I’m on mobile so can’t see the sidebar…

Then I recommend upgrading your mobile experience to one that does. I personally prefer Voyager, “an Apollo-like open source web client for Lemmy. It’s a mobile-first app, but works great on desktop devices, too.”

Voyager PWA: https://vger.app/ Source code: https://github.com/aeharding/voyager

Comcast/Xfinity has been my least favorite ISP.

Why does Kagi Search require an account? Kagi Search requires an account only because it is a paid service which requires an account for the transaction. Note that Kagi does not collect any personal information for billing and that you can even use an anonymous payment card such as Privacy if you want to.

I’m not terribly thrilled with it, but a lot of VPNs do as well. Plus, this is their business model. If you’re not paying for the product, you are the product. If they’re caught double dipping (taking our money and lying about logging to sell), they’ll be out of business shortly.

They do claim to log practically nothing. https://kagi.com/privacy

If you search a lot, you should really look into Kagi Search, “a highly accurate, lightning-fast, user-centric, 100% privacy-respecting search engine with results augmented by non-commercial indexes and personalized searches.” Much better than the ad-supported ones, or even DDG, in my experience.

I can confirm HP is still the WORST.

Well, I haven’t been in an HP in a long time, but them forcing proprietary ink in their printers or bricking it is enough for me to not buy their computers as well (laptops or desktops).

allow to display it without having to download?

I can view the site without having to download with the below link. So not sure what you mean?

https://privacyspreadsheet.com/messaging-apps

Edit: this is with Vanadium in incognito, if it matters.

No Molly, an independent Signal fork for Android, listing? Among other things, Molly handles data encryption at rest better and also has Tor support…which your spreadsheet doesn’t even list Tor support.

I can understand not wanting to including Molly due to it being only on Android (though I think/hope a lot of privacy enthusiasts run GrapheneOS on Pixels) even though it currently rides the Signal servers so in compatible with other Signal clients, but at least add Tor compatibility, please.

There are three big reasons why we’re removing SMS support for the Android app now: prioritizing security and privacy, ensuring people aren’t hit with unexpected messaging bills, and creating a clear and intelligible user experience for anyone sending messages on Signal.

To me, all of those reasons are BS and easily gotten around. “Unexpected messaging bills?” Have a popup that warns you that this user doesn’t have an account and is about to send a SMS, potentially incurring a cost, as an example.

They just didn’t want to maintain the code and chased some users away. https://www.signal.org/blog/sms-removal-android/

Not really. DQ is a fairly large chain.

I guess people just started to realise that mini x86s exist too

People always knew x86s existed. I think the main culprit is the price gap between them and Pis is decreasing. Pis used to be around $35, which has skyrocketed to 3-5x MSRP, plus they were unavailable for a long time. Now the Pi’s performance to price ratio isn’t justifiable to most, so people pay a little more for the x86 but get so much more capability.

Since SMS is already sent in the clear, I actually use Google Messages. For those who also have it, it upgrades the SMS to RCS with end-to-end encryption. Sure, it’s nowhere near as good as Signal (which OP says these people won’t use), but it’s better than plain-text SMS.

How RCS chats keep your conversations secure

I am using rethink dns so i can’t run a vpn

RethinkDNS VPN / Proxifier: Rethink supports forwarding TCP and UDP connections over SOCKS5, HTTP CONNECT, and WireGuard tunnels. Split-tunneling further helps run multiple such tunnels at the same time and lets users route different apps over different tunnels. For example, one could route Firefox over SOCKS5 connecting to Tor, Netflix over WireGuard connecting through any popular VPN provider, and Telegram or WhatsApp over censorship-resistant HTTP CONNECT endpoints at the same time.

All your data will pass over other hardware owned by other people. The only real online privacy is not connecting to the internet to begin with.

And now we’re entering into the realm of encryption, especially end-to-end. Generally speaking, just because you’re sending information that touches other people’s hardware, doesn’t mean it’s public and readable.

I was gonna say air filter.

Specifically, the plug-ins are using our services in an unauthorized manner, which is causing significant economic harm to our Company.

How does this cause them “significant economic harm?” My immediate thought is they are losing out on data or ads, hence it being a privacy concern.

Lawnchair, according to the devs, is not abandoned. In late November (of 2023), they said:

Sorry for the long break in Lawnchair announcements.

We have made significant progress in regards to Lawnchair development, and we are now actually developing Lawnchair 13 (with A13 QuickSwitch support) and custom-made no-root global search. Stay tuned for more updates and sneak peeks.

Coming soon to a lawnmower near you™

(And no, we are not dead. Also No ETAs.)

Then in December:

Hello again!

This time around, we are now developing Lawnchair 14 (with A14 QuickSwitch support). Alongside that, we are also re-adding an option to Hide Dock and options for custom Feed Providers, alongside other new features (we wont give too many spoilers 👀)

We also plan to support QuickSwitch for Android 11 to Android 14, so you can use Lawnchair with QuickSwitch on all your recent devices. (We will prioritize A12.1 to A14 first though).

(As always, No ETAs)

If that were true, threat modeling wouldn’t exist.

I feel like we’re talking about different things. I’m talking about static concepts, if X is more secure than Y, not individual setups where something is tweaked. Threat modeling is tailoring the security to your needs. It doesn’t bend security of a static object or make the application of something less than what it is. It requires one’s actions to do that by not utilizing it.

Take bullet proof glass, for example. Bullet proof glass is more secure than regular glass. Now, do you need (does your threat model require) bullet proof glass? No? Ok, that doesn’t mean bullet proof is now less secure than regular glass, it’s just unneeded.

Depends on the particulars, and on the needs of the individual.

That’s not really how things like security works. It’s either more secure or it’s not. The security of a thing does not depend on needs. Now, does the application of it or does someone need it to be more secure? That’s where risk acceptance and the needs of the individual come into play.

I’m not going around presuming to tell other people what’s better for them, as one or two others in this thread are doing.

Same. I’m not saying “stop doing this.” I’m just trying to educate people and make sure they’re not operating with a misunderstanding. Needs of the individual and all that. I think some people just go crazy for something that’s not big tech, and then quit looking at the particulars.

that scare piece you linked would have the reader believe

So an indepth and critical analysis of something is now a “scare piece?” Ok.

N + X - Y ? N

Except now you’re adding an additional party to trust (the -Y). So it could still be considered less secure than N.