I see random websites that aren't open source saying they are "encrypted, safe", when they obviously aren't! Come on!
this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2026
101 points (96.3% liked)
privacy
10206 readers
3 users here now
Big tech and governments are monitoring and recording your eating activities. c/Privacy provides tips and tricks to protect your privacy against global surveillance.
Partners:
- community.nicfab.it/c/privacy
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
How do you know they aren't?
Am I in the wrong community here?
Burden of proof is always on the service to demonstrate that they are private.
The burden of proof is on the claimant. In this case, the claim is that they are neither encrypted nor secure. The claim can be made from both sides but if neither provides proof then we're all just tinfoil hats.
The website is the claimant in this case. They are claiming they are secure, which is what OP is sceptical of.
And what of the claims made in this post? Just blindly go with it?
the argument of this post is to not go blindly trusting something lol
Claimant? This isn't some Socratic debate or court of law, it's privacy 101. It's the safest position to take if you didn't know better.
Yes, claimant. It doesn't have to be a court of law for a word to have a meaning. When a person makes a claim, they are a claimant. I've always understood this to be plain English. It's exhausting when everyone wants to make pedantic arguments rather than discuss the topic. Are they encrypted or are they not? Let's answer the question and then we can have a Socratic debate about it.
Yeah, absolutely. Like being pedantic about burden of proof, when the topic is actually privacy where the default position is zero trust and it is always on the person claiming to offer privacy or security to prove that they can be trusted.
But sure, let's treat it philosophically instead of practically:
They claim to be. That makes them the claimant. The burden of proof thus falls on them. So what proof do they offer for their claim?
The person who posted this is claiming they are not. How are people here this stupid? I thought people on Lemmy were the more intelligent bunch. I'm finding otherwise here.
If two people make opposing claims, who does the burden of proof lie with?
More particularly, if someone tells me I can trust them, am I supposed to believe that claim without proof?
Please, educate me. If you claim we're stupid, surely you can prove your superior logic.
The claim here, yoeard the community is that the app is not encrypted or secured. The claim has no evidence or reasoning beyond "COME ON!" - Neither the app nor its developers came to this community and claimed to be anything. They out up a website where OP finds it and decides they're lying based on zero technical data or testing. Just the kneejerk opinion of a random Lemmy account.
The surety is that they are not what they claim to be. Ok, then show it. You can't just make claims you can't substantiate and then argue when people ask questions. I don't buy either claim because neither claim has demonstrable evidence.
People are arguing with me over pointing out the fact that this person does not know what they claim to be true. They belive it to be so. What have we learned from the religious right? Belief without evidence negates clarity in understanding.
I came to Lemmy to get away from the Reddit blowhards. It seems hysteria is the mode of discussion no matter the platform.
The original claim, made by the app's publishers on that site, is that it is secured. That claim is not substantiated anywhere.
In the strict logical sense of AND, this is true. They did claim to be something, just not in this community.
This is where the context of community and subject comes in, because it shifts the semantics of the claim.
In privacy and security context, Zero Trust is the baseline assumption out of practical considerations: Any app, service, environment or infrastructure is to be treated as insecure unless proven otherwise. I'm sure I don't need to explain the reasoning to you here.
Under that convention, that claim isn't so much an objective assertion of fact, which would subject it to the burden of proof, as an assertion of that baseline in absence of that "proven otherwise".
It's not much different from asserting "We don't know" in scientific contexts. "We don't know if there are infinite primes" is an assertion that needs no substantiation by itself, because ignorance is the baseline in that context. If you want to claim that there are, in fact, infinite primes, you will need to back that claim up with proof. (I know that proof isn't hard to find, this is just an illustrating example).
The key difference is that, in privacy or security contexts, ignorance is considered tantamount to a lack of privacy or security. That essentially just leaves proofs of security and refutations thereof.
Atheists generally feel no need to substantiate their belief in the non-existence of god either. The mechanism is rather similar: Because the existence of god has significant ramifications, the burden has been categorically shifted to those making that claim, while the rest of us carry on under the assumption that he doesn't exist.
Sure, agnostics acknowledge that uncertainty, but what is the practical implication of that theoretical? Do you act as if there was a god, as Pascal's Wager would have it, or as if there was no god, in the same way that Zero Trust treats the uncertainty as insecurity?
How kind of you to bring some of their arrogant, universal pedantry with you.
Okay, that was a bit too sarcastic. Let me rephrase:
You double down on a theoretical point, heedless of practical context, arguing about the logical mechanisms without acknowledging the semantics that act upon them, the purpose which they are supposed to serve. You act like an even more misguided enlightened centrist saying we should make no judgement either way in contexts where a judgement definitely needs to be made and the absence of convincing arguments is itself an argument.
Then you have the absolute gall to consider your detached, past-the-point quibbling with complete disregard for half of what people are saying some form of evidence that we're all stupid.
We're not. We're practical.
We know that tomato is a fruit and that, technically, there is no explicit proof of insecurity. We also know that tomato doesn't fit into the general taste profile of a fruit salad and that handling private data requires a great deal of trust that is not given, but earned. We don't put tomato into a fruit salad and we don't trust websites making a cheap claim without putting in the work to convince us.
I really appreciated this comment although it's apparently not low hanging enough of a fruit for it to be engaged with, apparently. I find it harder to put into words the idea that an assertion of the default is not necessarily a claim of evidence of something. And you did that handily here.
It's really simple. Either you know its not encrypted or you don't. Don't make claims you can't verify. OP doesn't know that. You can assume, you can have an opinion, you can say whatever you want - none of it has weight or even meaning until you have something to show for it.
Your points on security are entirely true. The default should be distrust. That does not invite a witch hunt on every site you've never heard of making a claim. Had OP stated some key understanding they have and disclosed, then I wouldn't even be commenting here. I would have scrolled right past and never thought about it again.
Where are the pedantics? Lol I'm getting shit on for being reasonable and pointing to the facts that no one in here knows and somehow that's arrogant and pedantic. No sir, that's exposing people for spreading incompetence and hysteria.
You don't know the condition of that data or that backend. There is no pedantics there. A claim was made that can not be verified. There's no pedantry there unless you're upset that I want proof of claims rather than instant judgement. To be fair, I want proof of claims from that site before I would trust it either but I'm not gonna throw it into the pit just because it made a claim.
Or are you fine with people running around saying shit and spreading unverified claims they don't know or understand?
It is: Either we can trust them or we can't.
You keep insisting that we technically don't know. That is an empirical approach, perfectly suited for empirical contexts.
Practically, this service targets a market where it is expected that you provide some evidence that you're serious and reliable. That makes it a rationalist context, where deduction dictates a base assumption in absence of truth to the contrary.
If they aren't showing evidence, the either don't understand the claim they're making and why they can be expected to back it up, or they have no actual evidence to show. In either case, pointing back to the baseline is valid and requires no further proof.
So practically "they're insecure" is not a claim. It's a reminder, an assertion of the default position, comparable to "he's not qualified to perform surgery" or "he cannot handle a firearm responsibly": true by default, until proven otherwise.
In your insistence on epistemological uncertainty beyond practical implications. You're arguing about formalism, which is the textbook definition of pedantry.
You're not being reasonable. You're being stubborn in your refusal to acknowledge the differing context.
What pit? The pit of "can not be trusted" that it was born into and never climbed out of?
In a pure, empirical context? No, of course not.
In a rationalist context with a clearly defined base assumption, with the claim running counter to that base? No, of course not.
But asserting that base assumption isn't a claim. It's the default position. So yes, I am fine with people saying that the "true until proven otherwise" assertion that has not been proven otherwise is still true.
touch grass
A riveting and compelling response. Look at your keanrinf to spell. Good job!
are you actually this retarded or just really committed to the bit?
Lmao. When people dip to the low effort "retarded" insults because they can't articulate an idea or have any meaningful insight into a conversation.
nobody wants to engage with you because you're a weird pedantic asshole
Interesting statement given my inbox is blowing up. Who's the asshole? Making a point and defending it is not the asshole behavior here lol that's called discussion.
whatever helps you sleep
https://wondermark.com/c/1062/
Also
Yeah I'm not clicking that. I don't know what you intended to say here but it didn't land.
The original claim is by the websites / services that they ARE encrypted / secure. Why are you conveniently ignoring that they're not providing any proof for their claims?
My and i assume any software aware persons general assumption for a computer system is that it is insecure until proven otherwise. But even disregarding the whole open source thing, if they dont make you set your own encryption key, then it most likely wont be securely encrypted or they will just also have the key because they generated it for you in the background.
The site doesn't show a "Source Code" option. Neither I can find it by search. Try by yourself, it's here
that doesn't mean they're not encrypted.
but also this is an online service for something most computers have been able to do locally out of the box for like 15 years, and it hasn't been updated since 2023. it's an obvious red flag even without being unsafe.
Actually, "is it encrypted" is just the tip of the iceberg: it's all too easy to encrypt in a way that does not provide security against the threats the users want to defend. E.g. maybe the answer to this question is "yes" because the connection is over https, yet the server sees and stores the data in the clear
If you can't see it, technically this is a Schrödingers cat problem.
The site is both telling the truth and lying at the same time, in a state of superposition.
Only be observing the code would you fall onto one reality.
Although there are people who can observe the code, which differs from the metaphor slightly.
I think one should distrust services that claim to be privacy-respecting without wanting to be opensource. Like, what are they hiding?
I understand the ethos here but you have to appreciate the irony in that statement.
Indeed.
To torture the metaphor further, would you trust Schrödinger to sell you a cat if it might not be alive when you open the box?
What does encryption have to do with showing source code?
I checked it. The image is definitely sent to the server. The OCR does not run on the client side and it's impossible to know what the server does with the image.