- Step 1: Don't host in the USA
- Step 2: Don't host in a USA puppet ally
this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2023
287 points (97.0% liked)
sh.itjust.works Main Community
7753 readers
3 users here now
Home of the sh.itjust.works instance.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Probably good advice but not exactly relevant. The person was hosting a server in their house and got raided for unrelated reasons and all their electronics were seized. Had they hosted in a data center or at least had off premises back ups, this wouldn’t have happened.
I thought one of the points of the fediverse was to not be centralized in data centers that are more easily controlled. It's supposedly supposed to be easy and relatively cheap to spin up your own instance on your own hardware. Just outsourcing to a data center I think goes against what the fediverse promised.
Fediverse does not use magic. They are bound cabels and cpu.
In average any datacenter wil have a better connection to everywhere else.
I disagree.
It's about control of the platform. A datacenter isn't going to start making administrative decisions about the "business direction" of your instance. They can shut the server down, but so could a thunderstorm on a home server.
Even if the data center did (for whatever reason) administrate an instance, the idea of federation still holds because users get to decide if they like the decisions being made - regardless of who is making them.
Like anything, it’s a trade off. The fact that you can do whatever you want is the good thing. As long as everyone isn’t in the same datacenter, it’s fine. There’s datacenters all over the planet.
If you’re self hosting, you can mitigate the risks by having some kind of contingency plan though. Just having backups in another location would have made it possible to get back up after the interruption. Now, this instance is probably just screwed.
Data centers aren’t inherently bad and neither is self hosting. But there’s different risks that need to be planned for.
If you’re self hosting, you can mitigate the risks by having some kind of contingency plan
Like a degaussing loop hidden in the door frame?
Just having backups in another location would have made it possible to get back up after the interruption
Oh. Not that kind of contingency plan
Like a degaussing loop hidden in the door frame?
I deeply enjoy that your mind has a rail for this train of thought to run on
Seems like a nice goal, but in the end aren't you geographically limited to where ISP's offer equivalent upstream bandwidth? Even then there are caps sometimes and other ways we still get controlled.
This is exactly why I only host on DefinitelyNotAHoneypot.sk. everyone knows that the CIA can't run colo services in Slovakia.
The US again continuing to flex its muscles that it truly does own and control half the world, as it so affectionately reminds us daily.
It is absolutely hysterical how bad authoritarianism has engulfed all modern governments. This isn’t remotely a left vs right thing or a US thing, almost all modern governments have become this way.
The person referenced in the article was raided for completely unrelated charges. It just happened they took the server and backups as part of the raid. Had they hosted off-site or kept the backups off-site, the damage would have been minimal. This article brings up a good point, but it's not the nefariousness that the title implies.
Cops took what wasn't needed and haven't returned it (that we know of).
I'd say that's about as nefarious as it gets.
How do we know it wasn't needed? What were the charges?
Any time they take all electronics, there's bound to be something there that wasn't needed. It's overly broad.
And that's often because what is needed isn't in plain site, so it makes sense to just grab everything and take it back to their lab and have experienced techs go over it rather than having the site team sit on the computers going through files to find what they need.
How do you know that it was? Were you involved in this case enough to know something the rest of us dont? Or are you just a bystander playing devil's advocate?
EDIT: since I apparently cant reply to your comment below, you cant just claim that the hardware was involved in a crime by "just asking questions" then accuse me of "stirring up shit" after calling you out on making unsubstantiated claims. If you make a claim it is YOUR job to defend that claim. Not everyone elses' job to disprove your assertion.
Were you involved enough to know that it wasn't? There's devil's advocate, and then there's devil's PR. Why are you trying so hard to stir up shit where none exists? It's not wrong to want more information before going on a paranoia bender.
-
I'm not the person you can't reply to below.
-
I was literally just asking. If the warrant was in relation to a charge that they were hosting CSAM, then yes the seizure of the server would be appropriate.
From what I read, it looks like they were hosting off-site, but had an unencrypted backup of the database locally at the time of the raid.
So the reaction we should be having is to be careful whose instance you sign up for?
No autocracy is when rule of law. Wake up sheeple.
But this is the strength of federation. One tiny bit of the fediverse was taken down. This did not affect the rest of it. There will always be bad actors, whether the cops, the administrators of a particular instance or the owners of a mega-forum like twitter or reddit. With a decentralized system the damage is localized and minimized.
It wasn't even taken down. The dude was raided probably because of some electronic crime, they took his electronics to get evidence. Completely reasonable.
On their backup hard drive happened to be a backup a mastodon instance, so by extension they got that too. The backed up data, not the server.
It's not some nefarious collusion, it's completely reasonable actions.
Now whether the backup should have been stored unencrypted on a hard drive at their house? Well that's a server admin problem not an FBI issue, but the comments here come across like the FBI shouldn't have done what they did.
But I'd argue that you should not store anything on Mastodon where it would be an issue if it became public. It's basic 90s internet safety. We know that the data isn't encrypted (the same for Lemmy), don't go sharing passwords on a site designed for public sharing.
But I’d argue that you should not store anything on Mastodon where it would be an issue if it became public.
One of the first things new fediverse users should be told is that the fediverse is not the darknet.
The US in living its own Brezhnev Era
I’d argue a great majority of the world has entered this era now, and consider it a standard. I hate it. They took 1984 and used it as an instruction manual.
Yeah, I want to know what these unrelated charges were for before I get up in arms about a nothing burger. Sound sus as hell.
It's irrelevant to the EFF's point here, because a database backup containing user data was seized by the FBI. Those users almost certainly had nothing to do with whatever the charges were.
Get Tor Browser and/or Tails OS. When privacy is important and you need to be anonymous, use only Tor-friendly instances only via Tor (never once log in showing your real IP - if you accidentally do that, you'll have to re-create another account as a different person).
When an email address is necessary to sign up, get one anonymously (again using Tor Browser), from a privacy-centric company or group, e.g. Tutanota, Disroot. Needless to say never ever use Gmail. https://tosdr.org/en/service/217
Still no guarantee of privacy. Tor exit nodes have been known to have been monitored, and tons of sites seized.
He's talking about instances with .onion addresses, you never touch an exit node.
True. Tor, Tails, PGP (GPG), Monero etc. are not magic: you can be still de-anonymized especially if you post your private info by yourself. One thing I've been feeling a little uneasy about Tor is, the project is largely funded by the US Government itself, and in the past the US intentionally weakened Netscape browser (*1). While I would like to believe that something similar is not happening to Tor Browser, I'm not an absolute believer of Tor (like you said, there may be bad actors in the Tor network too). I might be feeling somewhat more comfortable if Tor Project were based on Europe, not the US.
Nevertheless, using Tor should be surely safer and more privacy-friendly than just using clearnet. Tor Browser is FLOSS and free as in free beer too. Using it when you'd like to be anonymous is not such a bad idea, especially if your instance is Tor-friendly.
(*1) https://wl.vern.cc/wiki/Crypto%20Wars?lang=en#PC_era Onion - http://wl.vernccvbvyi5qhfzyqengccj7lkove6bjot2xhh5kajhwvidqafczrad.onion/wiki/Crypto%20Wars?lang=en#PC_era
Another example of intentional back doors standardized by the US is: https://wl.vern.cc/wiki/Dual_EC_DRBG?lang=en Onion - http://wl.vernccvbvyi5qhfzyqengccj7lkove6bjot2xhh5kajhwvidqafczrad.onion/wiki/Dual_EC_DRBG?lang=en
There should be a way to encrypt things when the server is off and then have a Killswitch for situations like this. Idk if it'd be overkill in this case thougj
Luks is a thing. No reason it can’t be done on the server though things like patching won’t be automated.
Kill switch is well, not as easy. But possible.
That said. The government would just lampoon you in the media as some child porn hoster or whatever they want and taint the jury pool. And probably charge you with obstruction and a host of other things if you didn’t decrypt the server.
There is case law where refusing a description password isn’t covered by the 4th or 5th amendment so they could just Guantanamo your ass as pressure.
TL:DR - there’s no established case law that protects you from withholding the encryption key from government and there’s conflicting rulings in the current US districts. In some places you can be held indefinitely. Unsure what occurs if you can’t remember the key though.
Is there anything instance owners can do? Are there things you can do with your server to get better security for your users (and yourself)