Was hoping this would cover the latest Twitter blunder of Andy Yen endorsing Trump's political picks and saying "republicans are there for small business now" which had a major blow back.
I think the blunder is firmly with the people who caused the blowback. I don’t think it’s a good idea to all be up in arms whenever someone says something you disagree with.
For context, people were upset about using the official accounts to endorse a party wholesale, in direct violation of their charter.
A subset were also upset with the nature of the endorsement.
And then you could also discuss whether a CEO of a company has to consider what they say, regardless if they're using an official account or not. This is more of a gray area, and has people divided.
I'm personally of the opinion that, as a CEO, you're always representing your company when speaking to the public to some extent.
In my opinion this is clearly a display of a character flaw. I simply don't trust Proton now that it's CEO revealed itself to be of such flawed thought. Isn't that the whole job of a CEO?
> I don’t think it’s a good idea to all be up in arms whenever someone says something you disagree with
Of course not, but there's a difference between disagreeing with which is the best recipe for a cheesecake, the best castle in France, or whether or not it's acceptable to invade your neighbouring countries, if the government should be following the law/constitution, or basic biology, etc.
Some opinions one disagrees with are very worth to be up in arms. I'd even say that people have a civic duty of being up in arms against certain egregious topics. Say if a politician says that they want to allow for 9 year olds to be married to adults; or a rich guy backing multiple politicians all over the world Sieg Heils on national television; or a politician that just got elected is asking for money for favours from companies; or there's talk of "other"ing significant swathes of the population.
To the best of my knowledge he endorsed specific behavior about specific policies, not "Trump's political picks".
I wish topics vaguely adjacent to US politics could be discussed in less divisive and polarized ways.
Even if the VPN provider is doing something naughty-ish, just decoupling netflow info from your IRL id/address/financials/probably TV habits info has value. Even if you can’t control the usage of behavior data by multiple organizations, you can try to “anonymize” it at the boundaries between them. Indirection, to minimize how much becomes associated with your identity.
Really only valid for individual company adversaries though, depends on your threat model I guess.
Legit question: What can an ISP collect when most of the time I'm going to secure "https:" websites? I mean, they can only see the website I'm going to, but not what is going on there, right?
Is just collecting where people are going that lucrative to sell?
It's more most smaller VPN brands are surprisingly owned by one company Nord.. It's not all vpns it's just if you took 100 brands 90 of them are owned leased from Nord
The fact that it's shown in all Hollywood films as "secure" email, and Navy Seals guys on youtube are recommending it in unison—should tell you all you need to know... Not to mention the DDoS protection racket the Israelis (coordinated with the BND) pulled on Proton for traffic analysis. See their own statement on the matter: https://proton.me/support/protonmail-israel-radware
ask them why they make deals with swiss government and bend to their political whims. Proton can move anywhere else and not be at the mercy of secret orders and backroom deals. but they seem very content on selling a product that is falsely advertised.
damn the HN title got changed. The original title was "VPN is now the resistance tool of choice in authoritarian regimes" I thought its pretty funny that another VPN app is listed as #10.
Readit News
Some context on reddit: https://old.reddit.com/r/ProtonMail/comments/1i2nz9v/on_poli...
A subset were also upset with the nature of the endorsement.
And then you could also discuss whether a CEO of a company has to consider what they say, regardless if they're using an official account or not. This is more of a gray area, and has people divided.
I'm personally of the opinion that, as a CEO, you're always representing your company when speaking to the public to some extent.
Of course not, but there's a difference between disagreeing with which is the best recipe for a cheesecake, the best castle in France, or whether or not it's acceptable to invade your neighbouring countries, if the government should be following the law/constitution, or basic biology, etc.
Some opinions one disagrees with are very worth to be up in arms. I'd even say that people have a civic duty of being up in arms against certain egregious topics. Say if a politician says that they want to allow for 9 year olds to be married to adults; or a rich guy backing multiple politicians all over the world Sieg Heils on national television; or a politician that just got elected is asking for money for favours from companies; or there's talk of "other"ing significant swathes of the population.
Why is a privacy focused company from Switzerland kissing the ring? It’s a relevant question given the business they are in.
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment
On the other hand, a reputable VPN provider has everything to lose if word got out that they collect or sell information.
The privacy calculus is: 100% chance vs some small chance.
Really only valid for individual company adversaries though, depends on your threat model I guess.
Edit: it’s sad that I need a threat model
Is just collecting where people are going that lucrative to sell?
https://proton.me/support/payment-options#cash
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_AG
DE-CIX is a known SIGINT collection site.
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment
https://apps.apple.com/us/charts/iphone
Still interesting that it's #10 though.