soloActivist

cross-posted from: https://links.hackliberty.org/post/2667522

Apparently some company I do business with shared my data with another corp without me knowing, then that corp who I did not know had my data was breached.

WTF?

Then the breached corp who could not competently secure the data in the first place offers victims a gratis credit monitoring services (read: offers to let yet another dodgy corp also have people’s sensitive info thus creating yet another breach point). Then the service they hired as a “benefit” to victims outsources to another corp and breach point: Cloudflare.

WTF?

So to be clear, the biggest privacy abuser on the web is being used to MitM a sensitive channel between a breach victim and a credit monitoring service who uses a configuration that blocks tor (thus neglecting data minimization and forcing data breach victims to reveal even more sensitive info to two more corporate actors, one of whom has proven to be untrustworthy with private info).

I am now waiting for someone to say “smile for the camera, you’ve been punk’d!”.

Apparently some company I do business with shared my data with another corp without me knowing,

WTF?

then that corp who I did not know had my data was breached.

WTF?

Then the breached corp who could not competently secure the data in the first place offers victims gratis credit monitoring services (read: offers to let yet another dodgy corp also have people’s sensitive info thus creating yet another breach point). Then the service they hired as a “benefit” to victims outsources to another corp and breach point: Cloudflare.

WTF?

So to be clear, the biggest privacy abuser on the web is being used to MitM a sensitive channel between a breach victim and a credit monitoring service who uses a configuration that blocks tor (thus neglecting data minimization and forcing data breach victims to reveal even more sensitive info to two more corporate actors, one of whom has proven to be untrustworthy with private info).

I am now waiting for someone to say “smile for the camera, you’ve been punk’d!”.

To do an MX lookup over Tor, this command has worked for me for years:

$ torsocks dig @"$dns_server" -t mx -q "$email_domain" +noclass +nocomments +nostats +short +tcp +nosearch

In the past week or so it just hangs. My first thought was the DNS server I chose (8.8.8.8) started blocking tor. But in fact it does not matter what DNS server is queried. The whole Tor network is apparently blocking tor users from doing MX lookups.

Also notable that dig hangs forever. It does not timeout despite a default timeout interval of 5 seconds (according to the man page).

The link is Cloudflare-free, popup-free and reachable to Tor users.

(edit) Some interesting factors--

from the article:

For a period of over 2 years, Uber transferred those data to Uber's headquarters in the US, without using transfer tools. Because of this, the protection of personal data was not sufficient. The Court of Justice of the EU invalidated the EU-US Privacy Shield in 2020.

Yes but strangely & sadly the US benefits from an adequacy decision, which IIRC happened after 2020. This means the US is officially construed as having privacy protections on par with Europe. As perverse as that sounds, no doubt Uber’s lawyers will argue that point.

The Dutch DPA started the investigation on Uber after more than 170 French drivers complained to the French human rights interest group the Ligue des droits de l’Homme (LDH), which subsequently submitted a complaint to the French DPA.

Wow! I wonder what triggered so many drivers to consult a human rights group. I mean, consider that Uber users and drivers are all happy to run a closed-source Google-gated app.. this is not a demographic who cares about privacy. So what triggered 170 complaints? I wonder if the Dutch DPA would have taken any action had there not been 170 cross-border complainants.

The French DPA gives some interesting insight. Info to attempt to satisfy access requests were in English, not French, which breaks the accessibility rule. The French article gives more a feeling of not 170 proactive complaints, but maybe the human rights org complained on behalf of 170 drivers. I am quite curious from an activist point of view if 170 drivers proactively initiated a complaint.

The fourth breach is interesting:

by not explicitly mentioning the right to data portability in their privacy statement.

Is data portability even useful for Uber drivers in France? I’ve never used Uber (fuck Google), but I imagine drivers have feedback about how well they perform and maybe they want to port that data to an Uber competitor.. but there is no Uber competitor in France, is there? Is Lyft in France?

This email provider gives onion email addresses:

pflujznptk5lmuf6xwadfqy6nffykdvahfbljh7liljailjbxrgvhfid.onion

Take care when creating the username to pull down the domain list and choose the onion domain. That address you get can then be used to receive messages. Unlike other onion email providers, this is possibly the only provider who offers addresses with no clearnet variations. So if a recipient figures out the clearnet domain it apparently cannot be used to reach you. This forces Google and MS out of the loop.

It’s narrowly useful for some situations where you are forced to provide an email address against your will (which is increasingly a problem with European governments). Though of course there are situations where it will not work, such as if it’s a part of a procedure that requires confirmation codes.

Warning: be wary of the fact that this ESP’s clearnet site is on Cloudflare. Just don’t use the clearnet site and keep CF out of the loop.

I have lots of whistles to blow. Things where if I expose them then the report itself will be instantly attributable to me by insiders who can correlate details. That’s often worth the risks if the corporate baddy who can ID the whistle blower is in a GDPR region (they have to keep it to themselves.. cannot doxx in the EU, Brazil, or California, IIUC).

But risk heightens when many such reports are attributable under the same handle. Defensive corps can learn more about their adversary (me) through reports against other shitty corps due to the aggregation under one handle.

So each report should really be under a unique one-time-use handle (or no handle at all). Lemmy nodes have made it increasingly painful to create burner accounts (CAPTCHA, interviews, fussy email domain criteria, waiting for approval followed by denial). It’s understandable that unpaid charitable admins need to resist abusers.

Couldn’t this be solved by allowing anonymous posts? The anonymous post would be untrusted and hidden from normal view. Something like Spamassassin could score it. If the score is favorable enough it could go to a moderation queue where a registered account (not just mods) could vote it up or down if the voting account has a certain reputation level, so that an anonymous msg could then possibly reach a stage of general publication.

It could even be someone up voting their own msg. E.g. if soloActivist is has established a history of civil conduct and thus has a reputation fit for voting, soloActivist could rightfully vote on their own anonymous posts that were submitted when logged-out. The (pseudo)anonymous posts would only be attributable to soloActivist by the admin (I think).

A spammer blasting their firehose of sewage could be mitigated by a tar pit -- one msg at a time policy, so you cannot submit an anonymous msg until SA finishes scoring the previous msg. SA could be artificially slowed down as volume increases.

As it stands, I just don’t report a lot of things because it’s not worth the effort that the current design imposes.

EU-based ATMs tend to charge a fee of ~€4—6 on non-EU cards. I’m fine with that because my bank rebates those fees anyway. However something seems off with some French ATMs.

France has a reputation for having the highest banking fees in Europe and their ATMs seem consistent with that reputation. Some French ATMs charge €6 and that gets printed on the ATM receipt. As expected my bank sees the fee on their side in that case and they credit it back to me -- so no problem there. But then other ATMs in France do not print any fee on the receipt. Consequently my bank sees no fee on the transaction so they rebate nothing back to me. Are those ATMs reeaaally giving up the opportunity to charge a fee to non-EU cards? Certainly no Dutch ATMs ever pass up that opportunity. When calculating the xe.com rate of that day and comparing to the money drawn from my bank account, there is a discrepancy of ~$5.50 USD.

So it looks like the ATM is adding their fee into the euro amount. E.g. I pull out €400 & decline DCC, and the ATM prints a receipt showing €400 but then draws something like €405. In principle it should be evident from the bank statement. But my bank lacks transparency and omits from the statement the euro amount and also withholds the exchange rate they applied (which the contract says is the straight interbank rate with 0% markup).

I see two possible theories here:

1. my bank’s so called fee-free FX rate is really ~1%; OR
2. the French ATMs add the fee to the amount charged and hiding the fee. They do not benefit from it but could be sloppy programming. Maybe they think it does not matter because they are still charging whatever the customer agrees to anyway.

While I struggle to believe that 3 different French ATMs would pass up the chance to take a fee, I ran the numbers on a transaction that actually does transparently take a fee and result in a rebate. I still paid almost 1% more than the xe.com rate.

All fees must be disclosed on the ATM screen by law. But my memory is not so reliable.

Pushover consumers accepted “Know Your Customer” abuses to their 4th Amendment rights in the banking sector, so why wouldn’t the same work when it comes to internet service? I have no doubt that the privacy apathetic masses will accept this in a heartbeat.

The bank requires customers who use their phone app to:

1. buy a new recent smartphone, repeatedly (because the bank’s app detects when it is running on an Android emulator and denies service)
2. subscribe to mobile phone service (which also costs money and also in some regions requires supplying national ID to the mobile carrier to copy for their records which customers then must trust them to secure)
3. share their mobile phone number with a power abusing surveillance capitalist who promotes the oil industry (Google / Totaal)
4. create a Google account and agree to their terms (which includes not sharing software that was fetched from the Playstore jail)
5. share their IMEI# with Google
6. share all their app versions with Google, thus keeping Google informed of known vulns for which they are vulnerable
7. share with Google where they bank and trust Google not to sell that info to debt collectors
8. install proprietary non-free software and trust the security of non-reviewable code
9. share the mobile phone number with the bank

Why are so many people okay with this?

The state of medical privacy has become quite appalling lately. I started using a young doctor in a new office and they are gung ho on modern tech. That’s fine to some extent but they want to send me invoices and all correspondence via e-mail. No PGP of course. I did an MX lookup on their vanity email address & it resolves to an MS Outlook server.

I asked them for my test results. They offered to email them.

My response: I do not want sensitive medical info coming by e-mail via Microsoft’s servers. I did not give you a copy of my email address for that reason. It needs to be snail-mailed to me.

Perhaps of greater concern is that the receptionist acted like I am making a unusual request, and that they do not mail things. Apparently I am the only patient who has a problem with sensitive medical info going to Microsoft. So the receptionist is investigating whether she can get approval to mail me my results by post.

I wonder if someone in that clinic will have to run out and buy stamps because I have a problem with Microsoft.

cross-posted from: https://links.hackliberty.org/post/984895

Microsoft finances #AnyVision to produce facial recognition technology that the Israeli military uses against the Palestinian people.

So if you oppose Israel’s brutality then #Microsoft should be on your boycott list.

If you are undecided, these stories might help with your decision:

• snipers target a red-cross medic for execution (2018) → https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/03/middleeast/razan-al-najjar-gaza-nurse-killed/index.html
• Hind Rajab (6 year old; 2024) → https://www.guardian2zotagl6tmjucg3lrhxdk4dw3lhbqnkvvkywawy3oqfoprid.onion/world/2024/feb/10/im-so-scared-please-come-hind-rajab-six-found-dead-in-gaza-12-days-after-cry-for-help

For Hind Rajab, my boycott is on until I die.

cross-posted from: https://links.hackliberty.org/post/125466

My credit card issuer apparently never gets to know what I purchased at stores, cafes, & restaurants -- and rightfully so. The statement just shows the shop name, location, and amount.

Exceptionally, if I purchase airfare the bank statement reveals disclosures:

• airline who sold the ticket
• carrier
• passenger name
• ticket number
• city pairs

So that’s a disturbing over-share. In some cases the airline is a European flag carrier, so IIUC the GDPR applies, correct? Doesn’t this violate the data minimization principle?

Airlines no longer accept cash, which is also quite disturbing (and illegal in jurisdictions where legal tender must be accepted when presented for PoS transactions).

Has anyone switched to using a travel agent just to be able to pay cash for airfare?

UPDATE

A relatively convincing theory has been suggested in this other cross-posted community:

https://links.hackliberty.org/comment/414338

Apparently it’s because credit cards offer travel insurance & airlines have incentive to have another insurer involved. Would be useful if this were documented somewhere in a less refutable form.