Post reads: "❓ Do you know who are the inventors of the hardware-level kill switch for smartphones?
🤫 Stay tuned! We’re teaming up with them to offer you more privacy.
👇 Share your ideas in the comments! "
Post reads: "❓ Do you know who are the inventors of the hardware-level kill switch for smartphones?
🤫 Stay tuned! We’re teaming up with them to offer you more privacy.
👇 Share your ideas in the comments! "
I don’t understand what you’re saying above, but my point is that disclosing any info to adversaries is invasive even if the anonymization is 100% perfect. The potential imperfection makes it worse, but that’s a side issue.
An example is polling. Some terrible politician X wants to know what voters think of issue Y, like “35% in favor”. So she hires a polling firm to call people and ask their opinions about Y, with the result being completely anonymized and aggregated, again, like “35% in favor”. What will X do with that info? Something bad, of course! We said at the beginning that they are terrible!
So do you want to cooperate with such a poll, that X commissioned to serve an evil purpose? Of course not! Or at least, I hope of course not. In that case, what do you think of software that effectively enrolls you in such a poll against your wishes?
If your private activity is being statistically reported to your adversaries, your privacy is being invaded even if there is zero PII in what the adversary gets. This is infosec 101. A quotation due to Silvio Micali is “a good disguise does not reveal the person’s height”. Statistically summarized information is still information, and calling it otherwise is self-serving nonsense. You want to give the adversary NO information. Anonymization is irrrelevant.
My point isn’t really about the implementation per se (I’m aware of the limitation since at least 2011 by reading then Link Prediction by De-anonymization: How We Won the Kaggle Social Network Challenge so more than a decade ago) but rather that the “solution” Murena offers is not a mandatory service. If people want to use it, they can. I do not want to, I do NOT have to. I’m not arguing that their solution is good, or bad, only that it’s optional.