• KyRoLen@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    There should be a way to encrypt things when the server is off and then have a Killswitch for situations like this. Idk if it’d be overkill in this case thougj

    • insomniac@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Probably good advice but not exactly relevant. The person was hosting a server in their house and got raided for unrelated reasons and all their electronics were seized. Had they hosted in a data center or at least had off premises back ups, this wouldn’t have happened.

      • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I thought one of the points of the fediverse was to not be centralized in data centers that are more easily controlled. It’s supposedly supposed to be easy and relatively cheap to spin up your own instance on your own hardware. Just outsourcing to a data center I think goes against what the fediverse promised.

        • insomniac@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Like anything, it’s a trade off. The fact that you can do whatever you want is the good thing. As long as everyone isn’t in the same datacenter, it’s fine. There’s datacenters all over the planet.

          If you’re self hosting, you can mitigate the risks by having some kind of contingency plan though. Just having backups in another location would have made it possible to get back up after the interruption. Now, this instance is probably just screwed.

          Data centers aren’t inherently bad and neither is self hosting. But there’s different risks that need to be planned for.

          • Revan343@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            If you’re self hosting, you can mitigate the risks by having some kind of contingency plan

            Like a degaussing loop hidden in the door frame?

            Just having backups in another location would have made it possible to get back up after the interruption

            Oh. Not that kind of contingency plan

  • Nowhereman@lemmy.stonansh.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Is there anything instance owners can do? Are there things you can do with your server to get better security for your users (and yourself)

  • Repossess6855@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    The US again continuing to flex its muscles that it truly does own and control half the world, as it so affectionately reminds us daily.

    It is absolutely hysterical how bad authoritarianism has engulfed all modern governments. This isn’t remotely a left vs right thing or a US thing, almost all modern governments have become this way.

    • Underwear@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      The person referenced in the article was raided for completely unrelated charges. It just happened they took the server and backups as part of the raid. Had they hosted off-site or kept the backups off-site, the damage would have been minimal. This article brings up a good point, but it’s not the nefariousness that the title implies.

      • girlfreddy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Cops took what wasn’t needed and haven’t returned it (that we know of).

        I’d say that’s about as nefarious as it gets.

          • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Any time they take all electronics, there’s bound to be something there that wasn’t needed. It’s overly broad.

            • MomoTimeToDie@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yeah, because humans can’t just pick up a drive and instantly read every single thing on it. The cops have no idea how many pieces of storage you have or how you organize your files.

          • xkforce@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            How do you know that it was? Were you involved in this case enough to know something the rest of us dont? Or are you just a bystander playing devil’s advocate?

            EDIT: since I apparently cant reply to your comment below, you cant just claim that the hardware was involved in a crime by “just asking questions” then accuse me of “stirring up shit” after calling you out on making unsubstantiated claims. If you make a claim it is YOUR job to defend that claim. Not everyone elses’ job to disprove your assertion.

            • ZodiacSF1969@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago
              1. I’m not the person you can’t reply to below.

              2. I was literally just asking. If the warrant was in relation to a charge that they were hosting CSAM, then yes the seizure of the server would be appropriate.

            • MomoTimeToDie@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Were you involved in this case enough to know something the rest of us dont?

              I could say the same to you. Trying to research it literally only surfaces what the admins of the instance have said. As far as I could tell, they didn’t publish anything concerning what was in the warrant, or any specifics of what crime was being investigated. The most they’ve said is that it’s related to a protest.

              Beyond that, it’s basically just standard procedure to seize all or most computers and drives on a warrant since they can’t possibly know exactly which ones do and don’t contain evidence in advance.

              So yeah, I’d would say it’s entirely reasonable to question the person calling it “as nefarious as it gets” for more information