The Internet is almost anonymous and privacy-preserving by design. I mean, unless some administrator actively tries to track you, there is no built-in...
This makes zero sense… Protocols do not “exist”. They are run as services. And the entities behind those services can be subject to the laws of the jurisdiction they belong to.
The law doesn’t specify services, it specifies types of services. It doesn’t care what protocol you’re using.
It makes sense. Protocols are defined before services can be implemented on them.
What the article is say is, rather than trusting a service provider to protect your privacy, stick to using services you control, on open protocols that can communicate with external service providers.
If everyone does this, the government needs to knock on a lot more doors to force compliance. And if a node on the protocol chooses to shut down instead of complying, the service as a whole isn’t disrupted. Just the users on that node. And they can control migration to a different node.
You’re not wrong, since the way the post explains it, govts can’t force protocols to adhere to certain laws, but can force services, including those self hosted, to adhere, which makes the whole “use protocols” point moot.
On the other hand, so long as there are many service offerings of the same protocol, like some 2000 different XMPP chat servers that can all communicate with one another, it becomes a game of whack a mole.
tldr the article should be “don’t use completely centralized services”
This makes zero sense… Protocols do not “exist”. They are run as services. And the entities behind those services can be subject to the laws of the jurisdiction they belong to.
The law doesn’t specify services, it specifies types of services. It doesn’t care what protocol you’re using.
It makes sense. Protocols are defined before services can be implemented on them.
What the article is say is, rather than trusting a service provider to protect your privacy, stick to using services you control, on open protocols that can communicate with external service providers.
If everyone does this, the government needs to knock on a lot more doors to force compliance. And if a node on the protocol chooses to shut down instead of complying, the service as a whole isn’t disrupted. Just the users on that node. And they can control migration to a different node.
😑
You’re not wrong, since the way the post explains it, govts can’t force protocols to adhere to certain laws, but can force services, including those self hosted, to adhere, which makes the whole “use protocols” point moot.
On the other hand, so long as there are many service offerings of the same protocol, like some 2000 different XMPP chat servers that can all communicate with one another, it becomes a game of whack a mole.
tldr the article should be “don’t use completely centralized services”