- cross-posted to:
- foss@beehaw.org
- fediverse@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- foss@beehaw.org
- fediverse@lemmy.world
Federated services have always had privacy issues but I expected Lemmy would have the fewest, but it’s visibly worse for privacy than even Reddit.
- Deleted comments remain on the server but hidden to non-admins, the username remains visible
- Deleted account usernames remain visible too
- Anything remains visible on federated servers!
- When you delete your account, media does not get deleted on any server
You must log in or register to comment.
That’s a non issue. You just cannot expect to be able to delete anything you post on the internet. Even the great reddit with the awesome deletion feature cannot help you. You might be able to delete your comment there, but there is https://www.unddit.com/ https://archive.is/ https://web.archive.org/ and many others, where your comment will still be available.
Eh. Often times I want to delete it particularly on reddit or some other place. Just so that it doesn’t hang on my profile
Well, reddit doesn’t actually allow you to delete things anymore, so tough luck.
When did that happen?
If I wanted privacy, I wouldn’t be browsing online.
That’s a poor answer to be honest. Total privacy is an illusion, but having the tools to delete some of the traces if wanted should be there. I would argue that the EU law about the right to be forgotten might want a word with someone.
I escaped Reddit, but i hold anyone else to a standard too.
Lemmy, do better or it wont end well. https://gdpr.eu/right-to-be-forgotten/
Personally when I want to share what I’m saying with the world I write a letter, burn it, and snort the ashes. This is the only truly private way to do this.
In my opinion it’s unreasonable to think anything can truly be deleted in a federated system. Even if the official codebase is updated to do complete deletion & overwrite, it’s impossible to prevent some bad actor from federating in a fork that just ignores deletion requests.
Seems sensible to just not post anything that you don’t want to be available for the lifetime of the internet.
This is how I treated Reddit too. And Twitter. And everything else. I have two modes; public and private. And private is private; strong encryption and local storage. Having some middle ground is a recipe for disaster.
In my opinion it’s unreasonable to think anything can truly be deleted in a federated system.
yeah like. this is just a byproduct of how federation works currently. i don’t even know how you’d begin to design a federated system where some of these critiques can’t be levied
Anything that is visible to another party can be hijacked - even a 1:1 communication does not guarantee that the other party doesn’t capture the data and then spread it. The only things that are private are thoughts that you have which are not shared with others in any fashion. As soon as information is shared in any fashion, it is not private.
Past this point it’s a matter of how private you think is reasonably private. You could design a system where users are in control of their own data through a series of public and private keys, ensuring that keys must be active to view content, but as stated above even in such a case and the user revoking keys does not stop other people from making copies of said data. This is akin to screenshotting an NFT. For all intents and purposes, a copy of the data as it existed at the time of copying is now publicly available.
Quibbling over the fact that you’re the one who “truly owns” the data when it comes to something like social media feels like a mostly pointless endeavor because the outcome (data is available for others to view/consume/read/etc) is the same regardless of who “owns” it. Copyright law will apply to anything you produce, if it comes to legal problems (someone copies your artwork and sells it, for example) and having a system to prove you own it is primarily a formality to make it easier to prove ownership. Generally people aren’t arguing through this lens, however, and are instead arguing through the privacy/security lens - that they don’t want people stealing/selling their data, which lol, good luck. AI models are proof that no one in the world actually cares about this ownership if they reasonably think they can get away with using your data without any real incentive to not do so - interestingly copyright law and models being trained on corporate data such as movies are a vector by which the legality of this might actually stop or slow AI development and protect the end-users data.
Not sure what the point of “Mastodon’s” opinion is? Firstly, Mastodon is pretty big and decentralised, and it has no-one who really speaks on behalf of all its users. Lemmy is not a privacy central network like a direct messenger service. It never claimed to be privacy centric as far as I know. The point is to share posts in communities, and the more that see them, the better.
But it is federated which means posts do get shared to other servers everywhere, and deleting those is not as easy as for a centralised server. Whatever I post on any sharing type service, I consider to be public.
I don’t even understand why the OP calls this “Mastodon’s” opinion. The link doesn’t go to Mastodon. I think the parent post is being a bit of a troll honestly :( The criticisms at the link don’t make sense, the person posting the link doesn’t seem to think the criticisms are good, and they attribute the criticism to Mastodon while posting “Raddle”. It’s like they’re only doing this to get everybody riled up
Mastodon is where the link to the raddle article appeared. The post on Mastodon basically said they wouldn’t use Lemmy because of what the article stated.
i think OP may have mistaken Raddle for a mastodon instance of some kind, idk
Here is the title of the Raffle post that was linked: “Warning: Lemmy doesn’t care about your privacy, everything is tracked and stored forever, even if you delete it”.
But wouldn’t Mastodon instances be able to automatically backup posts, comments, edits, and deletions? Hell, users would be able to do it too yeah?
The whole idea of this being a privacy issue kind of goes against the whole internet archival movement and is really a moot point.
I can see this maybe being a problem with privacy regulations though.
Deleted comments remain on the server but hidden to non-admins, the username remains visible
This is a negative behavior by Lemmy, in my opinion. Deleted comments should be purged after some time. Tildes does the same thing - I think with 30 days?
Deleted account usernames remain visible too
These should be replaced with some random string of characters or something like DeleteUser<numberhere> or something.
Anything remains visible on federated servers!
This is just a concession of federation.
When you delete your account, media does not get deleted on any server
This is an issue, too, in my opinion.
Honestly, this is definitely something that can be added - and in fact it might even be beneficial to server costs. Alongside optional deletion of cached data from other instances maybe a year or two after the data arrived.
People need to remember that Lemmy is an alpha software - we haven’t even reached the big 1.0 release
The illusion of Privacy is Mastodon (or social media in general)
There’s a reason why when you go to “private mentions” on Mastodon, this appears:
While yes, we should be able to delete our content if we want, but it’s a bit naive to think there could be true privacy in any decentralised social media platform.
There’s a reason why one of the think people tell you when you come to the fediverse is not to share personal and sensible information.
The only decentralised social media that has some level of privacy is Matrix, and that’s why it has it’s own protocol and only federates within/between its own servers.
While yes, we should be able to delete our content if we want, but it’s a bit naive to think there could be true privacy in any decentralised social media platform.
Especially an email or “reddit” threaded conversation systems where quoting of messages is routine. Here I am, quoting you.
You are putting a billboard up in public, on a bulletin board in the center of the Internet, the assumption should be that anyone can photograph it.
Exactly.
That with the addition that the function of thread-like social media is being a place to discuss topic and share information/knowledge. So content needs to be kept even if the account that posted it exist no more. The contain remaining when the account gets deleted is a feature, because otherwise important information could be lost.
Content deletion should be an option, but the content remaining if you delete your account its a needed feature for this type of platform
In general I think we should go back to separating personal identities from internet identities on discussion forums like these. There are already platforms for promoting your personal identity that are way better than these types of forums
I completely agree. I’d add that. in general I wouldn’t put any type of personal information on the internet, no social media site, is really private.
The line gets a little blurry if you start posting into a geographical community though. Sometimes it’s hard to stay 100% anonymous
I was rather peeved I had to give an email to create an account on Lemmy. It shouldn’t be needed.
Unfortunately there has been a wave of fake accounts being created on lemmy. Requiring email on signup is one way to try to prevent this from happening.
I have an email that I specifically use for the fediverse. I wasn’t asked to give email here, but otherwise it would have been hard to know when and whether my join in request was approved or not.
As a life long anarchist, I personally find raddle to be a fucking embarrassment. The elitist bullshit is right up there with other political anarchist sites like anarchist news; they’re all a fucking shit show and shows why anarchists will never accomplish anything.
Isn’t the fediverse an anarchist project?
It seems to be the most flat peer structure of any social media.
Pretty much yeah, either the fediverse or Usenet. Somebody pointed that out to them in the comments of the linked post but they dismissed the point as nonsense.
Very performative anarchists over there lol
It’s a work in progress.
I’m at a loss. You’re saying that things that you said publicly are private? Or you’re saying that they become private because you delete your account? Assume you dox someone. I need to find out if that happened. As an admin I’d be able to see that
- you
- publicly posted
- their data
I would need to be able to provide this to authorities if they provided needed legal documentation. Why do you think that privacy dictates you should be able to commit a crime, and get away with it by deleting your account?
I don’t think there is a legal requirement that you store that data, just that you make the data you store available, or in some situations, you add logging for valid law enforcement requests.
Apple for example does not have access to end-to-end iCloud data that is encrypted to my knowledge. They wouldn’t be able to provide the contents of my notes application to law enforcement necessarily - and that is currently legal.
I’m basing what I have said off of work I have done with attorneys in similar situations. I don’t know evidentiary law, but I wouldn’t want to be accused of destroying evidence of something. But my question stands. Why should someone who has doxed someone get away with it by deleting their account? How is that ethical?
So the key thing here is, “are you aware that the data is part of a legal proceeding or crime?”
If no, deleting it as part of normal operations is perfectly legal. There are plenty of VPNs which do not log user information, and will produce for the authorities all of the logs they retain (i.e. an empty log file).
From an ethical standpoint, keeping peoples’ data which they want removed, against their wishes, based on the hypothetical that at some point someone might do something wrong, is by far the less ethical route.
“You might do something bad, so I’m going to keep all your data whether you like it or not!” <- the bad thing
It’s cute how you think I’m going to take legal advice from you. You do you, have a nice evening.
Why should someone who has doxed someone get away with it by deleting their account?
Doxxing is not illegal in many places - the US included. Cyberstalking and harassment may be illegal, depending on location. That’s beside the point, but this is an extremely specific example.
Ultimately users should, in my opinion, be in control of their data. Tildes, for example, preserves deleted comments for (I think) 30 days and then permanently removes them. It seems like that approach is a compromise that would work for your situation while still respecting privacy long term.
Apple (and Google, Microsoft, etc) are checking signatures of all files on their services to detect illegal stuff. They do it for copyrighted content and they do it for CSAM.
Checking against a known-malicious hash is very different than claiming to have access to the plain data. In fact, even for the known-malicious hashes, the companies doing the checks usually don’t have access to the source data (so i.e. they don’t even necessarily know what it contains).
Wouldn’t Mastodon have the same legal requirements?
I understand the impulse but the way some people get so hung up on trying to make a way to permanently and universally delete posts made on public facing social media and framing it as a “privacy” issue feels kinda like saying something you regret on mic at a town hall and being mad that you can’t permanently delete the memory of it from the minds of everyone present, and claiming that they violated your privacy by remembering it
it’s an interesting idea, but it doesn’t vibe with the reality of the laws in the EU which has “right to be forgotten” rules
The “right to be forgotten” rules are, with all due respect to the EU regulators, pretty shortsighted.
I think the initial “right to be forgotten” lawsuit that Google faced from that Spanish guy-- where he claimed bankruptcy years prior. People( potential lenders?) kept finding that information online through google searches. He sued to have Google remove those sites from the index. He won and the Spanish Judge told Google they had to remove those results from searches.
But it didn’t change that the information was still on each site. Those sites, the ones that actually held the information didn’t get sued, just Google.
It also opened the door for oppressive governments covering up human rights abuses or hide other information they dont want widely available.
Google appealed and won: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49808208
I also want to point out that this Spanish guy’s situation is very different from “posting publicly on social media”. He was getting written about by others and the courts eventually said “no, this can stand. This information should remain available”. So I imagine, public statements made by an individual certainly wouldn’t qualify to be forgotten.
At the end of the day, to me, this is a technical decision not a privacy one.
GDPR applies to companies operating in the EU, not every single entity on the internet. Posts on random forums are not subject to these laws, so I don’t think Lemmy would count.
Now if a Lemmy operator began using user personal data for profit, then GDPR would apply. At the moment, I don’t think that’s happening anywhere in the fediverse.
GDPR applies to companies operating in the EU, not every single entity on the internet
It applies to every single public entity on the internet that holds data of EU citizens. No matter which country they’re located in.
AFAIK, this world-wide nature of the GDPR is pretty unique and quite contentious.The GDPR includes exceptions for private purposes but hosting a lemmy instance with public signups is most certainly not intended to be of private nature, so the GDPR does apply.
I can’t comment on whether that means the right to be forgotten needs to be exercised by federated instances, I just want to set the record straight here.
The EU may claim GDPR applies to all data of EU citizens no matter where in the world it is stored, but if the entity storing that data does zero business in the EU, there isn’t much that can be done to enforce that law. Its the same as US law firms thinking their DMCA claims apply in other countries, etc.
Federated Lemmy instances operating in non-EU nations with no business/holdings/etc in the EU, are under zero obligation to recognise GDPR requirements unless otherwise required somehow to do so by their own national law (say a treaty agreement or the like).
The EU can no more demand or enforce global adherence to their data laws than the US can.
They can just block access to the site, no?
That’s a strawman. No one demands mind-altering powers. Records to be deleted: that’s another story.
Being able to delete tweets doesn’t stop people from screengrabbing them. It’s still good that the option exists.
I switch accounts after some time and use other ones. It’s quiet okay this way
Am I missing something or isnt it that no matter what Lemmy does all those same problems would still exist, just from the internet archival sites instead. Sure the privacy could be better to deter some of it, but none of those issues are fully solveable so long as thise archival sites run. I guess the media not deleting is likely the biggest thing you could effect that archives would be less likely to store in the first place.
Did anyone use reddit thinking it was private? With stuff like push shift and way back machine people shouldn’t be posting stuff they aren’t comfortable sharing anyways on a wide open message board.
Always weirded me out the people who’d treat their reddit accounts like Facebook.
With stuff like push shift and way back machine
So much this. I don’t get why people don’t remember this first thing when it comes to data storage.
Yes. “The internet never forgets” is actually a thing.
This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of digital privacy. You can never be guaranteed that data is deleted, just like you can never be guaranteed that someone has “forgotten” something. It doesn’t matter what any entity claims they are doing under the hood, you have to assume they can’t be trusted. That’s not an expectation you can have, and not something privacy advocates are asking for.
I’m posting this comment publicly, and there’s nothing stopping any random user (or non-user) from scraping this lemmy instance and archiving the data themselves. I know that when I post it. Same for reddit, raddle, any mastodon instance, etc. I can copy the text and usernames of everyone involved in that raddle thread and do whatever I want with it, there’s nothing anyone can do to stop me.
To think otherwise reminds me of that first day on the internet kid meme. “I deleted my comments off of their servers, hah, they’ll never get them now!”
What I can demand is: if I send a message directly to another party, I want to be able to verify that that party and ONLY that party can read the message (end-to-end encryption). I can also demand that they not require me to dox myself to them, that they not run weird js-based fingerprinting/port scanning processes on my system/network, and that I am allowed to connect to their services through a VPN should I so choose.
Knowing that any information you share publicly can be stolen, I think the way Lemmy’s instances have the original comment after you deleted it could help counteract people manipulating what you said after you deleted it, such as making a quote and editing “your” original post after it was deleted. But this could give a lot of power to the admins as well, as they could be the ones manipulating.
