Conversation

Notices

1. Soy_Magnus (soy_magnus@detroitriotcity.com)'s status on Tuesday, 07-Mar-2023 14:34:13 JST Soy_Magnus

   • Terry
   • longyap
   • verified neko :verified::verified::verified::makemeneko:
   • iced quinnsmas :blobcatsanta:
   @l0ngyap @Terry @roboneko @icedquinn that's inconvenient. Do you think tutanota is any better¿
   • verified neko :verified::verified::verified::makemeneko: (roboneko@bae.st)'s status on Tuesday, 07-Mar-2023 14:34:13 JST verified neko :verified::verified::verified::makemeneko:

     in reply to

     • Terry
     • longyap
     • iced quinnsmas :blobcatsanta:
     @Soy_Magnus @l0ngyap @Terry @icedquinn no. no one is going to be any better. it is utterly unrealistic to expect a service operator to shield you from the local authorities. what are they supposed to do, take up arms against their local government to avoid turning over your IP when there's a formal court order to do so?
     
     why would anyone expect strangers who legally sell you things on the open market to burn themselves protecting your (allegedly) illegal activity?
     
     the only question is what, if anything, they are legally required to log given the jurisdiction they operate in. and what, if anything, they voluntarily choose to log for whatever reason. you can't be compelled to turn over evidence that you never had in the first place
     
     the best you can do is a service operator in a jurisdiction with lenient logging policies (USA for example) who clearly states what they don't log, and who has been formally audited by a third party to verify these claims
     
     but realistically, if you are worried about being targeted by a state level actor then forget about clearnet entirely and use tor/i2p/etc