I see random websites that aren’t open source saying they are “encrypted, safe”, when they obviously aren’t! Come on!
Having an open source code for the server is good for self hosting but it says nothing about the real server. You can only trust a service based on the API you use, and for privacy you better off not trusting anything, if you want privacy you need to send the data encrypted already.
Its already called Meta ;D
All the text on this website just screams AI-generated.
Every line of code, every feature improvement, every bug fix
Every list of three…
If something stinks this bad, you shouldn’t give it private information. I don’t know what you’d call it, but I would stick to things that are impolite.
Every Tricolon, every overused rhetorical device, every self referential joke
Slop. In all senses. AI Slop, Privacy Slop…
How do you know they aren’t?
Am I in the wrong community here?
Burden of proof is always on the service to demonstrate that they are private.
The burden of proof is on the claimant. In this case, the claim is that they are neither encrypted nor secure. The claim can be made from both sides but if neither provides proof then we’re all just tinfoil hats.
The website is the claimant in this case. They are claiming they are secure, which is what OP is sceptical of.
And what of the claims made in this post? Just blindly go with it?
the argument of this post is to not go blindly trusting something lol
The original claim is by the websites / services that they ARE encrypted / secure. Why are you conveniently ignoring that they’re not providing any proof for their claims?
Claimant? This isn’t some Socratic debate or court of law, it’s privacy 101. It’s the safest position to take if you didn’t know better.
Yes, claimant. It doesn’t have to be a court of law for a word to have a meaning. When a person makes a claim, they are a claimant. I’ve always understood this to be plain English. It’s exhausting when everyone wants to make pedantic arguments rather than discuss the topic. Are they encrypted or are they not? Let’s answer the question and then we can have a Socratic debate about it.
It’s exhausting when everyone wants to make pedantic arguments rather than discuss the topic.
Yeah, absolutely. Like being pedantic about burden of proof, when the topic is actually privacy where the default position is zero trust and it is always on the person claiming to offer privacy or security to prove that they can be trusted.
But sure, let’s treat it philosophically instead of practically:
Are they encrypted or are they not? Let’s answer the question and then we can have a Socratic debate about it.
They claim to be. That makes them the claimant. The burden of proof thus falls on them. So what proof do they offer for their claim?
The person who posted this is claiming they are not. How are people here this stupid? I thought people on Lemmy were the more intelligent bunch. I’m finding otherwise here.
If two people make opposing claims, who does the burden of proof lie with?
More particularly, if someone tells me I can trust them, am I supposed to believe that claim without proof?
Please, educate me. If you claim we’re stupid, surely you can prove your superior logic.
My and i assume any software aware persons general assumption for a computer system is that it is insecure until proven otherwise. But even disregarding the whole open source thing, if they dont make you set your own encryption key, then it most likely wont be securely encrypted or they will just also have the key because they generated it for you in the background.
The site doesn’t show a “Source Code” option. Neither I can find it by search. Try by yourself, it’s here
I checked it. The image is definitely sent to the server. The OCR does not run on the client side and it’s impossible to know what the server does with the image.
If you can’t see it, technically this is a Schrödingers cat problem.
The site is both telling the truth and lying at the same time, in a state of superposition.
Only be observing the code would you fall onto one reality.
Although there are people who can observe the code, which differs from the metaphor slightly.
To torture the metaphor further, would you trust Schrödinger to sell you a cat if it might not be alive when you open the box?
I think one should distrust services that claim to be privacy-respecting without wanting to be opensource. Like, what are they hiding?
I understand the ethos here but you have to appreciate the irony in that statement.
Indeed.
that doesn’t mean they’re not encrypted.
but also this is an online service for something most computers have been able to do locally out of the box for like 15 years, and it hasn’t been updated since 2023. it’s an obvious red flag even without being unsafe.
What does encryption have to do with showing source code?
Maybe “FUD slop” that tries to market itself towards people that dont understand software but are vaguely aware of the privacy problems of popular tech and therefore uncertain and scared, making them easy targets for marketing like this.
Hmmm, makes sense.
i usually assume the worst of sites like this, and i skip right over them…
tesseract, a very popular foss ocr engine, maintains a list of 3rd party gui interfaces:
https://tesseract-ocr.github.io/tessdoc/User-Projects-–-3rdParty.htmlthis is where i would start if i couldn’t just scan and use my naps2.
