maxidorius

5 ms·

1.
by maxidorius 6mo ago
In their Privacy Policy [1], Section 8: > Office.EU is a service offered and operated by EUfforic Europe BV, registered with the Dutch chamber of commerce under registration number 98746243 and having its address at Dr. Kuyperstraat 10-A
2.
by maxidorius 10mo ago
I was merely making the distinction for those non-english natives people like me who tilted their head not getting it at first :D
3.
by maxidorius 10mo ago
"fuite" is french which means to escape, to flee. Flight is only in context of planes or flying transportation. As for the sense of it, you're right, it's either do something, go away, or do nothing.
4.
by maxidorius 2y ago
I recently bought a Tuxedo InfinityBook Pro 15 [1] which has 2 USB-C ports with one being USB 4 (equivalent to Thunderbolt4), 3 USB-A, 1 Ethernet, 1 HDMI, 1 audio jack and 1 SD card reader. I'm very much happy with the laptop and its b
5.
by maxidorius 2y ago
No rudeness taken, don't worry! TIL, I didn't know! Thanks!
6.
by maxidorius 2y ago
And then the customers will open support requests for code generated by an AI that misuse that very SDK. It doesn't look like OP's issue is with the code per say, only with the lack of skills of its customers, regardless of the
7.
by maxidorius 3y ago
And yet Thib, mentioned in the article, does say in an another comment that they are employed by Element but working for The Foundation, making it quite hard to know the difference between the two: https://news.ycombinator.com&#x
8.
by maxidorius 7y ago
I can only be happy to see that the research we made and the documents [1] we produced some months back have lead to changes that improve privacy in Matrix. It is a huge win for our nonprofit Libre Monde [2]. We are especially happy to see
9.
by maxidorius 7y ago
> "It's so commonly used exactly because it's a very simple one-size-fits-all approach". ICO says this [1] about choosing a lawful basis: "You must not adopt a one-size-fits-all approach. No one basis should be s
10.
by maxidorius 7y ago
Thank you for your input. I am not worried about any traction we are getting. People do care even if you think nobody does. Per example: https://github.com/privacytoolsIO/privacytools.io/pull/1047 I'll l
11.
by maxidorius 7y ago
Feel free to post the same with your real account instead of a puppet one, then I'll be happy to reply to all your points. I'm serious enough to put my name out there and own up to what I write - Are you also? Or are you ashamed?
12.
by maxidorius 7y ago
I guess then New Vector is actually our best sponsor: they always give us those very important things to write about, like a personal data breach that has a federation-wide scope. They certainly are generous! I'll ask them to renew our
13.
by maxidorius 7y ago
Because our document could be collected and processed illegally under GDPR. That the operator makes the conscious choice to have their name listed on their own organisation's website they are from is their own choice. Their organisatio
14.
by maxidorius 7y ago
Thank you for bringing our "failing out", which has an impact on the Personal Data leak itself, so I really hope people will look into it. As for "with the general matrix community", I believe the amount of projects and
15.
Notes on GDPR Compliance of Matrix.org (With Data Leak Disclosure), Part 2(github.com)
5 points by maxidorius 7y ago|8 comments
16.
by maxidorius 7y ago
Interesting that you tighten up privacy by adding more tracking to your main website with a cooking spanning sub-domains as well: https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix.org/commit/48545495afe1... and JS code fr
17.
by maxidorius 7y ago
Allowing a user to make themselves discoverable is fine. The real question is why was "vector.im" used and not "matrix.org", or the user simply prompted? And why is that data queryable without any kind of authentication?
18.
by maxidorius 7y ago
(One of the author of the research doc that triggered this blog entry here) It's good to finally see a reply, and it's good to see you are addressing some of the issues we have highlighted. It's a shame it took a whole resear
19.
by maxidorius 7y ago
We have answered to your claims of "being alarmist", "disproportionate FUD" and that we did not forget to disclose we are working on a fork which is not hostile. https://gist.github.com/maxidorius/57
20.
by maxidorius 7y ago
The document has been updated from feedback received all over the community, including new identified leaks and possible data correlations. We encourage anyone who already read the initial version to check out the revisions of it for new co
21.
by maxidorius 7y ago
Or what about joining the room given on the research paper and actually participating in the discussion? We would love to have some proper interaction where we can exchange network output and screen recordings that simply show first hand wh
22.
by maxidorius 7y ago
After talking with the other contributors of the doc, we decided on not going into further details. We acknowledge the need for reproducible investigation, but the document did not explain in a scientific manner how we reached such outcomes
23.
by maxidorius 7y ago
I believe you are missing the point of the document. It is not so much where the leaks go, but that they happen when there is no consent or knowledge of the transfer. Example: for Scalar, the issue says that Riot talks "too much"
24.
by maxidorius 7y ago
Totally fair point, thank you for bringing it up. Given the numerous build types (source, pip, debian packages, etc), what would you suggest to do in this case? Give the git commit hash maybe?
25.
by maxidorius 7y ago
To clarify: the paper does not claim a list with email addresses is made public or anything of the sort. Only that they can be queried without restriction or authentication. Once again, it's not about brute listing things. It's ab
26.
by maxidorius 7y ago
Thank you for your feedback! It is great to know if it was understandable or not, especially given its length.
27.
by maxidorius 7y ago
The document does not try to compare other chat applications with Riot. It does not try to say what is good or bad. We simply take how Riot is presented and understood by non-technical people, and see if its behaviour matches what they unde
28.
by maxidorius 7y ago
I would appreciate if we could stick to the points brought up in the notes instead of trying to discredit the work of several people (writers, reviewers, sanity checkers) who equally contributed to it. The document is clear that it puts the
29.
Notes on privacy and data collection of Matrix.org(gist.github.com)
144 points by maxidorius 7y ago|74 comments
30.
by maxidorius 7y ago
One of the swift steps should be to address https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/issues/1194 and https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/pull/1915 and https://g

More ›