Comment by HumblyTossed
2 years ago
It should only[0] be meta data, though. The push notification should signal the app that there is data to fetch, then the app goes and fetches it. The push notification itself should carry none of the data.
[0] still bad though and they should stop.
I so hate when people put words "only" and "metadata" in the same sentence...
It's important but what do we do about it?
You're using the internet afterall which isn't your network- it's someone else's! When you send a packet there is a header w/ information required for routing. Some call this the "outside of the envelope" if using the mail analogy. We can pass the buck by using a VPN but this also adds a VPN org that we need to trust. On the other hand, it's not your network! Why do you think you have a right to absolute secrecy and anonymity on someone else's network?
So every person in the world should build his own "network"?
5 replies →
Push notifications don't signal an active line of communication like that though nor do they connect who's talking, only the means. In all your examples the equivalent would be "They know someone called you."
"They know you got a push from McDonalds at 11am"
"They know you got a Slack message at 2pm"
All metadata is not created equal.
Dude, did you read my point? I said it was still bad.
I don’t agree with them plagiarizing the EFF’s blog post[0] but I think it is a mistake to use “only”. Both can be damaging and neither is clearly more or less bad since so much depends on the circumstances – like if the police have compromised one party in a conversation, they already have the payload so the real risk would be things like location data. We should probably treat both of those as equivalent risks until enough specific details about a situation are available to say which is riskier.
0. https://ssd.eff.org/module/communicating-others
1 reply →
"Still bad" strongly underestimates the problem. Metadata often is more important than the data as demonstrated in the above examples.
7 replies →
[flagged]