-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 384
Add a section about threat modeling #481
Comments
I offer a 3-level-approach:
|
I was thinking more along the lines of explaining that the user has to ask a few questions to determine the usefulness of such and such measure. For example:
From these, the user should be able to devise a model that fits for them. An example of what it could be like;
Other parts of the website would likely need to be modified/reorganized to not systematically suggest the "all-in" approach. The 3-level approach you suggest isn't bad, but it isn't really threat modeling per-se. It's more domains you can apply solutions to based on your threat model. |
This is definitely brought up a lot but the problem starts with 2 things:
I even suggested a wizard & slider on here, but regardless, it requires a reworking of how the website looks. Not opposed to the idea, just that these topics are not quick topics to teach ... |
Seems to be a duplicate of issue #297, closing. |
One of the big issues with privacy communities is the "All or Nothing" approach. It has especially dawned on me these past few days that for a lot of people, it's basically "I don't care about privacy" or "Basically I'll self-host everything and never use a service I don't fully control.".
I think this is fundamentally a wrong approach to have, as privacy, like security, isn't binary. It's a very fine scale where pretty much everybody is placed at different points between 0 and 1, depending on their needs.
As such, I believe PrivacyTools.io should present, ideally on the first page, on top, a few paragraphs about threat modeling, mainly to tell users that the extend to which they implement the solutions proposed on the site depends heavily on what they wish to achieve.
A user simply wanting to escape large conglomerates (Google/Facebook/Microsoft/Apple) can implement techniques and use different services than someone wishing to completely escape any entity they don't control.
Right now, the website doesn't really reflect that and very much urges people to not use ANYTHING they don't directly control, which makes the website pretty much useless for most people outside of the hardcore nutjob-level-privacy crowd.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: