Thank you, thank you, thank you. I hate Musk more than anyone but holy shit this is embarrassing.
“BREAKING: I asked my magic 8 ball if trump wants to blow up the moon and it said Outlook Good!!! I have a degree in political science.”
No. You can raise concerns about a potential vulnerability without having identified a specific real-world method of exploitation.
A privacy-focused search should not potentially reveal to others that you searched something. My examples prove the possibility that it can do that. I’m sure there’s other examples that are less “weird”.
It was just an example but ok, let’s fix it.
You want to see if someone is nosy so you lie and tell them you were arrested in 2006. You check and see “John Doe arrest 2006” or “John Doe 2006 arrest” is cached.
You get the idea.
Unless the terms include a name or location. Plus Leta is not widely used.
Suppose you tell someone in secret that you were arrested. You know they use Leta, so you look up “John Doe arrest” later and see that it was just recently cached. You only told one person so it must have been them. You now know what someone searched because they used Leta.
I don’t like how it tells you when the results were cached. You can tell if and when a query was searched for by someone else.
Balaji’s parents claim to have evidence from their independent investigation, such as ballistic evidence from the private autopsy, which they claim shows a downwards bullet travel path that would be impossible by a self-administered gunshot. Balaji’s parents also claim that a tuft of wig hair found at the scene that did not belong to Suchir represents unexplained evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suchir_Balaji#Skepticism_and_calls_for_further_investigation
There was a good comment by @pjwestin@lemmy.world the other day on an angry anti-.ml post:
Before joining Lemmy: “It really doesn’t matter what instance you join, you’ll be able to see content from all over.”
After joining Lemmy: “So you’ve enlisted in .world, eh? Welcome to the fight, soldier!”
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.