updated

opsec/closedsource/index.html

@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@
     <meta name="author" content="">
     <link rel="shortcut icon" href="../../../../../../assets/img/favicon.png">
 
-    <title>Why can't  I trust closed source software?</title>
+    <title>Why can't  I trust closed source software for Privacy ?</title>
 
     <!-- Bootstrap core CSS -->
     <link href="../../assets/css/bootstrap.css" rel="stylesheet">
@@ -61,9 +61,10 @@
 			<div class="row">
 				<div class="col-lg-8 col-lg-offset-2">
   					<a href="../index.html">Previous Page</a></br></br><p><img src="../../assets/img/user.png" width="50px" height="50px"> <ba>nihilist@mainpc - 2024-04-29</ba></p>
-<h1>Why can't  I trust closed source software? </h1>
+<h1>Why can't  I trust closed source software for Privacy ? </h1>
 <p>"Hey, i just wrote this code, i compiled it, it gave me this .exe file, run it on your computer!</p>
 <p> What? You want the source code ? Hell no, just trust me bro!"</p>
+<p>Or in other words, why can't i trust an adversary to not look at me when i install one of his cameras in my bedroom ?</p>
           
 	       </div>
 			</div><!-- /row -->
@@ -83,12 +84,39 @@
 <p>Most software companies (which can be corporations) out there are greedy, they work hard to produce software, and they hate to have any competition. Hence they want keep their software sourcecode private, to make it as hard as possible to others to arrive at the same level of functionality. That is exactly why closed source software is used by most people. </p>
 
 <p>The most popular example out there is Windows, they would definitely not like their sourcecode to be leaked/reversed like it with <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/8/16992626/apple-github-dmca-request-ios-iboot-source-code">Apple's IOS</a>.</p>
+
 				</div>
 			</div><!-- /row -->
 	    </div> <!-- /container -->
 	</div><!-- /white -->
 
-  <div id="anon2">
+
+  <!-- +++++ Second Post +++++ -->
+	<div id="anon2">
+	    <div class="container">
+			<div class="row">
+				<div class="col-lg-8 col-lg-offset-2">
+          <h2><b>Why is this relevant for Privacy ?</b></h2> </br> </br>
+<p>Privacy as a usecase on your computer requires that you only run software from which you are able to read the sourcecode of:</p>
+<p>I can just as easily write a software (let's say a chat application like Telegram), <b>I can make that software grab as much information as possible</b> like save the Computer model, serial number, get information on what other apps are running on your computer, what's the public IP address, take screenshots of what you're doing on your computer, <b>and I can make that application send all of that sensitive information to a remote server, while officially pretend that the additional network traffic is for "for telemetry purposes"</b>. </p>
+<p>All i need is to simply prevent you from being able to read the sourcecode, that way you have no way to disprove that this isn't actually telemetry.</p>
+<p>What's happening is that you have no visibility on what the software is doing, <b>it is not transparent</b></p>
+<p>That's why the first step is always to ONLY use software that is fully free and open source (FOSS), <b>so that you are at least ABLE to know what the software you are running is actually doing.</b> To be able to achieve Transparent use.</p>
+<img src="3.png" class="imgRz">
+<p>Once that's in check, you should spend some time to read the sourcecode of the software you are running. Or at the very least listen to what other privacy-minded people have to say about each piece of software. <b>So that you are able to know that the software does not contain any spying mechanism.</b></p>
+<p>If you find any software that actually does telemetry or any other spying mechanism, <b>you should remove it from your computer, if you intend to have privacy there</b>.</p>
+<p>It is only once you destroy all the cameras in your bedroom, and once you close all the blinds that the adversary outside can't peek into what you're doing in your bedroom. <b>In the same way, closed-source software is exactly the same, a camera for an adversary (the manufacturer of that software, or the government that they act on behalf of) to peek into what you're doing on your computer.</b></p>
+<img src="../privacy/3.png">
+
+<p>Keep that in mind, as this is the ABC of OPSEC you'll have to remember throughout the rest of the next blogposts i write, On any device of yours, there is only one type of acceptable software for Privacy, and that is FOSS software. It has always been this way, and will always remain this way.</p>
+<p>If at any point in time you see people recommend closed-source software for privacy purposes, <b>you need to realize that they are either misled or are actively trying to mislead you into a false sense of security</b>, and you should remind them that <b><a href="https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/should-privacy-guides-require-open-source-source-first-or-source-available-as-a-criteria-for-all-tools/22684/62">privacy and closed-source software are mutually exclusive.</a></b> hence the non-negociable need of using FOSS software for privacy.</p>
+
+				</div>
+			</div><!-- /row -->
+	    </div> <!-- /container -->
+	</div><!-- /white -->
+
+  <div id="anon1">
 	    <div class="container">
 			<div class="row">
 				<div class="col-lg-8 col-lg-offset-2">
@@ -111,15 +139,15 @@
 
 
   <!-- +++++ Second Post +++++ -->
-	<div id="anon1">
+	<div id="anon2">
 	    <div class="container">
 			<div class="row">
 				<div class="col-lg-8 col-lg-offset-2">
           <h2><b>Remove surveillance using Open-Source Software</b></h2> </br> </br>
 <p>To conclude, here are the requirements you need to look for, for any software that you use:</p>
 <ol>
-<li><p>It must be open source</p></li>
-<li><p>It must be self-hostable (for decentralisation) (meaning the serverside code must also be fully opensource)</p></li>
+<li><p>It must be FULLY free and open source (FOSS)</p></li>
+<li><p>Ideally, if servers are involved, It must be self-hostable (for decentralisation) (meaning the serverside code must also be fully opensource)</p> (<a href="https://www.change.org/p/signal-foundation-resume-open-source-code-for-signal-server-do-not-close-source-it">see how this is no longer the case with Signal</a>)</li>
 <li><p>It must implement privacy features like encryption</p></li>
 <li><p>It should not contain any telemetry, or any spyware.</p></li>
 <li><p>It should ONLY do what it was originally meant to do.</p></li>

opsec/index.html

@@ -102,8 +102,7 @@
         <p>📝 Explaining Privacy</p>
         <ol>
                 <li><a href="privacy/index.html">✅ What is Privacy ? Why is it important ? </a><img src="logos/su0.png" class="logo"></li>
-                <li><a href="closedsource/index.html">✅ The main source of Privacy: Open source software </a><img src="logos/tr0.png" class="logo"></li>
-                <li><a href="http://git.nowherejezfoltodf4jiyl6r56jnzintap5vyjlia7fkirfsnfizflqd.onion/nihilist/blog-contributions/issues/182">❌ Why can't I use FOSS apps on MacOS/Windows? <img src="logos/tr2.png" class="logo"></a></li>
+                <li><a href="closedsource/index.html">✅ Why can't I trust closed-source software for Privacy? </a><img src="logos/tr0.png" class="logo"></li>
                 <li><a href="openhardware/index.html">✅ The lack of Open Source Hardware (CPUs, Motherboards, GPUs)<img src="logos/openhw.png" class="logo"></a></li>
                 <li><a href="serversideencryption/index.html">✅ Why can't I trust Server-side Encryption ?</a><img src="logos/gnupg.png" class="logo"></li>
         </ol>