this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2026
349 points (100.0% liked)

Privacy

6059 readers
3 users here now

Welcome! This is a community for all those who are interested in protecting their privacy.

Rules

PS: Don't be a smartass and try to game the system, we'll know if you're breaking the rules when we see it!

  1. Be civil and no prejudice
  2. Don't promote big-tech software
  3. No apathy and defeatism for privacy (i.e. "They already have my data, why bother?")
  4. No reposting of news that was already posted
  5. No crypto, blockchain, NFTs
  6. No Xitter links (if absolutely necessary, use xcancel)

Related communities:

Some of these are only vaguely related, but great communities.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
otter@lemmy.ca
shaytan@lemmy.dbzer0.com
349
Trump admininistration has designated the Italian pro-privacy and anticapitalist collective Autistici/Inventati - which creates and maintains open-source software—a “terrorist organization” (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
submitted 5 days ago by thewal@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/privacy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
47 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/2026/08/imposing-sanctions-on-violent-far-left-terrorist-groups/

https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sb0616

#AutisticiInventati

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] assaultpotato@sh.itjust.works 9 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I'd argue it doesn't matter. If they offer e2ee email, they can't be aware of the content of any messages exchanged.

Unless they were informed one of their email accounts belonged to someone convicted of committing an actual act of domestic terror, they would be completely in the dark about who's using their email services.

Given its this US state department issuing the statement, I wouldn't believe any accusation leveled at all without proof. I'd need to see evidence that A/I knowingly provided services to a convicted domestic terrorist for me to believe this is anything other than trying to stamp out E2EE.

[–] motionofethre@piefed.social 0 points 5 days ago (2 children)

If it was e2e anonymous services, I would agree completely, however their policy indicates it's different. They apparently selectively choose who and what to host. It's not even clear it's encrypted.

I'm not arguing that they are guilty or bad, but rather that this is different from a bad actor using Proton over For.

A/I merely selects and filters the individuals to whom the Services are delivered to in order to reduce the risk of violations of our policies. By preventively asking to submit a written statement of intents, we can evaluate the affinity of every Service request from potential new users before any account is approved; the aforementioned statements are always evaluated in person by an appointee of A/I and deleted right after the request process is terminated.

Every written statement always undertakes a non-automated process of case-by-case examination, occasionally involving some follow-up questions and observations that the appointee will send to the requestor in dialogue via a dedicated webpage.

https://www.autistici.org/who/policy

[–] assaultpotato@sh.itjust.works 9 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

So they have a TOS like Facebook or any other large platform, and reserve the right to refuse service?

Unless they're knowingly doing business with a known convicted terrorist, I fail to see how this makes them a terrorist support platform.

[–] motionofethre@piefed.social -3 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Yeah. I'm not suggesting TOS indicates guilt, but just the "I can't control my users" argument is void.

[–] assaultpotato@sh.itjust.works 7 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

May I ask why FB, Twitter, etc. get protection from liability from 3rd party content under Section 230 of the Communications Act but these folks don't? They both have a TOS and reserve the right to refuse service.

[–] atmothin@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Epstein ring communicated a lot through Gmail for years and they still never went after those involved nor Google

@motionofethre@piefed.social how would you explain Google still not being sanctioned based on your logic?

[–] lambalicious@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 5 days ago

They can't control their users once provisioning them. Once again, this is not different than any local restaurant.

[–] assaultpotato@sh.itjust.works 4 points 5 days ago

I'm not downvoting you btw, I know you're engaging in good faith. Idk who is.