alt.hn

12/31/2025 at 6:39:40 PM

On privacy and control

 https://toidiu.com/blog/2025-12-25-privacy-and-control/

by todsacerdoti

12/31/2025 at 8:17:53 PM

As much as I'd love to daily drive an OS like GrapheneOS, the risk of running into apps that use Google Integrity API thereby making it impossible to run those apps on Graphene is too much of an inconvenience.

I took a look at this curated list of bank apps[1] supported on Graphene OS and I'm glad that a large majority of them work on Graphene. However, just my luck that one of the banks I use on this list isn't supported.

In my country, the state is enforcing a lot of essential workflows to be digital-first (and in extreme cases digital-exclusive) and I dread to think needing these services at a critical moment and the choice of my OS making it impossible for me. This is more of a commentary on my government's choices but it's a reality for me.

In any case, I don't think it's practical to go cold turkey and switch to a privacy focused phone without testing waters first to see which of your of workflows break and then reason about the tradeoffs/workarounds.

I do admire folks who use GrapheneOS as a daily driver, I'd like to chat them up if I find them in the wild.

https://privsec.dev/posts/android/banking-applications-compa...

by arionmiles

12/31/2025 at 9:19:24 PM

> In my country, the state is enforcing a lot of essential workflows to be digital-first (and in extreme cases digital-exclusive) and I dread to think needing these services at a crticial moment and the choice of my OS making it impossible for me. This is more of a commentary on my government's choices but it's a reality for me.

If my country did this I would get a cheap used device for this purpose and keep it powered off. I refuse to carry a pocket spy for the sake of convenience. I find that it’s rarely an issue.

by iamnothere

12/31/2025 at 11:16:25 PM

Another daily GrapheneOS driver here. I've kept banking apps off my phone anyway, and I do banking via desktop/website (I don't understand why people need to do banking 'on the go') and just use a physical credit card for tap payments when I'm out and about.

I do have older Android devices that I have run banking apps on, that I can revert to if necessary, but there's a fair bit of inconvenience I would be happy to endure to avoid being forced into that final option.

What I would recommend is a slow transition, and just start using it at home. If you have GrapheneOS on it's most paranoid settings (exploit protections) there will be exceptions you'll need to allow for a few apps.

by BLKNSLVR

1/1/2026 at 1:49:21 PM

Atleast for me I still need atleast two banking apps so I can: - Send money to friends - Deposit checks

That being said I haven't had issues with using them.

by class3shock

1/1/2026 at 4:16:08 AM

It's very country dependent. In the US, I don't think many banks do that, but I heard in Europe this is used a lot more, presumably due to more regulatory bs.

It's worth noting GrapheneOS with the locked bootloader will meet basic integrity, and that's what most apps need anyway. Strong integrity requires a whitelisted OS by Google and hardware to support it, but there are many older devices that do not meet it, so it will likely inconvenience too many people to be enforced for now.

by crapple8430

12/31/2025 at 8:24:19 PM

I worried about that too, but jumped in and it hasn't been an issue at all in two years. Including three bank apps. And it's usually so easy to reset to vanilla Android if you need to that it shouldn't be your moat.

by delichon

12/31/2025 at 9:51:00 PM

Also, there are almost always alternatives, like the mobile website.

Things like Apple/Google Wallet aren’t significantly superior to a contactless credit/debit card.

About the only bank thing I can think of that actually requires an app is check deposit, which is super rare.

by dangus

12/31/2025 at 9:19:22 PM

Same. No issues on any apps for me.

by zackify

12/31/2025 at 10:20:54 PM

As someone who daily-drives GrapheneOS, there isn't a single app that I want to use that is broken. I don't see any reason to use regular Android.

by jstanley

1/1/2026 at 1:42:03 PM

I've used GrapheneOS for years now and it is the easiest-to-use, lowest friction privacy oriented software I've interacted with.

I'm not sure why one banking app not working would be a deal breaker (Can you not live without that specific banking app?) or why things being "digital-first" would be an issue (Are you talking about a government app not working?). The only people I think that it isn't practical for are those that need a specific dual factor authentication app for their job that doesn't work on it or someone that uses there phone for their business as a payment processor that requires an app that doesn't work on it. Otherwise it's kinda install it and forget about it, which is how I wish more privacy focused software worked.

by class3shock

1/1/2026 at 2:22:37 PM

I've been using GrapheneOS for years, I can't go back to another OS due to its ease of use, speed, and awesome features baked into my day to day use now.

There is one banking app that stopped working, and you know what? I dont use it now. I'm not about to let a bank dictate how I use my most personal device. I use a desktop if I need to access that info, and it forces me to be deliberate about it too.

by b3nji

12/31/2025 at 8:55:55 PM

I run GrapheneOS as a daily driver and slowly removed all proprietary software from my device by looking for FOSS alternatives on F-Droid. Luckily, I'm able to access banking and government in a web browser on a dedicated profile.

I do have a second Android device with a stock ROM that I keep turned off in a drawer in case I ever need to use an app that requires Play Integrity in an emergency.

by closuregarden

1/1/2026 at 7:30:31 AM

We shouldn't install apps that use the Google Play Integrity or are closed-source in the first place. That's what I do.

The issues with GrapheneOS for me are:

1. They don't support rooting the OS. This is such a basic requirement for me. Why would I use an OS that doesn't let me do anything and everything with it?

2. They only support Google Pixel phones that don't have kill switches for the microphone, camera, radio and so on, as far as I know. GrapheneOS may be very secure, but nothing is 100% secure. Except cutting power to the mic. I'd be fine with physically removing the accelerometer and other sensors that can act as mics, even the mic itself. But newer phones are a bitch to open and close as they use glue instead of screws.

So right now I'm waiting for a Linux phone that's priced normally. I tried the PinePhone a couple of years ago, but it was an awful experience. Hopefully something comes soon. If not - I'll use my dumb phone.

by bgbntty2

1/1/2026 at 8:17:55 AM

1. It's not possible to root GrapheneOS or any Android-based OS and preserve the Android security model. That would run entirely counter to the goal of the GOS. It can be done but shouldn't.

2. They have implemented kill switches for these on the software level. Afaik there's nothing up dispute these working just as well as hardware switches assuming proper verified install of GOS.

by Itoldmyselfso

1/1/2026 at 11:22:47 AM

1. I've read that rooting breaks Android's security model, but I have yet to find a detailed explanation of how it actually lowers Android's security, especially compared to desktop OSes that are usually rooted, like Linux or MacOS.

2. Software kill switches are prone to software attacks, aren't they? They can't be as secure as hardware kill switches unless we can prove the software kill switches can't be attacked by software. I doubt anyone can prove this.

by bgbntty2

1/2/2026 at 2:34:56 AM

Approximately, if the user doesn't have root then there's no way to trick them. They also can't access internal app files which gives app authors tight control over how their software is used.

That's the security model. Giving users root breaks both of those assumptions, hence it breaks the security model.

Notice that it is clearly in the best interests of users to at least have this option. But modern BigTech operating systems are designed around corporate interests, not yours. And security professionals seem to prefer to ignore inconvenient things like user freedom.

by fc417fc802

1/1/2026 at 7:29:56 PM

> how it actually lowers Android's security, especially compared to desktop OSes that are usually rooted, like Linux or MacOS

Mobile OSes are notoriously more secure than desktop ones, precisel because of the security model.

by palata

1/1/2026 at 4:13:51 AM

I wonder if it would be feasible to build an automated phone-using robot, and access it remotely for any kind of apps enforcing that type of crap. There is really nothing they can do in terms of device attestation to prevent it.

by crapple8430

12/31/2025 at 8:59:57 PM

I believe there is some support for the API although its not perfect.

by fylo

12/31/2025 at 11:09:24 PM

You're blowing this entirely out of proportion. The vast vast majority of apps work without issue with sandboxed play services. Yes it's less plug and play than a stock os. No it's not a life-ending inconvenience.

by andrepd

1/1/2026 at 12:59:10 AM

Just looked - Microsoft Authenticator doesn't appear to work. I might be able to get off of it but it will take some prep. My banks are supported so that's good.

by mtone

1/1/2026 at 8:09:19 AM

Microsoft authenticator should work on GOS, I can only find single person saying it doesn't but there's plenty of reasons it might not work for them (vpn, too strict exploit protection settings). And there's multiple people mentioning it working fine.

by Itoldmyselfso

1/1/2026 at 7:31:37 PM

Microsoft Authenticator works on my GrapheneOS (I have the Play Services, not sure if it matters).

by palata

1/1/2026 at 1:56:52 AM

Why would you use Microsoft Authenticator when there are hundreds of other apps that manage OTPs?

Use aegis https://f-droid.org/packages/com.beemdevelopment.aegis/

by andrepd

1/1/2026 at 11:23:45 AM

Because many admins are horrible and disable TOTP for "security".

My uni does it and I've had use the only alternative option, cell call, and rigged Tasker to automatically answered and play the needed tone so I don't need to carry it with me.

by pona-a

1/1/2026 at 2:19:16 AM

Good question. That was for my MS account/licenses and some Azure stuff. I use Google Authenticator for most things.

Thanks for the link, I'll take a look. I might just move it to a secondary device first.

by mtone

1/1/2026 at 12:51:22 AM

Problem is that if the app that doesn't work is not fungible (see your gym app, your banking app, your community app, etc) then you are out. The best compromise is to have a backup phone for incompatible non-fungible apps

by bossyTeacher

12/31/2025 at 8:55:24 PM

> As much as I'd love to daily drive an OS like GrapheneOS

The Play Integrity shenanigans is mostly on app developers.

That said, good thing GrapheneOS will launch its own Android phone: https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/27687-new-manufacturer-theo... / https://piunikaweb.com/2025/10/13/grapheneos-ending-pixel-ex... / https://www.androidauthority.com/grapheneos-phone-wait-or-bu...

Provided GrapheneOS is cleared by Google to launch it as an "Android" device. Given the kind of changes GrapheneOS packs, it may or may not meet Android's mandatory CCD (compatibility) requirements.

by ignoramous

1/1/2026 at 6:56:55 AM

It's not their own phone. It's an OEM phone that will be supported by GrapheneOS by flashing it. Once you do it, there's no reason to believe it wont have the same play integrity issues that it currently has on pixel devices.

by privacyking

12/31/2025 at 10:48:36 PM

> The Play Integrity shenanigans is mostly on app developers.

I completely agree, but as a user I'm the victim of the developers choice.

by fuzzzerd

12/31/2025 at 8:45:54 PM

Is the app the only way to access what you need? I've never once install the app of any bank I've ever used (10ish) and never found myself wishing I had.

by kgwxd

12/31/2025 at 10:09:28 PM

Same, mostly, one bank I keep an account at to support Zelle payments which they only offer through their app

by jazzyjackson

1/1/2026 at 12:53:11 AM

An increasing number of new services are app only or have a web interface with basic functionality. Dating apps and banking apps are commonly in this category especially if they are relatively new

by bossyTeacher

12/31/2025 at 8:44:05 PM

I've seen a couple of apps try to use Play Integrity, get blocked by GrapheneOS, and keep on running. Maybe I'm being locked out of something, but it's not something I use anyway.

Note that I don't use banking or government apps. If I bank online it's via the web.

by bitwize

12/31/2025 at 10:24:53 PM

It does seem like a lot of apps continue to function on GrapheneOS after the "Play Integrity" check fails (or at least after Graphene notifies the user that the Play Integrity API has been called). I suspect either:

A) These apps have implemented only the check so far, and will eventually refuse to run or limit functionality at some point in the future.

B) These apps have noted the failure and certain functionality, especially communicating with servers to load "protected" content, will fail even if the app otherwise continues to run.

by sfRattan

1/1/2026 at 3:31:04 AM

but who says you have to limit yourself to one device? it's mildly inconvenient to carry more than one, sure, but the added benefit of an air gap between "serious business" and "personal life" is very much worth it, imo.

by Alex2037

12/31/2025 at 8:16:14 PM

Agree that "control" is a much better framing, since it doesn't suggest a need for secrecy and therefore embarrassing/unacceptable/untoward behavior that needs to stay behind drawn window blinds. I'm also fond of "agency" and "digital self-sovereignty" as alternatives.

But fine, I'll be the one to say it: Cloudflare isn't one of the good guys here and as an entity it shouldn't be trusted. It doesn't matter how pure their stated motives appear to be now, or how unmarred their track record is so far. It's a corporation that has control over an ever-increasing share of internet infrastructure, and is susceptible to the same risks as any other tech monopolist basket that we all decide to put our eggs in. Maybe more risky than the others, given how deep in the stack its influence is buried.

What happens when a government forces it to NXDOMAIN porn or put nuisance captchas in front of dissident blogs? Is there some reason people think this one is different?

by nyx

12/31/2025 at 8:37:56 PM

> Cloudflare isn't one of the good guys here

Came here to say the same thing, post was interesting until I got to that point.

> nuisance captchas

Try using the internet outside of the western world and major hubs. Cloudflare make it so painful with captchas and browser integrity checks

by ccakes

1/1/2026 at 12:55:38 AM

This is a case of "When your salary depends on believing one thing, you better believe it.". OP works for Cloudflare and that is blinding his views sadly.

I 100% agree, any entity with a significantly large control of the internet cannot be trusted. And the lower in the stack the smaller the control portion needed for distrust.

by bossyTeacher

1/1/2026 at 12:28:31 PM

The article definitely took a sharp and unexpected left towards the end.

by mac-attack

1/1/2026 at 4:23:11 AM

> What happens when

Not even this. If you do what OP says on the firefox, and turn on ResistFingerprinting, you'd be seeing many Cloudflare captchas a day. In effect it directly punishes you having any privacy or control. I wonder if they have an internal whitelist for employees? /s

by crapple8430

12/31/2025 at 8:37:46 PM

The only thorn in the opine is Cloudflare. Everything looks reasonable but CF. I get that DNS is free, it is OP's employer and registry being offered sans margin but it doesn't make up for the fact that CF is on its way to become the biggest gatekeeper and strangle the freenet if it wishes to do so.

by navigate8310

12/31/2025 at 8:46:19 PM

Them being employed by Cloudflare means you should take the article with a grain of salt IMO.

by OGEnthusiast

12/31/2025 at 7:45:26 PM

> Instead of "privacy" we really should be talking about "control".

Fantastic. This is what I have been shifting towards these past couple years. Hardly anyone likes to be controlled, right?

by jumpingpants

1/1/2026 at 4:21:09 AM

They are separate but related concerns. Privacy is what you have (or don't have) right now. Control is what you can use to keep or throw it away in the future.

Apple gives you some privacy, better than most Android by default. But it gives you no control. If they decide you don't deserve privacy a year down the line, well, too bad.

by crapple8430

12/31/2025 at 8:52:35 PM

I don't but it seems a LOT of people do. They even seem to prefer it.

by kgwxd

12/31/2025 at 9:45:56 PM

Control means ownership. Ownership means work.

Until they've been burned by unspoken realities of not owning some piece of their own digital lives, most people will continue to prefer being tenants, rather than owners.

Technology is only the most recent domain in which we can observe the human tendency to prefer the short term, incurious ease and license not to think that tenancy provides over the long term, ongoing work and thorough understanding that ownership demands. To become an owner you need some deeper intrinsically cultivated reason to desire it.

by sfRattan

1/1/2026 at 11:45:38 AM

> Until they've been burned

Or as someone put it: "You can't make people care".

Most western countries are democracies because people in the past got burned by dictatorships (including monarchies). Many of them died because of the dictators (whether they were forced to fight a war of conquest or imprisoned for saying the wrong thing). Many of them died to remove (kill, execute, make flee) the dictators.

There are 2 domains remaining where we still have dictatorships:

- Corporations. Not only do workers usually not have any way make decisions but they produce much more wealth than they actually capture. Cory Doctorow said that an average programmer makes $1M in profits for the company - how much does actually go into his pocket and to whom does the rest go? This is the core of rising economic inequality.

- Technology. This is what OP's article is about. There's not a clean hierarchical power structure you can point to but it's obvious companies have a huge power advantage over users.

by martin-t

12/31/2025 at 9:17:20 PM

My next low hanging fruit is certainly to make my LLM usage local, my queries contain much more sensitive information than what is mentioned by this post.

In the past I dropped off privacy when it was too inconvenient. For example I dropped protonmail because of bad search, left Linux desktop for Windows due to missing software, etc, I still haven't found the sweet spot for LLMs yet.

For the rest, I'm currently running the full macOS, iOS, safari, Apple passwords and I'm decently happy with this middle ground.

by ismailmaj

1/2/2026 at 7:17:14 AM

The absence of solutions for LLM privacy on that list is telling. We’ve figured out how to have private communications with other humans via end to end encryption but arguably we’re leaking a lot more to chatbots about ourselves in a few sessions than we do to even our closest friends and family over Whatsapp

by 3s

1/1/2026 at 12:53:49 AM

This topic came up at Christmas dinner with family. I had no luck coming up with a reason why they should care.

"Control" would not be a better argument with them. Everything is already controlled. What amazon, google, youtube, facebook, instagram, tiktok, netflix, spotify, recommend to you is all controlled. Various insurance (health, car, etc) is relatively controlled. Through an employeer you usually get health insurance. If you're self or un-employed they require, or did require, extensive health info before they would let you sign up.

And, I'm not entirely sure I disgree with that. Why should my premiums be higher because someone else wants to participate in risky behavior?

Like many here I go though lots of trouble to stay anon. VPNs, multiple unrelated browser profiles, multiple browsers, never use the same email address twice, differnt passwords, etc.... But I can't really think of a truely compelling reason to to give to my family why they should do anything similar.

I can mention things like the girl who's parents discovered she was pregnent when advertisers started sending her baby care ads. But, that's just not relevant to them.

by socalgal2

1/1/2026 at 4:47:49 AM

Control is the other end of freedom. Do they hate freedom? ;-)

People often say they have nothing to hide, but they don’t get to decide, the powers that be will make that determination. Law enforcement, civil judgements, corporate penalties, etc.

Everyone breaks some rules. For example, Ford knows you’re speeding while GM sells that info to your insurance company.

by mixmastamyk

1/1/2026 at 11:19:26 AM

That example of Ford knownig you're speeding wouldn't change their mind. In fact I'm not sure it I have a problem with it. You already need a license to drive. Given how bad drivers are getting I actually feel like I wish all cars were tracked and tickets given out. Bad driving risks other people's lives.

On the other hand, it's likely the traffic violations will go down as self driving car usage increased. Though of course, that will increase the surveillance

by socalgal2

1/1/2026 at 5:16:42 PM

If you are trying to convince people to care about their privacy etc, you’re doing a lousy job.

They also know when you’re having sex in the car, but I didn’t mention it out of politeness.

by mixmastamyk

12/31/2025 at 9:05:11 PM

> "I don't need to care about privacy because I have nothing to hide." is an argument that I have heard countless times. I found this argument difficult to counter in the past, yet deep-down I knew the reasoning was flawed.

This one is pretty easy to counter. Just ask the person to hand you their phone and go through their messages and photos. There's no one that wouldn't feel restless about it.

by barishnamazov

1/1/2026 at 12:11:23 AM

Ask them for their home address.

Ask them for their children's names and the school they go to.

Ask them their mothers maiden name, their first pets name, and they street name they lived on as a child.

Ask to film them going about their job (if they're law enforcement).

Ask them for a copy of their bank statement.

Ask to see their browsing history.

Ask for a key to their house.

by BLKNSLVR

12/31/2025 at 9:18:14 PM

I usually ask if they poop with the door closed. We all know what you are doing in there, and we do the same thing. No need to hide.

Or, why do you get your mail in an envelope? I can see that it is your financial statements.

Why do you have curtains on your home? I can go to Zillow and see the interior of your house from years ago.

by zikduruqe

12/31/2025 at 9:28:26 PM

I think the better argument is (of course, a wrong one), "I trust that big companies won't share my stuff publicly".

by barishnamazov

1/1/2026 at 8:00:23 PM

Why is that wrong? In the vast majority of cases (at least in Europe) they don't. Now we have the GDPR it's even more difficult.

by IshKebab

12/31/2025 at 9:55:16 PM

> I use Cloudflare's DNS because I trust them more than other companies; purely based on their business and how their incentives align

The author fails to mention that they are currently working at Cloudflare, I think that should be made clear otherwise I see it as misleading to the reader, like so many pointed it out, Cloudflare is just a corporation like any other corporation out there...

by newuser999999

12/31/2025 at 10:03:37 PM

At least of now, they do when around when they talk about DNS

by beached_whale

12/31/2025 at 11:26:52 PM

I agree. Keeping your data private is just not a big enough motivation. For me though the big issue is making sure one keeps access to their data forever. It’s so easy these days to use everything from one vendor and then get access shut off with no recourse. That is IMO the biggest fear everyone should have these days.

Yes, the only solution is self-hosting and yes it requires being your own sysadmin and it’s hard and not convenient. That’s why I’m building https://github.com/ibizaman/selfhostblocks. It’s a NixOS collection of modules that sets up services that fit well together and have declarative setup for LDAP and SSO. They have integrated backups, https and other features required for self-hosting. Also, the LDAP and SSO setup is tested with e2e NixOS VM tests that use playwright to make sure users can login if they have access.

I’m hoping to lower the bar to self-hosting significantly.

by ibizaman

12/31/2025 at 7:47:33 PM

excellent article, you've inspired me to get off Gmail finally (Google's been sending me angry emails about hitting my storage limit for ages anyway).

side note, your link to Tuta is broken - think it's an internal link by accident

by bstsb

12/31/2025 at 8:30:22 PM

They also wrote "Messanging"

by HelloUsername

12/31/2025 at 11:22:42 PM

> I have nothing to hide

I really dislike that this is always the argument that's being attacked. It's not even what most people are thinking when they respond.

It's clear that the exchange is privacy for effort. If I want to self host, I need to pay time and money to get it all working, then continue to maintain it forever.

by parentheses

12/31/2025 at 11:06:43 PM

Somewhat related - I want control over devices in my home. Too many things these days need an internet connection to be useful. I run my own OpenWRT router and set up firewall policies for them so they only get the access they need to provide their function. But I'm getting tired of it.

I'm looking for a nice tool that would give me that "control" over my home network -- at the very least, proper observability. Like "little snitch / open snitch" but running on my home router... and I haven't found anything like that yet.

by beagle3

1/1/2026 at 4:54:20 AM

The article starts off on the wrong foot and there the article ends.

Do you think that 'government' (and ie anyone that works for one) is any 'different' to anyone else? Or are we all people? Or maybe there are other descriptors?

Wanting privacy is not a crime or admission of guilt.

Note - the EU politicians exempt themselves from this surveillance under "professional secrecy" rules. They get privacy. You and your family do not.

by IndySun

12/31/2025 at 8:13:38 PM

What's the story for maps and POI search on GrapheneOS? I'm assuming using Google Maps is a non-starter since that defeats the whole point of all these privacy protections in the first place.

by OGEnthusiast

12/31/2025 at 9:33:48 PM

Take a look at CoMaps. It's fully open source with open governance model.

It reached the level of being usable for general population and it improves rapidly due to gained momentum.

by miroljub

12/31/2025 at 8:15:59 PM

OSMAnd and others can do offline maps and POI search if you want.

You could also run Google Maps web through Tor if needed. Tor is easy to use on Android.

by nextos

1/1/2026 at 3:35:30 PM

[dead]

by mr_woozy

12/31/2025 at 9:34:54 PM

I use organic maps. I also have a seperate user profile that can not run in the background that has Google maps installed and use that sparingly. I've used it once in the last 6 months.

by getpokedagain

12/31/2025 at 8:15:54 PM

Yeah I think most people use Organic Maps or Magic Earth (with the latter being closed and not as privacy-respecting as the former).

by mikeyouse

12/31/2025 at 8:38:43 PM

This reminds me of the old meme:

> Tech enthusiasts: My entire house is smart.

> Tech workers: The only piece of technology in my house is a printer and I keep a gun next to it so I can shoot it if it makes a noise I don't recognize.

by 65

12/31/2025 at 9:07:54 PM

One of my computer science professors from MIT has installed a smart home. I was over for a dinner and he told me a story about how he hit a third-party API rate limit on opening his garage door. Apparently, these things aren't self-hosted for the most part.

by barishnamazov

12/31/2025 at 11:47:20 PM

I have a pretty deep "smart home" setup and it's all run locally from a laptop in my closet with Home Assistant OS. I have run into 0 limitations. All my devices are kept on their own dedicated Zigbee mesh and/or network separate from my LAN. Only way to communicate in or out is via Tailscale. It's incredibly easy to get started too.

by ajcp

12/31/2025 at 8:03:15 PM

FYI: NetGuard is an open source rootless firewall for vanilla Android which also allows per-app network access control, for those unable or unwilling to go with other OSs. Works by leveraging Android VPN to block instead of tunneling packets.

by afarah1

12/31/2025 at 8:53:02 PM

Doesn't running as a VPN mean it's incompatible with running an actual VPN at the same time? That's a pretty big caveat.

by yjftsjthsd-h

12/31/2025 at 9:32:13 PM

pretty sure by design only one vpn can be running at a time per OS

by 867-5309

12/31/2025 at 8:54:12 PM

Finally. Someone in the wild that runs passwordstore.org

I thought there was only a couple of us.

by zikduruqe

1/1/2026 at 12:40:31 AM

A larger percentage of HN users were pass users when HN was less mainstream. Late adopters (of forums, technologies, etc.) tend to be GUI lovers because late adoption and a preference for GUIs are both linked to uninquisitiveness.

by subsection1h

12/31/2025 at 11:27:43 PM

Surprised to see Firefox.

Gave it up a while ago, for:

Librefox on the linux device.

Waterfox on the android device.

Orion on the APP£ device.

by foxden

1/1/2026 at 12:47:48 AM

> Librefox on the linux device.

Librefox hasn't been updated since 2019:

https://github.com/intika/Librefox/commits/master

by subsection1h

1/1/2026 at 10:03:07 AM

They must have meant LibreWolf.

I've used it as a 2nd browser for past 2 years although on Speedometer benchmark it constantly gets a much lower score than Firefox. You can feel LibreWolf slower it on heavy sites like YouTube.

https://browserbench.org/Speedometer3.1/

I also notice Chromium browsers get lower score than official Chrome binary. Apparently Google make further modifications to Chromium before compiling (that they don't make public).

by DarkFuture

12/31/2025 at 11:10:59 PM

Are these artistic spelling choices or are they genuine typos? I feel like I am missing some context here.

by mcny

1/1/2026 at 1:07:06 AM

Original HN title: "Privacy and control. My tech setup"

by 1vuio0pswjnm7

12/31/2025 at 8:51:25 PM

The ad blocker is uBlock Origin ... the blog misstates it as uOrigin.

by 50208

12/31/2025 at 8:46:19 PM

> Domain: I switched to Cloudflare Registrar recently because they offered a lower price ... I don't think Cloudflare really cares to make money on domain registration.

Well, they don't today.

Speaking of "control", it is bad form to keep both the nameservers and registrar with the same company (think takedown requests / account lockout / etc).

by ignoramous

1/1/2026 at 4:35:33 AM

> I would also recommend Bitwarden for those who want a better UI experience.

The newest release of bitwarden absolutely sucks. The images that they're using look AI-generated (specifically, there's some weird stuff around line thickness, colour and shading that, as the spawn of two artists, I do not believe a competent artist/designer would make), but also the images are just pixellated and grainy on my 1080p screen. The design has gone from "clean and usable" to "utterly dogshit", and the response time has gone down the pan.

For domain registration I recommend netim, as they neatly reduced the price that I pay from £30 down to £5, which made a huge difference personally.

by fao_

12/31/2025 at 11:41:44 PM

my privacy setup is good -- JS whitelisting and blocking of most ads but my fingerprint sticks out like a sore thumb. (firefox or bust baby)

by firefax

1/1/2026 at 2:17:51 AM

Your browser fingerprint should be unique, it should just be unique every time.

by autoexec

12/31/2025 at 7:58:52 PM

The average person won’t go through even 2% of the trouble. Your self inflicted lockdown is a niche within a niche. I respect it though!

by riskeet

12/31/2025 at 8:23:22 PM

Who cares what the average person will go through and do though? We’re each responsible for ourselves and how we choose to go about life, even if vastly differs from the general population.

by dinkleberg

12/31/2025 at 9:20:41 PM

Ironically, if your setup is too niche (e.g. browsing privacy configuration) you can be easily tracked, though no one will bother, but captcha's will certainly not miss you.

by ismailmaj

12/31/2025 at 11:09:06 PM

This is the rub, tech is able to track you based on your browser, viewport size, os, location (a vpn still has a location if you aren’t rotating) and more. I use Firefox for privacy and just that measure alone rules out 97% of internet traffic and zeros down who I am within 3%. How private am I if I default to that 3%. 1440p monitor and a half screen Firefox viewport? Now we’re building an advertising profile!

by Slash65

1/1/2026 at 2:08:09 PM

If targeted advertising is your main threat, then you are lucky to _currently_ live in a country whose government _currently_ does not consider you an enemy or potential enemy. Many people are not that lucky and many people will become unlucky despite not changing anything about themselves.

by martin-t

1/1/2026 at 2:15:54 PM

Leaking bits of individuality is one issue.

The other is that once a tech choice becomes too niche, it stops being supported:

- Technically anyone can run their own email server but from what I hear if you do, some providers will treat you as spam.

- Niche features get removed from products.

- Some niche usecases depend on legal support. Running programs on a device you own without going through a gatekeeper ("sideloading") may be required in some jurisdictions (EU, any others?) but there's nothing stopping the almost-monopolies from making it impossible elsewhere.

by martin-t

12/31/2025 at 9:25:29 PM

I mean this article is the spirit of hacker news to me.

by myvoiceismypass

12/31/2025 at 10:20:07 PM

> I use Cloudflare's DNS because I trust them more than other companies; purely based on their business and how their incentives align

It's a very naive way of thinking about some businesses. What did Cloudflare do to earn this trust? It's just another VC-backed company and 1.1.1.1 is a free service. So Cloudflare is going to lose money just to protect my privacy? I don't think so.

by nalekberov

1/1/2026 at 12:06:06 AM

> What did Cloudflare do to earn this trust?

dude who wrote the article works for Cloudflare. I'd say receiving a paycheck is a pretty good way to earn trust

It's just DNS. I'd say using cloudflare DNS is a step up from whatever the ISP's default DNS is. But if you're hawkish on Cloudflare, just use something else. There are plenty of good options

by viktree

1/1/2026 at 5:45:14 AM

"I don't need to care about privacy because I have nothing to hide."

One counter is "since I've done nothing wrong, you have not need to care about what I hide". Both make assumptions, the difference is about who is trusted. Why should it be the authorities.

by Sporktacular

1/1/2026 at 5:33:45 AM

"The problem is that the word "privacy" is dialuted[sic] and mean different things to different people. Instead of "privacy" we really should be talking about "control"."

It's arguable that without control there can be no "privacy and security", including relief from data collection, surveillance and ads. The so-called "tech" companies that profit from data collection, surveillance and ad services are going to protect their own interests first, and if the the ad target (computer user) delegates "control" to these people, then he will also sacrifice some "privacy and security" as a result. When there is a conflict between the company's interest in profiting from data collection, surveillance and ad services and his interest in "privacy", his interests will be subjugated to theirs. He has sacrificed control

Personally I'm not really interested in "convenience" at the cost of control. For example, delegating control to a third party. I want control

Like "privacy", "control" could mean different things to different people

To me, it means control over a computer (via software)

For example, let's say a student at Harvard in the 1970's later becomes a hacker at MIT's AI lab in the 80's and dislikes not having the ability to study and modify the software he is forced to use

He writes a compiler and attempts to create an operating system

Arguably one could say he wanted "control"

Or let's say a student at University of Helsinki in the early 90s is using an operating system installed on the university's computers and wants to run the same type of system (UNIX) on his i386 PC at home

He writes an operating system kernel

Arguably, one could say he too wanted "control"

Let's say a www user in 2025 dislikes using software that automatically downloads, installs and runs code on his computer without his input or consent and automatically sends DNS, HTTP and other requests to allow so-called "tech" companies to perform data collection, surveillance and ad services^1

Arguably, one could say he also wants "control"

He compiles his own operating system from source and writes some simple programs to prevent the remote access installs and intercept the attempted automatic remote requests

1. Thanks to the work of the folks in the first two examples and others like them, source code for UNIX-like OS is readily available including a free compiler to produce software for it

Perhaps "control" in this context must involve some element of "DIY". The folks in the first two examples did not wait for or plead with third parties, e.g., so-called "tech" companies, to give them "control"

If one accepts that there can be no "privacy and security" without "control", then it stands to reason that delegating control to so-called "tech" companies is not going to produce "privacy and security"; it will always be compromised by the companies' own interests which include profiting from data collection, surveillance and ads services at the expense of "privacy and security"

by 1vuio0pswjnm7

1/1/2026 at 6:35:49 PM

In the context of personal computers, is it possible to attain "privacy and security" without control

For example, can a "Big Tech" company attain "privacy and security" if it does not have control over its computers. What if it delegates control to someone else such as an individual home internet subscriber

For another example, can an individual home internet subscriber attain "privacy and security" if he does not have control over his computers. What if the subscriber delegates control to a "Big Tech" company

by 1vuio0pswjnm7

12/31/2025 at 9:41:10 PM

For you

- WhatsApp is an exception

For others

- Google is an exception

by omnifischer

12/31/2025 at 10:16:44 PM

the conversation about what a privacy enhanced way of relating to tech is hasn't really matured much.

on one hand its being relative to a list of specific threat actors you avoid. on the other, its maintaining a role with leverage vs your devices and services.

privacy doesnt catch on as product because you have to navigate an inferior relationship to those threat actors first, and nobody aspires to that unless they already have a kind of alt cyberpunk underdog mentality and attitude.

the non-punk or normal, leveraged position is like a business or first class lounge for tech. calm, negotiable, amenable, hidden and exclusive power, craft, affiliation and signalling.

most privacy tech and apps are still in the mall ninja cyberpunk mentality, with some slightly self important NGO/public sector affilation signalling with Signal. The aesthetics of privacy need to evolve to drive more meaningful tech imo.

by motohagiography

1/1/2026 at 12:06:54 AM

After doing this for 25 years, I have come to the conclusion that one should stick to lightweight tools as much as possible. Complex ones are far more vulnerable to supply chain attacks--be they illegal ones from hackers, or legal ones from business. I have had so many great tools (open source and proprietary) rug-pulled from beneath me. Dev sells out, then the product is either retired or enshittified. What if someone tried to enshittify awk? Good luck with that. There are dozens to choose from. Even with LLMs, they can't enshittify them all.

The future is suckless philosophy.

by krautburglar

12/31/2025 at 8:26:54 PM

reminder - there's tech out there capable of reading your mind remotely and non-invasively

by Lapsa

1/1/2026 at 12:48:40 AM

Ummm, no there is not.

by BLKNSLVR

12/31/2025 at 11:00:48 PM

> can’t be bothered to host my own email

Never host your own email. It’s a nightmare if legacy systems, edge cases, layered on trust systems, malicious actors, and endless spam. It’s a good way to spend a bunch of time and effort making sure most of your mail never gets delivered.

by kimos

12/31/2025 at 11:19:00 PM

On the other hand, I've been hosting my own E-mail (exim and dovecot) on a $5 VPS for the past 15 or so years, and it's pretty much set and forget. The most maintenance I have to do is when certbot fails to renew my ssl certificates and I have to manually go in and babysit it, but that's certbot/LetsEncrypt's fault, not the E-mail software. I have maybe had deliverability problems twice in those many years.

by ryandrake

12/31/2025 at 11:58:42 PM

All of these things mean that email is no longer fit for purpose.

I host a few of my own domain emails using mailu (a system of docker containers), but not my primary (so I'm slightly hypocritical). It's a certain amount of hassle, but as long as you do the SPF and DKIM things, it seems to work pretty well for me (in the limited amount that I use these domains for email).

by BLKNSLVR