From what I understand: your website history on their Servers, if its even encrypted, you don't hold the keys.
this post was submitted on 08 Jul 2024
11 points (86.7% liked)
Cybersecurity
5379 readers
171 users here now
c/cybersecurity is a community centered on the cybersecurity and information security profession. You can come here to discuss news, post something interesting, or just chat with others.
THE RULES
Instance Rules
- Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
- No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
- No Ads / Spamming.
- No pornography.
Community Rules
- Idk, keep it semi-professional?
- Nothing illegal. We're all ethical here.
- Rules will be added/redefined as necessary.
If you ask someone to hack your "friends" socials you're just going to get banned so don't do that.
Learn about hacking
Other security-related communities !databreaches@lemmy.zip !netsec@lemmy.world !cybersecurity@lemmy.capebreton.social !securitynews@infosec.pub !netsec@links.hackliberty.org !cybersecurity@infosec.pub !pulse_of_truth@infosec.pub
Notable mention to !cybersecuritymemes@lemmy.world
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I don't think the code is even opensource. They thus don't have my trust.
Open source and security are orthogonal concepts. I trust independent security audits, which can be done on FOSS and proprietary software.
I'm not sure if Pocket has done that, but that would be my benchmark. I don't use Pocket because the functionality doesn't interest me.
I never talked about security. I said trust.
Closed source can tell you something is encrypted but never encrypts it. Closed source can tell you it's never sent to third parties for processing and do that the entire time. Closed source can make any other claim and you will have to trust them because you can't verify it.
Open source is the first step of trust. Without that, I trust you much less. With it, I trust you a little more. Not completely. More. At least more than closed source.