They use them in high pressure fuel injectors as well, which is pretty dang cool.

…they aren’t public.

The reasons are literally in the image you provided.

Regardless, even if they did, that’s certainly not exclusive to the fedi.

Maybe they didn’t like that it was then given to people for free

Yeah, I mean, it’s mostly that.

I don’t think you can claim there’s a “lack of privacy” when things that are intended to be public…are made public.

I mean “its back” in the sense that demand is rising for nostalgic purposes. Not in the sense that anyone wants a new one.

What lack of privacy are you referring to?

I think one critique of the fediverse is the lack of privacy

What? By whom? How?

E: why am I being downvoted for asking a question?

That’s pretty cool but they’re also going to be subjecting themselves to a very high level of scrutiny.

They all suck and should be avoided.

You entered a thread explicitly about E2E encryption started by ShortN0te

That person replied to a thread I started, not the other way around. It was never about E2E. It was always about encrypted backups.

It could have a encrypted backup feature but it won’t change it’s fundamental purpose

It’s not supposed to. It shouldn’t.

They’re meant to be workable in other tools like QGIS, Strava or Komoot. Encrypting them would break that entirely.

Then make it optional? Or don’t, I don’t care.

deleted by creator

Halfway through you shifted to encrypted local backups

I never shifted anything. I was talking about encrypted backups on a server. These can be encrypted locally before being synced to a server.

you first called ‘single-party encryption’

Nope, you literally just made that up. I didn’t say that and I don’t even know what that means.

I said it wasn’t realistic in the context of the selfhosted backends we were discussing.

…but it is.

And yes, lots of apps do encrypted backups because they are backup apps. Colota isn’t.

My suggestion was that it could be…

The existing export is for tools like QGIS or selfhosted backends and encrypting that data would break that use case entirely.

You already have local backups that could be encrypted and then synced to a general storage server.

Encrypted import/export for backup is a separate feature that doesn’t exist yet, so there’s nothing here that’s badly implemented.

I said literally nothing about your implementation. You’re imagining things. Please read more attentively.

I don’t know what you want man

I honestly don’t know how to be more clear about this. It’s not complicated. I want client-side encryption, man.

i didn’t realize this was one of those “digging my heels in because I don’t know how to be wrong” threads

LOL I didn’t know that either, but here you are!

You just asked the creator of an exclusively client-side app whether they support encryption.

Client-side encryption is not a novel concept.

something like Keepass where the file itself is encrypted, you have to use some form of auth to decrypt it on use

That’s significantly more complicated and time-consuming.

LOL clickbait is all they do on this channel.

No one is talking about a phone or a PC, we’re talking about a server.

Also phones and PCs are only encrypted at rest.

“Not so bad” at what? They’re doing this out of their own interests. It doesn’t mean at all that they care about the privacy of their constituents, and in fact they’re one of the worst offenders.

LOL imagine creating a game that runs like total ass on a powerful PC and then releasing it on Playstation…

I already explained several times why that’s not realistic

You haven’t. You’ve only explained why you don’t want to do it, which is fair, but you keep presenting as if it’s not possible, which is not accurate. Lots of apps can and do create encrypted backups.