Comment on [deleted]
Elgenzay@lemmy.ml 2 months agoIt 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.
TheLowestStone@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Ok, cool. You successfully proved that a person you suspect of being nosy actually is. You probably could have figured that out based on their reaction to you telling them about the fake arrest. Also, your nosy fake friend is a real idiot. They are apparently privacy focused enough to be using Leta but ignorant of the fact that this search is going to be cached and the time ligged. The arrest is from 2006 so it’s unlikely anyone else would have searched it. Leta isn’t widely used so the smart play is to use literally any other search engine for this one search because the only person they need to keep it a secret from is you. Or maybe they just don’t care if you know that they searched for more info on your arrest because everyone already knows they are nosy.
All of this is besides the point though because none of these super specific scenarios are what we’re talking about when we discuss privacy on this level. This is meant for keeping Google from harvesting your data. If you decide to use it for baiting people into searching specific things so you can have a weird little gotcha moment that’s on you.
Elgenzay@lemmy.ml 2 months ago
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”.
TheLowestStone@lemmy.world 2 months ago
So name one…
Elgenzay@lemmy.ml 2 months ago
No. You can raise concerns about a potential vulnerability without having identified a specific real-world method of exploitation.