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 4 weeks 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 4 weeks ago
So name one…
Elgenzay@lemmy.ml 4 weeks ago
No. You can raise concerns about a potential vulnerability without having identified a specific real-world method of exploitation.
TheLowestStone@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
If there’s no method of exploitation then you haven’t found a vulnerability. You’re just describing how the system works.