Infomaniak comes out in support of controversial Swiss encryption law(tomsguide.com)
tomsguide.com
Infomaniak comes out in support of controversial Swiss encryption law
https://www.tomsguide.com/computing/vpns/infomaniak-breaks-rank-and-comes-out-in-support-of-controversial-swiss-encryption-law
107 comments
There's nowhere to go, since it's a constant game of whack-a-mole. Small island countries in the Caribbean can brag about super lax laws that aid privacy and evasion but none of them will ruin relationships with US or the EU just to protect a small 10 person privacy focused tech company when a warrants comes from abroad.
For reference, Switzerland had to change their banking secrecy laws decades ago due to pressure from the US, Germany and France, so you can guess how well other weaker countries will fare against such pressure. And let's not forget the famous Crypto AG scandal in Switzerland, so I'm not buying the famous "Swiss privacy" marketing fluff at all anymore as much as I like the country. Just like Crypto AG, every tech company is, or will be, infiltrated by alphabet agencies by cooperation or by force. If you want real privacy you have to self host, that's the only way.
Plus, I feel like we're focusing at the wrong issue here. Do we really want lawless places on this planet to exist where companies and individuals can escape the courts and law enforcement of their own nations? Something that will be exploited mostly for nefarious purposes than protecting privacy of law abiding people.
The real solution is holding powerful governments accountable against invasions of privacy by their voters, not creating lawless zones where companies and powerful individuals can go and hide to avoid laws they dislike. If laws are bad, just change the laws, don't normalize law avoidance. If you normalize law avoidance about one thing, why not about other things as well like theft, taxation, human trafficking etc? The whole point of developed western nations is democratic representation, the strong rule of law and fairness of the court system. Write to your representative.
For reference, Switzerland had to change their banking secrecy laws decades ago due to pressure from the US, Germany and France, so you can guess how well other weaker countries will fare against such pressure. And let's not forget the famous Crypto AG scandal in Switzerland, so I'm not buying the famous "Swiss privacy" marketing fluff at all anymore as much as I like the country. Just like Crypto AG, every tech company is, or will be, infiltrated by alphabet agencies by cooperation or by force. If you want real privacy you have to self host, that's the only way.
Plus, I feel like we're focusing at the wrong issue here. Do we really want lawless places on this planet to exist where companies and individuals can escape the courts and law enforcement of their own nations? Something that will be exploited mostly for nefarious purposes than protecting privacy of law abiding people.
The real solution is holding powerful governments accountable against invasions of privacy by their voters, not creating lawless zones where companies and powerful individuals can go and hide to avoid laws they dislike. If laws are bad, just change the laws, don't normalize law avoidance. If you normalize law avoidance about one thing, why not about other things as well like theft, taxation, human trafficking etc? The whole point of developed western nations is democratic representation, the strong rule of law and fairness of the court system. Write to your representative.
> Do we really want lawless places on this planet to exist where companies and individuals can escape the courts and law enforcement of their own nations?
Yes. If the alternative is a worldwide police state.
Yes. If the alternative is a worldwide police state.
>Yes. If the alternative is a worldwide police state.
Being held accountable for crimes is your definition of a "police state"? Interesting.
What you're trying to hint at is political persecution, and there is the possibility of asylum for that. But let's differentiate between persecution and running away from crimes, and not muddy the waters. Not all crimes are the result of persecution.
Otherwise what's stopping anyone form breaking into your house, murdering your family to rob you and then fleeing abroad on asylum to avoid legal repercussions? If that was the status quo, you probably wouldn't exist anymore right now.
The "police state" is the one ensuring your family's safety. In our modern societies, we have outsourced the monopoly on violence to the police state, so that we can focus on work and hobbies, and that comes at the expense of trusting the state and holding it accountable through democracy.
Being held accountable for crimes is your definition of a "police state"? Interesting.
What you're trying to hint at is political persecution, and there is the possibility of asylum for that. But let's differentiate between persecution and running away from crimes, and not muddy the waters. Not all crimes are the result of persecution.
Otherwise what's stopping anyone form breaking into your house, murdering your family to rob you and then fleeing abroad on asylum to avoid legal repercussions? If that was the status quo, you probably wouldn't exist anymore right now.
The "police state" is the one ensuring your family's safety. In our modern societies, we have outsourced the monopoly on violence to the police state, so that we can focus on work and hobbies, and that comes at the expense of trusting the state and holding it accountable through democracy.
I don’t think op meant that at all. Your response reads a lot like “if you don’t have anything to hide…” arguments against privacy and encryption. Liberty always comes with a cost. It is de-facto a lack of control by the state. It is precisely this lack of control that creates value in liberty.
The state will always go through cycles of opinion, witch hunts, political interference, and other malfeasances of power. It will probably be corrected, only to temporarily careen off the rails again. This is -the best case scenario- for a healthy democracy.
The only way to limit the effect of this meandering pathfinding on individuals is to place some things intentionally out of reach of the state. To abuse their power, then they must break the law. This triggers the correction that brings democracy back towards the just path. Without limits to break, the state will careen so far off the path that it may have a hard time righting itself.
We must force the state to use open coercion when it wants to stretch the limits of its reach. This is a critical element for democracy to function… its reach must have well defined limits that stop well short of any legal activity, even if it means criminals and deviants will face less obstacles. This is the cost of freedom.
The state will always go through cycles of opinion, witch hunts, political interference, and other malfeasances of power. It will probably be corrected, only to temporarily careen off the rails again. This is -the best case scenario- for a healthy democracy.
The only way to limit the effect of this meandering pathfinding on individuals is to place some things intentionally out of reach of the state. To abuse their power, then they must break the law. This triggers the correction that brings democracy back towards the just path. Without limits to break, the state will careen so far off the path that it may have a hard time righting itself.
We must force the state to use open coercion when it wants to stretch the limits of its reach. This is a critical element for democracy to function… its reach must have well defined limits that stop well short of any legal activity, even if it means criminals and deviants will face less obstacles. This is the cost of freedom.
> Your response reads a lot like “if you don’t have anything to hide…”
That's not what I said.
>We must force the state to use open coercion when it wants to stretch the limits of its reach.
That's exactly what I said.
>even if it means criminals and deviants will face less obstacles
Curios how liberal you'd be with the criminal who'd wronged you. Mercy towards criminals is a crime towards their victims.
That's not what I said.
>We must force the state to use open coercion when it wants to stretch the limits of its reach.
That's exactly what I said.
>even if it means criminals and deviants will face less obstacles
Curios how liberal you'd be with the criminal who'd wronged you. Mercy towards criminals is a crime towards their victims.
> Curios how liberal you'd be with the criminal who'd wronged you. Mercy towards criminals is a crime towards their victims.
Most societies that we would consider worth living in hold up the principle that matters of justice should be decided by the impartial and uninvolved. If the victim's feelings should determine the punishment, what would stop any petty theft and spicy insult (for the vast majority of countries where those are considered crimes) from being answered with the death penalty?
Most societies that we would consider worth living in hold up the principle that matters of justice should be decided by the impartial and uninvolved. If the victim's feelings should determine the punishment, what would stop any petty theft and spicy insult (for the vast majority of countries where those are considered crimes) from being answered with the death penalty?
>Most societies that we would consider worth living in hold up the principle that matters of justice should be decided by the impartial and uninvolved
Please, don't twist my words, I never said the victim should be the judge. I asked how would the victim feel if criminality had safe spaces where they could avoid justice because they feel like the law is unfair with them.
>If the victim's feelings should determine the punishment
In "most societies that we would consider worth living" as per your words, the victim's feelings are always taken into account in court that determines sentencing. Case in point, men and women get disproportionate sentences in the west for the exact same crime, like sexual abuse for instance.
Please, don't twist my words, I never said the victim should be the judge. I asked how would the victim feel if criminality had safe spaces where they could avoid justice because they feel like the law is unfair with them.
>If the victim's feelings should determine the punishment
In "most societies that we would consider worth living" as per your words, the victim's feelings are always taken into account in court that determines sentencing. Case in point, men and women get disproportionate sentences in the west for the exact same crime, like sexual abuse for instance.
> I asked how would the victim feel
A lot of the kinds of crimes we're discussing here are things like being homosexual in the Middle East, where there is no victim, only a transgression imagined by religious nuts.
Yes, it's good that those people have a place to go. Happy Pride.
A lot of the kinds of crimes we're discussing here are things like being homosexual in the Middle East, where there is no victim, only a transgression imagined by religious nuts.
Yes, it's good that those people have a place to go. Happy Pride.
>A lot of the kinds of crimes we're discussing here are things like being homosexual in the Middle East
Not sure why you had to go make that parallel but it really isn't. You can control yourself from committing crimes, you can't control yourself from being born gay.
Not sure why you had to go make that parallel but it really isn't. You can control yourself from committing crimes, you can't control yourself from being born gay.
> Curios how liberal you'd be with the criminal who'd wronged you. Mercy towards criminals is a crime towards their victims.
Of course, reality is that whether justice is forthcoming is dictated by economic interests, not law, and certainly not your idea of law. In other words, whether you criticize China's treatment of Uighur, or point out how gigantic the scale of pollution the CCP is responsible for, or which economic disaster they caused this week, will get you in hot water more than committing a (scammer) crime will. Whether you criticize India's rich, Thailand's or Saudi Arabia's royalty and actually get some attention (which, as has been demonstrated, will make them get diplomatically immune embassy staff kill you. Perhaps that's not legal, but they cannot legally be punished for that, not even financially). And if you either insult or otherwise pose a problem to western copyright interests (e.g. make a tutorial about LibreELEC) you'll get the hammer put down on you:
https://www.jeffgeerling.com/tags/libreelec
Of course, it will remain trivial to sabotage judicial proceedings if you're outside of the jurisdiction of that court (and because second/third world courts simply side with scammers against victims), the stated reason of the argument is NOT something you can do in practice, and whether the law is on your side? It is already on your side if you go after scammers! It is impossible to use local laws to go after scammers. What protects scammers, as everybody knows, is less anonymity than it is third world states and attitudes, especially their total lack of respect for international treaties they signed, combined with the reach FANGs, incumbent Telco's and Banks give to scammers. Given that one of FANGs, TikTok (in practice even if not in theory) runs from within the third world even that option is fast disappearing. This law does nothing about that.
Even within the west, there's an expression from the legal profession: "you cannot get blood from a stone". It is meant to illustrate the problem that scams and most fraud are committed by people who are "on the margin" and have no money or options (almost all fraud is committed by tenants). On the margin means that while they aren't poor, even a 1000 euro judgement would make them destitute for 6 months or more. You will not get a judge to convict these people. It doesn't matter how much you legally are in the right, the justice system will refuse to destroy their lives, make them homeless, instead they will correctly point out that will achieve nothing, and leave you hanging. This is another thing you can't change. (yes, with the current attitudes if the criminal is an immigrant you may get them removed. But you still won't get your money back)
And to follow your accusatory style: is this what you want to achieve? Support scammers to advance the interests of extreme rich third-world autocrats? Because that's what you're doing.
Of course, reality is that whether justice is forthcoming is dictated by economic interests, not law, and certainly not your idea of law. In other words, whether you criticize China's treatment of Uighur, or point out how gigantic the scale of pollution the CCP is responsible for, or which economic disaster they caused this week, will get you in hot water more than committing a (scammer) crime will. Whether you criticize India's rich, Thailand's or Saudi Arabia's royalty and actually get some attention (which, as has been demonstrated, will make them get diplomatically immune embassy staff kill you. Perhaps that's not legal, but they cannot legally be punished for that, not even financially). And if you either insult or otherwise pose a problem to western copyright interests (e.g. make a tutorial about LibreELEC) you'll get the hammer put down on you:
https://www.jeffgeerling.com/tags/libreelec
Of course, it will remain trivial to sabotage judicial proceedings if you're outside of the jurisdiction of that court (and because second/third world courts simply side with scammers against victims), the stated reason of the argument is NOT something you can do in practice, and whether the law is on your side? It is already on your side if you go after scammers! It is impossible to use local laws to go after scammers. What protects scammers, as everybody knows, is less anonymity than it is third world states and attitudes, especially their total lack of respect for international treaties they signed, combined with the reach FANGs, incumbent Telco's and Banks give to scammers. Given that one of FANGs, TikTok (in practice even if not in theory) runs from within the third world even that option is fast disappearing. This law does nothing about that.
Even within the west, there's an expression from the legal profession: "you cannot get blood from a stone". It is meant to illustrate the problem that scams and most fraud are committed by people who are "on the margin" and have no money or options (almost all fraud is committed by tenants). On the margin means that while they aren't poor, even a 1000 euro judgement would make them destitute for 6 months or more. You will not get a judge to convict these people. It doesn't matter how much you legally are in the right, the justice system will refuse to destroy their lives, make them homeless, instead they will correctly point out that will achieve nothing, and leave you hanging. This is another thing you can't change. (yes, with the current attitudes if the criminal is an immigrant you may get them removed. But you still won't get your money back)
And to follow your accusatory style: is this what you want to achieve? Support scammers to advance the interests of extreme rich third-world autocrats? Because that's what you're doing.
The only way to definitely hold everybody accountable for all crimes is a police state.
Like Franklin said, he'd rather 100 guilty people go free rather than a single innocent person jailed. He was definitely willing to not hold some people accountable for their crimes because that was a requirement for a free state.
You said earlier that the solution was to change the laws, and this is what we're saying right now. Change the laws so that VPNs are allowed and cryptography is allowed so that we can avoid the police state.
Like Franklin said, he'd rather 100 guilty people go free rather than a single innocent person jailed. He was definitely willing to not hold some people accountable for their crimes because that was a requirement for a free state.
You said earlier that the solution was to change the laws, and this is what we're saying right now. Change the laws so that VPNs are allowed and cryptography is allowed so that we can avoid the police state.
>Like Franklin said, he'd rather 100 guilty people go free rather than a single innocent person jailed.
What does this have to do with anything? All jails now have innocent people in them due to process failures. How does quoting Franklin make them feel better?
>He was definitely willing to not hold some people accountable for their crimes because that was a requirement for a free state.
If by "free sate" you mean a high crime rate state where toothpaste needs to be locked up in CVS due to criminals being let free, then yeah.
What does this have to do with anything? All jails now have innocent people in them due to process failures. How does quoting Franklin make them feel better?
>He was definitely willing to not hold some people accountable for their crimes because that was a requirement for a free state.
If by "free sate" you mean a high crime rate state where toothpaste needs to be locked up in CVS due to criminals being let free, then yeah.
> The "police state" is the one ensuring your family's safety. In our modern societies, we have outsourced the monopoly on violence to the police state, so that we can focus on work and hobbies, and that comes at the expense of trusting the state and holding it accountable through democracy.
My family is approximately infinitely more likely to be considered a "perpetrator" of a crime internet deanonymization will be used to prosecute (piracy, bad opinions, dealing in the wrong kind of crypto coins, ordering the wrong kind of chemicals from India) than to be a "victim" in our own estimation, so at least in this particular domain the "police state" is only ensuring the interests of some others, at the expense of my family's safety (which they could and would directly compromise using the violence they have monopolised).
My family is approximately infinitely more likely to be considered a "perpetrator" of a crime internet deanonymization will be used to prosecute (piracy, bad opinions, dealing in the wrong kind of crypto coins, ordering the wrong kind of chemicals from India) than to be a "victim" in our own estimation, so at least in this particular domain the "police state" is only ensuring the interests of some others, at the expense of my family's safety (which they could and would directly compromise using the violence they have monopolised).
if democracy ever threatened to change anything, it would be banned
How about Sealand?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand
Sealand is a fake country, a state without a nation. Even a nation without a military like Costa Rica can muster a defense via its people. Sealand on the other hand exists solely because no one cares to even acknowledge its existence. If Russia cut a deal to garrison troops there, that wikipedia page would see every "is" replaced with "was" before the day's end.
> Sealand on the other hand exists solely because no one cares to even acknowledge its existence.
In the Infocom-produced Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, the player must enter his/her own brain and navigate a maze, in search of the Common Sense Particle, finding where it is lodged in this brain, and get rid of the blasted thing.
Then the player may return to the Heart of Gold and, without hindrance of Common Sense, hold “No Tea” and “Tea” simultaneously in inventory.
But that is just a computer game!!!
In the Infocom-produced Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, the player must enter his/her own brain and navigate a maze, in search of the Common Sense Particle, finding where it is lodged in this brain, and get rid of the blasted thing.
Then the player may return to the Heart of Gold and, without hindrance of Common Sense, hold “No Tea” and “Tea” simultaneously in inventory.
But that is just a computer game!!!
What about Sealand? They can be all for privacy and freedom, but it’d all amount to nothing if they don’t have Internet connection, and connection is a two way consent, so Sealand is even worse for this purpose than island micro nations.
Iceland?
It’s tough. The world is, overall, going through a shift toward authoritarianism of various flavors, and people are voting for it because of incredibly successful propaganda and fear of change.
going through a shift toward authoritarianism of various flavors
And a lot of decision in the EU are made by unelected people, great democracy.
Unelected and anonymous.
"EU Commission refuses to disclose authors behind its mass surveillance proposal" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44168134
"EU Commission refuses to disclose authors behind its mass surveillance proposal" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44168134
Attacking individual privacy and security is still authoritarianism when done by a democratically elected government. That's why it's important to be a Republic founded on a rule of law that limits what the majority may do; eg in the US a majority cannot take away rights of expression from individuals.
The EU is authoritarian in many ways. How the laws get made is secondary to whether or not they are authoritarian.
The EU is authoritarian in many ways. How the laws get made is secondary to whether or not they are authoritarian.
I see two big brands of authoritarianism on the rise right now.
One is populist strongman rule, usually but not always of a right wing bent. We have this rising in the US.
The other is technocratic corporatism, the model of China and it seems a faction of the EU.
Both endlessly malign democracy and liberalism as decadent, chaotic, and responsible for an endless parade of bogie men they will protect you against.
One is populist strongman rule, usually but not always of a right wing bent. We have this rising in the US.
The other is technocratic corporatism, the model of China and it seems a faction of the EU.
Both endlessly malign democracy and liberalism as decadent, chaotic, and responsible for an endless parade of bogie men they will protect you against.
Depends, in Poland our conservatives are way more aligned with Republicans.
[deleted]
Mullvad (VPN) currently is in Sweden.
For now. ProtectEU would require service providers to log metadata and beyond or face criminal charges.
> For the first time, an EU expert group has explicitly mentioned VPN services as "key challenges" to the investigative work of law enforcement agencies, alongside encrypted devices, apps, and new communications operators.
"VPN services may soon become a new target of EU lawmakers after being deemed a "key challenge"" https://www.techradar.com/vpn/vpn-privacy-security/vpn-servi...
> For the first time, an EU expert group has explicitly mentioned VPN services as "key challenges" to the investigative work of law enforcement agencies, alongside encrypted devices, apps, and new communications operators.
"VPN services may soon become a new target of EU lawmakers after being deemed a "key challenge"" https://www.techradar.com/vpn/vpn-privacy-security/vpn-servi...
Unfortunately, it appears the state that is the most cryptography-friendly and remains outside of the reach of US courts may be the UAE.
> In March 2015, the Dubai Police declared the usage of VPN (virtual private network) illegal, saying that "tampering with the internet is a crime". Although action may not be taken against an individual for simply using a VPN, the usage of VPN combined with other illegal acts would lead to additional charges.
> Popular instant messaging applications that remained blocked despite the removal of the ban on VoIP services included WhatsApp, FaceTime, and Skype. The selective relaxation of the ban narrowed down the user’s choice to premium (paid) services, owned by state-run telecommunication firms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_in_the_Unit...
> Popular instant messaging applications that remained blocked despite the removal of the ban on VoIP services included WhatsApp, FaceTime, and Skype. The selective relaxation of the ban narrowed down the user’s choice to premium (paid) services, owned by state-run telecommunication firms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_in_the_Unit...
Russia would be pretty good right now (for non-Russians).
If it is just a VPN, a "cybercompany" does not need to be incorporated somewhere. If is is just virtual, it does not have to follow any laws in a jurisdictions. Servers can come and go...
If it is just a VPN, a "cybercompany" does not need to be incorporated somewhere. If is is just virtual, it does not have to follow any laws in a jurisdictions. Servers can come and go...
Not if you want to be paid in normal countries
[deleted]
That has been obvious to me after they requested me to upload my passport/id in order to unblock the newly paid and created account. But that happened only after the payment page, of course.
I'm a little bitter, but for what I need it, I'll let it pass this time.
edit: it is a business account, but I have never been asked for this anywhere else. you have all the company required data, all my required data, why do you need my id? maybe personal accounts are treated differently.
I'm a little bitter, but for what I need it, I'll let it pass this time.
edit: it is a business account, but I have never been asked for this anywhere else. you have all the company required data, all my required data, why do you need my id? maybe personal accounts are treated differently.
I don't remember that for Infomaniak but certainly for Hetzner.
WTF, get right out. They are the ones advertising everywhere how their cloud is 100% Swiss and can be trusted.
After reading the article, that company name takes a whole new meaning. I use to think it meant "we are maniacal about computing" (informatique in French), now I suppose it means: "we are maniac hoarder of metadata"
Sigh, I just moved a bunch of domains over, after The Jolly Teapot started using and recommended them.
- https://thejollyteapot.com/uses - https://thejollyteapot.com/2024/11/05/website-updates/
- https://thejollyteapot.com/uses - https://thejollyteapot.com/2024/11/05/website-updates/
Yeah it's disappointing after recently moving things over.
Well fuck, guess I'm moving all my domains again. And I just moved away from Gandi.
Does anyone have recommendations for domain registrars that support .ch and .li domains and ideally also supported by lego (my current acme client of choice)?
Does anyone have recommendations for domain registrars that support .ch and .li domains and ideally also supported by lego (my current acme client of choice)?
I'm currently using joker.com after also migrating off of gandi.
I keep my swiss domains on cyon. But i dont know about lego support.
For .com/.net etc I can recommend internet.bs
German inwx.com is not bad for country TLDs
Besides the blaming of informaniak, their email hosing for 18 Euros a year is actually a pretty good deal. If you can live with US hosting for email, purelymail.com is worth a look.
German inwx.com is not bad for country TLDs
Besides the blaming of informaniak, their email hosing for 18 Euros a year is actually a pretty good deal. If you can live with US hosting for email, purelymail.com is worth a look.
Looks like INWX has a website and physical address specifically for Switzerland. I think I'll give them a try.
Same .....
Talking about dogging a bullet...
I wanted to take back control over my emails so recently I started to look long and hard at ProtonMail, Infomaniak (kMail), Mailbox.org, and others. In the end, I chose mailbox.org. I could have been really annoyed right now given how painful updating accounts/credentials and account migration are!
I wanted to take back control over my emails so recently I started to look long and hard at ProtonMail, Infomaniak (kMail), Mailbox.org, and others. In the end, I chose mailbox.org. I could have been really annoyed right now given how painful updating accounts/credentials and account migration are!
You either have anonymity or mass surveillance. There really is no alternative as the data will be collected and used.
And not only by the judicial system. Also I do believe the net can survive anonymity just fine due to empirical evidence.
And not only by the judicial system. Also I do believe the net can survive anonymity just fine due to empirical evidence.
You could work within their parameters but continually communicate an enormous amount of garbage that is not illegal but would be flagged, it would be an interesting experiment, and then they could decide whether or not they’d wish to continue.
Personally, I think that privacy is a losing game, like gambling. The best case is that we all work within the parameters. But in any case, the amount of time and effort that is dedicated to privacy is keeping humanity from more important things.
The main annoyance I have with companies and organizations that engage in working with our private data is that eventually they will lose control of the data, and if bad things come because of that, we are the victims. This may be our physical and mental health data, and we could lose our jobs or have to pay higher insurance. This may be our financial data, and we lose our savings for retirement. This may be our personal historical thoughts that we don’t wish to broadcast, and we lose relationships and our jobs.
Privacy at one level is a luxury but at other levels are not, unless society as a whole embraces that we’re all unhealthy and we’re all flawed, but at that point perhaps things become too flexible and very bad things happen.
Personally, I think that privacy is a losing game, like gambling. The best case is that we all work within the parameters. But in any case, the amount of time and effort that is dedicated to privacy is keeping humanity from more important things.
The main annoyance I have with companies and organizations that engage in working with our private data is that eventually they will lose control of the data, and if bad things come because of that, we are the victims. This may be our physical and mental health data, and we could lose our jobs or have to pay higher insurance. This may be our financial data, and we lose our savings for retirement. This may be our personal historical thoughts that we don’t wish to broadcast, and we lose relationships and our jobs.
Privacy at one level is a luxury but at other levels are not, unless society as a whole embraces that we’re all unhealthy and we’re all flawed, but at that point perhaps things become too flexible and very bad things happen.
unless society as a whole embraces that we’re all unhealthy and we’re all flawed, but at that point perhaps things become too flexible and very bad things happen.
Germany in the early 1940s deprivatized Jewish and homosexual people by making them wear badges, then it enslaved and killed most of them.
East Germany, the KGB, modern China, and many others have tried the route of getting rid of citizen privacy “for the common good” in similar ways, and it results in bad things.
AIs with superhuman intelligence may have all the data, may lean utilitarian, and similarly could it not just restrict people, commit genocide, genetically modify, drug, neuter, manipulate, and euthanize like the worst of the them? I don’t know how we combat this- go offline?
I would like humans to not waste much effort on privacy though, beyond what makes sense.
East Germany, the KGB, modern China, and many others have tried the route of getting rid of citizen privacy “for the common good” in similar ways, and it results in bad things.
AIs with superhuman intelligence may have all the data, may lean utilitarian, and similarly could it not just restrict people, commit genocide, genetically modify, drug, neuter, manipulate, and euthanize like the worst of the them? I don’t know how we combat this- go offline?
I would like humans to not waste much effort on privacy though, beyond what makes sense.
Where should I move my domain portfolio? What are the best competitors?
A combination of good pricing, sane behavior and an offering with many TLDs right now is https://www.netim.com, based in France. Their UI is quite outdated, but it works ok. I've switched here after leaving Gandi.
If you're fine with a US-based provider, https://porkbun.com/ also has good pricing and a tech oriented mindset. They don't support many ccTLDs though.
In general, https://tld-list.com/ is the best place to research domain registrars in my opinion.
If you're fine with a US-based provider, https://porkbun.com/ also has good pricing and a tech oriented mindset. They don't support many ccTLDs though.
In general, https://tld-list.com/ is the best place to research domain registrars in my opinion.
Awesome, thanks! Will be moving this weekend. Infomaniak is dead to me.
I am fairly happy with Bulgarian company ClouDNS, they have a wide selection of ccTLDs for reasonable prices. https://www.cloudns.net/
Despite it's limitations on the UX side, PGP is still the better option for email privacy I think. That and using your own domain. There's tor for the web when one needs it. None of these are ideal, but they depend a lot less on trusting third parties.
PGP suffers from lack of forward secrecy, no? It also suffers from the fact that no one uses it :D.
I just moved my stuff from Google Drive over to Infomaniak kDrive, and I paid for a year of service... I don't really want to try to migrate 100s of gigs of data again :/
Please do and mention their position on this issue if asked why you are leaving.
I was just at the start of the journey of moving our entire company over to Infomaniak from Google. Perfect timing. Anyone have suggestions for where to go instead?
It will happen sooner or later just like it happened to their banking laws. There is no reason for the global trend of deprivatization (in all senses) to reverse.
In other news, Proton VPN and probably email are also subject to surveillance by the Swiss Federal Intelligence Agency NDB, including decryption of VPN traffic and data retention for up to 6 months. Switzerland is no save haven for your communication needs.
https://steigerlegal.ch/2025/03/29/proton-ueberwachung-keine... (German)
https://steigerlegal.ch/2025/03/29/proton-ueberwachung-keine... (German)
It is a fairly common attitude amongst hosting companies.
And understable from a business perspective. If you are one of the few hosting companies that host truly anonymous VPN and email providers, you are going get some troublesome customers that likely are going to end up being expensive.
And understable from a business perspective. If you are one of the few hosting companies that host truly anonymous VPN and email providers, you are going get some troublesome customers that likely are going to end up being expensive.
> understable from a business perspective.
Everything can be justified as a business interest. Even criminal behavior could. So that argument is NOT acceptable. This is about a Swiss company, not Russia. If Switzerland wants to go there, let's at least be honest about it.
Everything can be justified as a business interest. Even criminal behavior could. So that argument is NOT acceptable. This is about a Swiss company, not Russia. If Switzerland wants to go there, let's at least be honest about it.
Well, to be fair, they are pretty honest about it. Everything about the policy is public, and nothing will happen until it is approved.
I thought that this proposal was broadly opposed by Swiss political parties, is this not accurate? Is there a realistic chance of this passing or is it all sound and heat?
It very much is opposed and is very unlikely to happen.
Huh. I didn't see an Initiative / Referendum on that yet. Any pointers?
What an utterly depressing read.
Jesus Christ i made an email with them a few months ago and started using it for some important accounts
As sad as it undoubtedly sounds (and as if we're already saying goodbye to the utopia), I think this choice might be wiser than we initially thought.
Consider the implications of AI knowing everything about you, even down to your biometric behavior. Think about the threat of disinformation campaigns targeting democracies.
I know my stance may seem weak in terms of ideals, and I feel a bitter regret toward my former self.
But shouldn’t we, as humans, try to honor our shared values and act accordingly?
I am aware that a single hosting company won't do anything regarding those considerations, but ... anyways. I feel sorry for writing those sentences and sharing my doubts.
I don’t understand a word you’re saying. How does any of this relate to the topic?
You may be right and I beg a pardon for my words then.
I still have to dig the current law proposal (my shame).
The conclusion I came to a few years ago is that anonymity in Switzerland is not something useful. Switzerland is not a police state, it mainly copes up with trying to get its citizens to being responsible. Whenever you make something wrong IRL, you have to assume the consequences. Same with online. I concur that my words are messed up.
I still have to dig the current law proposal (my shame).
The conclusion I came to a few years ago is that anonymity in Switzerland is not something useful. Switzerland is not a police state, it mainly copes up with trying to get its citizens to being responsible. Whenever you make something wrong IRL, you have to assume the consequences. Same with online. I concur that my words are messed up.
> Switzerland is not a police state, it mainly copes up with trying to get its citizens to being responsible.
I don’t even know what to say.
Every police state claims it’s only “trying to get its citizens to be responsible”.
I don’t even know what to say.
Every police state claims it’s only “trying to get its citizens to be responsible”.
This is me saying it, not the state. I am swiss and living freely in Switzerland btw.
Where are you from?
> try to honor our shared values and act accordingly
What "shared values"? Most of the values people hold as "important" has people on the other side with the opposite values, and both of those are "correct".
There are no "shared values" that all humans agreed upon.
What "shared values"? Most of the values people hold as "important" has people on the other side with the opposite values, and both of those are "correct".
There are no "shared values" that all humans agreed upon.
Seems like a not difficult and quite worthwhile exercise to come up with at least one or two values that are so basic and fundamental that everyone could share them. Maybe that's what OP is talking about. Why be obtuse about shared values?
Because historically it has never been done. The closest we got is when a group (religious or political) finds something most people somewhat agree with, declares it a universal value and proceeds to suppress, drive away or eliminate those evil people who do not share it.
It is much better to define acceptable boundaries on actions and let people believe what they want if their actions do not violate those agreed on boundaries.
It is much better to define acceptable boundaries on actions and let people believe what they want if their actions do not violate those agreed on boundaries.
Switzerland is the oldest democracy in the world. Your comment certainly doesn't fit the way this country handles its citizens. There is the Law, the "what is tolerated" and what isn't. That's the "boundaries on actions".
But any malicious mind won't bow down to those intentional principles.
What is a "malicious mind"?
People absolutely heed laws that they find personally inconvenient but are afraid of the penalties (parking restrictions, paying taxes, loud music and that is not even stepping into hot button topics).
The reason Swiss stayed democratic is likely not because they share universal, similarly understood values, but because they feel that their system that only defines acceptable norms is working okay as is.
People absolutely heed laws that they find personally inconvenient but are afraid of the penalties (parking restrictions, paying taxes, loud music and that is not even stepping into hot button topics).
The reason Swiss stayed democratic is likely not because they share universal, similarly understood values, but because they feel that their system that only defines acceptable norms is working okay as is.
I don’t believe that Switzerland is the oldest democracy in the world, but I could be mistaken. Iceland has had a democratic-ish parliament since the 900s[0].
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Althing
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Althing
You are right. And there is San Marino too. I had to write “the oldest direct democracy still alive”.
> to come up with at least one or two values that are so basic and fundamental that everyone could share them
Please do try this, I've tried it in the past, and always been able to come up with counter-examples to whatever I came up with. It's surprisingly hard.
"Always be kind" is one example that for me should obviously be shared with everyone, but it's almost disgustingly easily to come up with whole cultures or countries where this is actively seen as a "bad thing" because of reason X and Y, or has to have exceptions because of Z.
Please do try this, I've tried it in the past, and always been able to come up with counter-examples to whatever I came up with. It's surprisingly hard.
"Always be kind" is one example that for me should obviously be shared with everyone, but it's almost disgustingly easily to come up with whole cultures or countries where this is actively seen as a "bad thing" because of reason X and Y, or has to have exceptions because of Z.
In practice there are always exceptions to everything. You don't be kind to murderers, for instance.
Kindness isn't really a value, though.
Shared values are simply things that people decide are important for a society to function as well as possible. Respect for human life and dignity, for example. Good thing right? How many mental gymnastics does somebody have to go through to find some exception to that?
Tell you what though, if I come across somebody who says that they don't respect human life and dignity, I am absolutely going to avoid that person and shun them from any kind of society that I am a part of.
Kindness isn't really a value, though.
Shared values are simply things that people decide are important for a society to function as well as possible. Respect for human life and dignity, for example. Good thing right? How many mental gymnastics does somebody have to go through to find some exception to that?
Tell you what though, if I come across somebody who says that they don't respect human life and dignity, I am absolutely going to avoid that person and shun them from any kind of society that I am a part of.
> You don't be kind to murderers, for instance.
Why not? I think everyone deserves kindness, and I'm not alone in thinking that.
So even something that for me is obvious, it isn't as obvious for everyone.
> Respect for human life and dignity, for example
It's very generic, and subjective, which again leads me to believe not everyone would agree on what it means.
For example, does "respect for human life" mean you should let people live where they currently live, if they and their family lived there for 100 years say? Lots of Israeli settlers would disagree with that, but for me that would be a sign that someone doesn't have "respect for human life".
> if I come across somebody who says that they don't respect human life and dignity
Of course everyone will say "Yeah, of course I do!", but where the rubber meets the dirt is how people define that. Not being kind to people who made mistakes for example, wouldn't be "respecting human life" for me, but you might disagree, as you think we shouldn't be kind to people who committed murders, but you would still claim you "respect human life".
Why not? I think everyone deserves kindness, and I'm not alone in thinking that.
So even something that for me is obvious, it isn't as obvious for everyone.
> Respect for human life and dignity, for example
It's very generic, and subjective, which again leads me to believe not everyone would agree on what it means.
For example, does "respect for human life" mean you should let people live where they currently live, if they and their family lived there for 100 years say? Lots of Israeli settlers would disagree with that, but for me that would be a sign that someone doesn't have "respect for human life".
> if I come across somebody who says that they don't respect human life and dignity
Of course everyone will say "Yeah, of course I do!", but where the rubber meets the dirt is how people define that. Not being kind to people who made mistakes for example, wouldn't be "respecting human life" for me, but you might disagree, as you think we shouldn't be kind to people who committed murders, but you would still claim you "respect human life".
This is suddenly a too-online conversation. Please do go be always kind to murderers. Society is definitely better off without anybody agreeing to value respect for human life and dignity -- just so generic and subjective! Too hard to get anybody to agree on what that even means!
I'm glad the point seemed to have come across! :)
Sharing is not agreeing. I can share values with someone I don't agree with. Switzerland has shared values for instance, it is a country build upon that principle. I bet every society has some. Humans too.
All people or most? If most, where is the threshold (0.1%, 1%, 10%?) for those whose values we can ignore and what should we do with those pesky people who do not share otherwise common values?
Do you know Switzerland and its democratic system? I am referring to those shared values that are enshrined in the Swiss Federal Constitution:
Freedom, Human dignity, Equality, Democracy, Multilingualism and cultural diversity, Federalism, Solidarity. (that is not an exhaustive list).
Freedom, Human dignity, Equality, Democracy, Multilingualism and cultural diversity, Federalism, Solidarity. (that is not an exhaustive list).
Those are great words. The problems start when we try turning those into actionable definitions. That is, defining what kind of freedom citizens have and when the government starts putting pressure on those who step outside those definitions.
> There are no "shared values" that all humans agreed upon.
Murder is bad?
Stealing is bad?
Murder is bad?
Stealing is bad?
> Murder is bad?
Sure, lots of countries agree with this. But bunch of countries still have "death penalty", even one that is usually heralded as the "Savior of the West" still has judicial murders.
Besides, if everyone agreed "murder is bad" we wouldn't have wars, so obviously not everyone agrees with that.
> Stealing is bad?
This I don't even agree with 100%, depends on the context. You're starving while someone else is hoarding food for themselves for no particular reason? Totally justifiable to steal food from them to survive.
War argument kind of fits with this one too, clearly not everyone agrees stealing is bad.
Sure, lots of countries agree with this. But bunch of countries still have "death penalty", even one that is usually heralded as the "Savior of the West" still has judicial murders.
Besides, if everyone agreed "murder is bad" we wouldn't have wars, so obviously not everyone agrees with that.
> Stealing is bad?
This I don't even agree with 100%, depends on the context. You're starving while someone else is hoarding food for themselves for no particular reason? Totally justifiable to steal food from them to survive.
War argument kind of fits with this one too, clearly not everyone agrees stealing is bad.
Think most murderers or thiefs would agree about those?
for me and you? sure! for all humans? nope
Please write down in Simple English what you want, because your comment makes no sense whatsoever.
> Consider the implications of AI knowing everything about you, even down to your biometric behavior. Think about the threat of disinformation campaigns targeting democracies. I know my stance may seem weak in terms of ideals, and I feel a bitter regret toward my former self. But shouldn’t we, as humans, try to honor our shared values and act accordingly?
I don't understand this train of thought, what exactly are you saying?
I can interpret it as "it's wise to end online anonymity and feed all personal information (including biometrics) to AIs to enforce social rules" which is, frankly, an absurd proposal even if you are extremely naïve, not even considering one single negative aspect of the loss of all privacy, being managed by a machine in a societal level.
Or I can try to interpret it as feeding all of this into AIs create insurmountable threats, to democracy, to the individual, etc. which is somewhat what I'd expect to logically follow from feeding all this personal data into AI models.
But none of these interpretations are actually possible for me to land at based on what and how you wrote, I can't make sense of it.
I don't understand this train of thought, what exactly are you saying?
I can interpret it as "it's wise to end online anonymity and feed all personal information (including biometrics) to AIs to enforce social rules" which is, frankly, an absurd proposal even if you are extremely naïve, not even considering one single negative aspect of the loss of all privacy, being managed by a machine in a societal level.
Or I can try to interpret it as feeding all of this into AIs create insurmountable threats, to democracy, to the individual, etc. which is somewhat what I'd expect to logically follow from feeding all this personal data into AI models.
But none of these interpretations are actually possible for me to land at based on what and how you wrote, I can't make sense of it.
You're right.
What I was trying to say is that simply being on the internet today — using AIs, corporate networks, and so on — almost certainly exposes your most personal and unique information (the kind of data that reveals your very identity) to the entities operating those systems.
Sadly, I was implying that anonymity is becoming an obsolete concept. Then I tried to think of a law that could help the Swiss government track down malicious individuals, and I wondered whether that could actually serve as something beneficial — a way to protect people and their freedom.
What I was trying to say is that simply being on the internet today — using AIs, corporate networks, and so on — almost certainly exposes your most personal and unique information (the kind of data that reveals your very identity) to the entities operating those systems.
Sadly, I was implying that anonymity is becoming an obsolete concept. Then I tried to think of a law that could help the Swiss government track down malicious individuals, and I wondered whether that could actually serve as something beneficial — a way to protect people and their freedom.
Got it, thanks for clarifying!
I'm in complete agreement with you, I first got scared with the potential for profiling individuals through data collection over time some 15 years ago. I was working on a very small project from a startup, related to football/soccer, where we collected behavioural and sentiment data from football fans over time, in our service and around social media (mostly Twitter at the time), and had a first glimpse on what could be inferred about individuals just based on very public datapoints they'd produce.
That project opened my eyes, and the paranoia it created in me never really went away, it's a constant thought in my mind about how much data I'm generating for massive companies creating very accurate profiles of who I am: what I like and dislike, what I access, where I am, what I'm doing where I am, every single time I click on a link, a video, etc. I feel a little dread that I provided even more information about myself to machines programmed to crunch through all of this and materialise a view of who I am as a person. Right now it's mostly to serve me ads but the potential that absurd amount of information gathering has in the wrong hands truly terrify me.
The worst part is that there's almost no escape living a contemporary lifestyle, the only way is to engage with anything digital in very, very cautious ways, trying to cover every single trace and track you might leave behind while interacting with any digital product, and that is simply exhausting.
I'm in complete agreement with you, I first got scared with the potential for profiling individuals through data collection over time some 15 years ago. I was working on a very small project from a startup, related to football/soccer, where we collected behavioural and sentiment data from football fans over time, in our service and around social media (mostly Twitter at the time), and had a first glimpse on what could be inferred about individuals just based on very public datapoints they'd produce.
That project opened my eyes, and the paranoia it created in me never really went away, it's a constant thought in my mind about how much data I'm generating for massive companies creating very accurate profiles of who I am: what I like and dislike, what I access, where I am, what I'm doing where I am, every single time I click on a link, a video, etc. I feel a little dread that I provided even more information about myself to machines programmed to crunch through all of this and materialise a view of who I am as a person. Right now it's mostly to serve me ads but the potential that absurd amount of information gathering has in the wrong hands truly terrify me.
The worst part is that there's almost no escape living a contemporary lifestyle, the only way is to engage with anything digital in very, very cautious ways, trying to cover every single trace and track you might leave behind while interacting with any digital product, and that is simply exhausting.
>> Right now it's mostly to serve me ads but the potential that absurd amount of information gathering has in the wrong hands truly terrify me.
Unfortunately, it was already used to influence voters with specific psychological settings. And it worked so well that it gave me chills on how fragile we are.
Anyways, I need to dig out the law proposal because it surely is more aimed at protecting citizens than ripping their souls for the "government" (which almost doesn't make sense for a country like Switzerland).
Unfortunately, it was already used to influence voters with specific psychological settings. And it worked so well that it gave me chills on how fragile we are.
Anyways, I need to dig out the law proposal because it surely is more aimed at protecting citizens than ripping their souls for the "government" (which almost doesn't make sense for a country like Switzerland).
[deleted]
'You are being watched. The government has a secret system, a system you asked for, to keep you safe. A machine that spies on you every hour of every day. You've granted it the power to see everything, to index, order and control the lives of ordinary people. The government considers these people irrelevant. We don't. But to it, you are all irrelevant. Victim or perpetrator, if you stand in it's way we'll find you.'
If I stand in the way of letting everyone live in peace and with dignity? For sure, I'd better be OK with the "government" (you don't know Switzerland, do you?) finding me.
https://www.techradar.com/vpn/vpn-privacy-security/we-would-...