As far as privacy goes, I always say that the best way to ensure privacy, is to not take the information in the first place.
I manage an app that Serves an extremely privacy-focused demographic. I won't use push notifications or PassKeys, because each requires that the server store information that can be linked to a user. We do require a valid email account, and that's it. The email account can be a throwaway, but it needs to be able to receive email. Other than that, the user can choose to do things like mention their location (even then, we "fuzz it," at the server level), and maybe a couple of strings that can be anything they want.
Even with that, I still find that I need to constantly assuage doubts.
I know that not taking information is heresy, hereabouts, but, if I don't have it, it can't be leaked, and I can't be compelled to divulge it.
jimkleiber · 4h ago
I built a micro-journaling app back in the day and subscribed to this philosophy as much as i could have. On Android, i even didnt let the app have the permission to access the internet. Everything was stored on device, encrypted. However i was still scared that individual phones would be hacked (or the app itself) and the info would get out anyways.
senko · 4h ago
This is the way.
Or at least it should be, if companies were putting users first (a naive thought, I know).
I have a small mobile app for recording expenses (receipts). The usual strategy would be for users to create accounts and store and sync data with my service. Potentially useful data (behavior, spending), which I don't want to touch with 10ft pole.
Instead, I keep all the data local (user's device). No registration at all. Nothing to store on the server.
Slightly more inconvenient for the users (to move to a new device, you need to export and import the local db), but cheaper and zero-stress for me.
brookst · 2h ago
I work at a Fortune 10 and we routinely avoid collecting PII when there’s no reason to do so. Not out of any noble championship of privacy, just because 1) legal wants less liability, and 2) subpoenas are a PITA for everyone.
senko · 1h ago
That's nice, but "no reason" is often a high bar.
There's often a good reason to keep the data (marketing, product, etc), which when weighted against the potential liability, usually wins.
RajT88 · 2h ago
Ditto.
IgorPartola · 2h ago
What I really would love is a universal sync service that most apps would be built upon. There are apps I have used that basically say “we don’t provide storage service, but you can use your Dropbox, Google Drive, rsync service, etc.” This is really cool because while I love having my files locally I also then am entirely in charge of syncing and backing up stuff.
mpalmer · 3h ago
What do passkeys require you to store besides a public key? Isn't the whole idea that passkeys don't burden providers with sensitive credentials?
ChrisMarshallNY · 3h ago
A public key can be associated with an individual user. Same with the pseudo-UDIDs, that are required for push notifications.
mpalmer · 3h ago
I guess I don't see a practical way of exploiting that association. UDID, that's unique identifying info for sure. But a public key that's never reused?
ChrisMarshallNY · 2h ago
It can still be associated with a user, the same goes for push notification IDs.
It would be difficult, but AI has suddenly made difficult things a lot easier.
Aaargh20318 · 2h ago
But so can the email address.
ChrisMarshallNY · 1h ago
To an extent. They can still use a throwaway or redirect address.
With PassKeys and push notifications, there’s no way to do that.
vhcr · 2h ago
If they're so privacy-focused, can't they generate a key specific to the app?
ChrisMarshallNY · 2h ago
That’s pretty much what Apple does with both the PassKey and push notifications.
The PassKey is a bit better, because there’s no need to go through a broker server, like you do with push notifications, but the key is still connected with an individual user and device, so an association can still be established, with some difficulty.
If you don’t have the key or the ID stored on a server, then even that is not an issue.
harryday · 4h ago
Used Obsidian (paid for commercial and sync) for years, loved it, and evangelised. Ango and team seem to have genuine integrity.
Am moving to Emacs, org, plus self-built elements, however. With much pain.
You see, what is /not/ self-guaranteeing about a full Obsidian life-organising workflow is the necessary reliance on plugins and their quirky configs. I felt as locked in to the ecosystem as I ever did with services that ‘merely’ used a proprietary storage format.
I know others in the same boat. Obsidian’s long-term legacy may well be primarily as a market-maker for Emacs.
mjsir911 · 17m ago
Sure, but the primary difference between what you're talking about is ecosystem lock-in vs file lockin.
both can be postured as a labor-saving measure, exposing user data to users is an additional burden on developers. Designing an extension system that is easy for other products to use is an additional burden on developers (& developer relations! And marketing! Other products won't just adopt your extension system willy-nilly)
But switching from obsidian to something else is so much easier on a file-level than say, google docs or whatever other super-proprietary system that's being used.
I'm very wary about adjusting my workflows to depend on flimsy or proprietary ecosystems. I don't really use vim with any plugins. I don't really use obsidian with any plugins, although I'm slowly trying to ease up to using a couple that would be big QOL improvements.
Striving for standard interfaces/workflows is a good thing, but I don't think emacs is that. vim isn't that. They've just cemented themselves as the de-facto.
I'm using vim bindings in obsidian, for what it's worth. I'm not re-learning a whole other set of keyboard shortcuts (although obsidian's is quite lacking)
the_arun · 1h ago
I understand keeping applications open to change is for extensibility reasons.
In the privacy case enterprises need to ask for customers consent before changing policies. This includes changing prices too. But usually they take them for granted.
brookst · 2h ago
Not especially well thought out.
On the one hand, the stainless steel example can be generalized to materials. Gold, for instance.
On the other hand there is plenty of fraud in materials. There are different grades of stainless steel and different methods of production that yield differing qualities.
Maybe “immutable, buyer-verifiable” would be stronger? Once you buy and own and verify the gold you bought, it can’t be retroactively degraded by the seller. But at the time of purchase, it’s not at all a sure thing.
NoahZuniga · 2h ago
Well, "File over app" also needs to be verified. Think of it more as it being permanent. If your data is never sent to a server, a change in TOS can't hurt your privacy. They could still lie and send your data away! But I still feel like this is a good mental model, and I feel like the name fits with this idea of "You can't remove your promise about [privacy, data-ownership, etc]".
kepano · 1h ago
Not all materials are a good example of a self-guaranteeing promise because purity can't always be easily verified at home without special equipment.
In the example of stainless steel it is "stainlessness"
that is the promise, and that only requires water to test.
treetalker · 3h ago
How would one go about switching away from Dropbox to something else that would be free, private, and macOS/iOS compatible?
thejohnconway · 2h ago
Free? How are the servers going to run?
Syncthing is probably the closest bet. It doesn’t require servers, so it can be free. But it isn’t really a full Dropbox replacement.
treetalker · 2h ago
Yes, that was boneheaded of me (was just waking up when I wrote that). I should have written "FOSS".
ffin · 2h ago
The only real way to do this “for free” that I can think of would be to self-host on an old laptop. Unless you meant free as in open source.
theturtle · 2h ago
"We will never sell your information!"
Yeah, but whoever buys you or executes your bankruptcy probably will. Much better for you to never have it in the first place.
"You will change your mind, but I won't change mine."
Why I give crap data to everyone unless there is absolutely no other way.
Facebook thinks I live in a ghost town in Utah, and I'm 121 years old.
Also why most of my accounts that want a street address contain an address-line-2 like "JOEBLOW.COM SOLD OUR DATA," so they can't hide.
Piss in the well, y'all.
theturtle · 2h ago
...and for decades in IT, I was pretty firm on the topic of "just because we CAN collect that data doesn't mean we should." I imagine the DOGE bros who took over my old agency are still living with that.
"We want to know who asked stupid questions in support so we can fire them!"
I saw you coming 30 years in advance, asshole.
gr__or · 4h ago
Bluesky/ATProto is a recent example of a self-guaranteeing promise
immibis · 3h ago
No, not really. You're just assuming they're going to continue displaying your posts on bsky.app. Everyone is reading your posts through bsky.app and it doesn't matter if your post is technically available through a side channel if it's not available through the main channel.
pfraze · 1h ago
There is no main channel
worldsayshi · 3h ago
Really? What makes the protocol self-guaranteeing?
ffin · 2h ago
If the promise is: when using the AT Protocol you have control over your own data, then this is self-guaranteeing, since it is a part of the spec that you can self host a PDS.
The promise that Bluesky will always be compliant with the spec, or that the spec won’t ever change to disallow this isn’t self-guaranteeing, but you could say something similar about any of these self guaranteeing promises. For example the promise that Obsidian will always use markdown isn’t self-guaranteeing.
kepano · 22m ago
> The promise that Obsidian will always use markdown isn’t self-guaranteeing.
True, but Obsidian doesn't make that promise. The promise is "file over app": you control the files you create. In this way the promise is not reversible, and self-verifiable.
"...will always use markdown" is not something any app can guarantee. At best an open source app can guarantee it for a specific version (assuming it doesn't require a connection, or the user can self-host the server).
I manage an app that Serves an extremely privacy-focused demographic. I won't use push notifications or PassKeys, because each requires that the server store information that can be linked to a user. We do require a valid email account, and that's it. The email account can be a throwaway, but it needs to be able to receive email. Other than that, the user can choose to do things like mention their location (even then, we "fuzz it," at the server level), and maybe a couple of strings that can be anything they want.
Even with that, I still find that I need to constantly assuage doubts.
I know that not taking information is heresy, hereabouts, but, if I don't have it, it can't be leaked, and I can't be compelled to divulge it.
Or at least it should be, if companies were putting users first (a naive thought, I know).
I have a small mobile app for recording expenses (receipts). The usual strategy would be for users to create accounts and store and sync data with my service. Potentially useful data (behavior, spending), which I don't want to touch with 10ft pole.
Instead, I keep all the data local (user's device). No registration at all. Nothing to store on the server.
Slightly more inconvenient for the users (to move to a new device, you need to export and import the local db), but cheaper and zero-stress for me.
There's often a good reason to keep the data (marketing, product, etc), which when weighted against the potential liability, usually wins.
It would be difficult, but AI has suddenly made difficult things a lot easier.
With PassKeys and push notifications, there’s no way to do that.
The PassKey is a bit better, because there’s no need to go through a broker server, like you do with push notifications, but the key is still connected with an individual user and device, so an association can still be established, with some difficulty.
If you don’t have the key or the ID stored on a server, then even that is not an issue.
Am moving to Emacs, org, plus self-built elements, however. With much pain.
You see, what is /not/ self-guaranteeing about a full Obsidian life-organising workflow is the necessary reliance on plugins and their quirky configs. I felt as locked in to the ecosystem as I ever did with services that ‘merely’ used a proprietary storage format.
I know others in the same boat. Obsidian’s long-term legacy may well be primarily as a market-maker for Emacs.
both can be postured as a labor-saving measure, exposing user data to users is an additional burden on developers. Designing an extension system that is easy for other products to use is an additional burden on developers (& developer relations! And marketing! Other products won't just adopt your extension system willy-nilly)
But switching from obsidian to something else is so much easier on a file-level than say, google docs or whatever other super-proprietary system that's being used.
I'm very wary about adjusting my workflows to depend on flimsy or proprietary ecosystems. I don't really use vim with any plugins. I don't really use obsidian with any plugins, although I'm slowly trying to ease up to using a couple that would be big QOL improvements.
Striving for standard interfaces/workflows is a good thing, but I don't think emacs is that. vim isn't that. They've just cemented themselves as the de-facto.
I'm using vim bindings in obsidian, for what it's worth. I'm not re-learning a whole other set of keyboard shortcuts (although obsidian's is quite lacking)
In the privacy case enterprises need to ask for customers consent before changing policies. This includes changing prices too. But usually they take them for granted.
On the one hand, the stainless steel example can be generalized to materials. Gold, for instance.
On the other hand there is plenty of fraud in materials. There are different grades of stainless steel and different methods of production that yield differing qualities.
Maybe “immutable, buyer-verifiable” would be stronger? Once you buy and own and verify the gold you bought, it can’t be retroactively degraded by the seller. But at the time of purchase, it’s not at all a sure thing.
In the example of stainless steel it is "stainlessness" that is the promise, and that only requires water to test.
Syncthing is probably the closest bet. It doesn’t require servers, so it can be free. But it isn’t really a full Dropbox replacement.
Yeah, but whoever buys you or executes your bankruptcy probably will. Much better for you to never have it in the first place.
"You will change your mind, but I won't change mine."
Why I give crap data to everyone unless there is absolutely no other way.
Facebook thinks I live in a ghost town in Utah, and I'm 121 years old.
Also why most of my accounts that want a street address contain an address-line-2 like "JOEBLOW.COM SOLD OUR DATA," so they can't hide.
Piss in the well, y'all.
"We want to know who asked stupid questions in support so we can fire them!"
I saw you coming 30 years in advance, asshole.
The promise that Bluesky will always be compliant with the spec, or that the spec won’t ever change to disallow this isn’t self-guaranteeing, but you could say something similar about any of these self guaranteeing promises. For example the promise that Obsidian will always use markdown isn’t self-guaranteeing.
True, but Obsidian doesn't make that promise. The promise is "file over app": you control the files you create. In this way the promise is not reversible, and self-verifiable.
"...will always use markdown" is not something any app can guarantee. At best an open source app can guarantee it for a specific version (assuming it doesn't require a connection, or the user can self-host the server).