetools “Digital Escape Tools — Privacy & FOSS”
🏰zerobytes.monster🌩|privacy “Privacy in the digital age”

On the good nodes, (x/y) means (subscribers/active recent posts).

It’s also worth noting that there are some communities for specific privacy topics, such as:

🗽☯lemmy.sdf.org/c/digi_fiefdom_required (121/1) “Digital Fiefdom (aka walled-garden) Required 🏰” 🗽☯lemmy.sdf.org/c/email_required (126/1) “Email Required (digital exclusion of people without email) 📧” 🗽☯sopuli.xyz/c/right_to_unplug (125/32) “Right to be Offline / Analog / Unplugged 🔌📪📖📟📝” 🗽☯lemmy.sdf.org/c/smartphone_required (277/65) “Smartphone Required 📱(digital exclusion of people without smartphones)”

[–] freedomPusher@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 month ago

Generally I would expect in france to be able to get a prepaid SIM for €15, which would then last a year. Is that not an option?

I would still object to paying anything, and then being forced to tend to that number which pinpoints a geographical location. If they can get msg to you by sms or voicemail, that likely satisfies any obligation they have to inform you which then creates an obligation on you to monitor the phone (I suspect).

[–] freedomPusher@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

How so? No blow-ups in the decades I’ve been doing it. People are not obligated to be voice-reachable (at least not by any laws I’ve encountered). Creditors need to send you a bill, sure, but that’s their problem. If they can’t handle fax they better be willing to use snail mail.

What’s blowing up in people’s faces is the culture of sharing a mobile number that then takes the role of identification, which then gets exfiltrated by cyber criminals. The abuse of using mobile numbers as an identifier has spread through Europe and only a small segment of privacy advocates currently realise the problem.

Twitter demanded a mobile number from me. Would not take a fax number. So I walked. Shortly after, Twitter had a data breach that leaked everyone’s mobile numbers. Then Twitter was caught abusing the mobile numbers themselves in ways not allowed in the privacy policy.

Americans are extra fucked because there is no privacy safeguard. The bank shares the number with the credit bureau, who then shares it with all members (banks, insurers, etc) and those who will pay for it.

[–] freedomPusher@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Not even remotely. Ever heard of Efax? You email the phone number and the Efax company sends the fax.

eFax was bought by j2.com, so indeed i’m aware of it. Efax, Jconnect, j2.. all the same ownership.

Fax is being ditched by those who think it is no longer used, regardless of whether they have dedicated equipment or a gateway. It’s the same decision. Either they ditch their fax service (i.e. their fax line is virtual), or they ditch their fax hardware. Or they decide to keep the fax number because they see they have customers who still use fax.

More likely they would call it, get the fax tone and mark it as a wrong number until you contact them.

They can suit themselves.. that doesn’t matter to me either way if they decide to alternatively pay postage to reach me. Of course they’re going to be waiting a long time for me to reach them if they don’t signal to me that they want to reach me. If I decide to call them from my non-DID SIP line, the caller ID is set to spoof my fax number, which shows them the number is still correct.

 

cross-posted from: https://sopuli.xyz/post/37823770

Every bank, shitty giant social media platform and countless websites demand a phone number. It’s foolish to give them a voice number (esp. mobile) unless you actually welcome calls from them, their partners, whoever they sell your data to, and whoever exfiltrates it. The best move with all these untrustworthy data-sharing-happy businesses is to give them a pure fax number which is answered only by a fax machine.

In the rare case where reaching you is so important that they would use the number to send you a fax, then it’s probably a message you want to receive anyway (and best to have it in writing). I kept a gratis fax number for decades and never got fax spam.

One extra perk to this is if customer files have fax-only numbers, it could give some pause before a company decides to ditch their fax line.

My unsolved problem:

J2.com no longer gives free fax numbers. I can only find providers who charge a flat subscription of ~$15—25/month (which includes an allowance on outbound faxes). I don’t really need a fax sending svc. I wouldn’t mind paying <$10/year just to have a number that emails faxes to me, even if there is some small measured rate when it actually gets used. A pay-per-fax service like that is hard to find. Any tips would be appreciated.

[–] freedomPusher@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 month ago

There is no hope for people who choose to have a Google account in the first place. They are a lost cause.. they cannot be saved.

I was hoping the article would instruct people who send email to a gmail recipient how they can opt their message out of any kind of Google snooping. I envisioned a header that I could add to my msg to opt out. But no, that article is only for Google boot lickers.

BTW, I always do an MX lookup on email recipients and if I see Google or MS, I don’t email them. But it’s not entirely effective because some recipients mask their email provider by using an email firewall service like baracuda. Hence why I would want a header or something to opt-out in case my email inadvertently traverses Google’s servers.

 

Every bank, shitty giant social media platform and countless websites demand a phone number. It’s foolish to give them a voice number (esp. mobile) unless you actually welcome calls from them, their partners, whoever they sell your data to, and whoever exfiltrates it. The best move with all these untrustworthy data-sharing-happy businesses is to give them a pure fax number which is answered only by a fax machine.

In the rare case where reaching you is so important that they would use the number to send you a fax, then it’s probably a message you want to receive anyway (and best to have it in writing). I kept a gratis fax number for decades and never got fax spam.

One extra perk to this is if customer files have fax-only numbers, it could give some pause before a company decides to ditch their fax line.

My unsolved problem:

J2.com no longer gives free fax numbers. I can only find providers who charge a flat subscription of ~$15—25/month (which includes an allowance on outbound faxes). I don’t really need a fax sending svc. I wouldn’t mind paying <$10/year just to have a number that emails faxes to me, even if there is some small measured rate when it actually gets used. A pay-per-fax service like that is hard to find. Any tips would be appreciated.

 

℻ numbers are dropping like flies. This is a disaster for the very few of us who will not lick the boots of Microsoft or Google, unlike the 99%¹ of the population who is happy to use email (which traverses MS or Google servers in a vast majority of non-p2p comms).

So FAX numbers are disappearing. Some are removed from websites and stationary (letterheads), but still exist. Some fax numbers persist in publications, but the plug has been pulled. Not enough people are using fax to say “please plugin your fax machine”.

the race condition

Corps, NGOs, and govs likely ditch the fax after it idles for a long time with no activity. It’s a use-it-or-lose-it scenario. Part of the problem is someone’s rare will to send a fax is hindered by lack of info. If we had reliable access to fax numbers, we could do our part to keep them active.

open data remedy?

When a gov has an open data policy, one possible solution is to make open data requests for the fax numbers of gov offices.

previous posts

¹ made-up figure obviously, but likely accurate enough nonetheless

 

Is there a legit security risk with Afgan immigrants in the US? Or is the US policy just xenophobia motivated collective punishment to hit back because one of them happened to be a violent nutter?

This question was answered by Ben Johnson, Executive Director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) in the linked article.

 

cross-posted from: https://sopuli.xyz/post/37371338

The question can be broken into two parts:

  1. would people use it?
  2. is it appropriate for a library to have a media room?

I have no TV and I suspect with so many people subscribing to streaming services lately as their sole source (from surveillance capitalists), probably not many people even have antennas to pick up local broadcast TV anymore. Is that a safe assumption?

A couple years ago I setup a MythTV for someone. Their local broadcasts were completely different from what I recall from decades past-- mostly educational (documentaries and how-to shows) and mostly commercial-free. It seemed to be largely fed by tax-funded public broadcast service. It used to be rife with commercials but commercial interests seem to have abandoned it.

Where I live now, I am offline and also lack equipment to see what’s broadcast locally. Not sure it’s justified to buy gear just to see what there is. And I have never seen what free satellite signals are like anywhere.

On the one hand, I could see it turning into an entertainment/cinema type of space with people bringing in popcorn.. which is perhaps a deviation from the library’s purpose. OTOH, it could be information focused to give access to locally aired educational broadcasts and to (perhaps more importantly) show people what content exists locally and to experience MythTV. Library users could even schedule shows to be recorded for them (as the library is not open 24/7). The MythTV PCs would of course be running Linux, which would be a covert way to promote the escape from proprietary OSs.

As I ask myself whether this is all crazy talk, a local library has Arduinos for people to experiment with.. which has nothing to do with books or media.

A parallel mission could be to get the library to run an Invideous instance to try to liberate people from Google’s stranglehold and their ads. Google would probably block the library’s instance but the blockade would then serve to inform people about Google’s politics. I guess the question is whether Invidious is too much in the legal gray area for libraries to seriously consider.

view more: next ›