• cron@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    I’m unsure about the end-to-end encryption aspect. While this feature is great for a cloud service like ente.io, it doesn’t really help much in a selfhosted scenario - and might make backups more complicated. Any other opinions on this?

    • helenslunch@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      Would probably be trivial for a local authority to hack your server and collect the necessary info that way.

      I mean that’s the main reason I self-host anyway.

      • cron@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Remotely hacking into my server is probably harder than just walking into my home with a warrant and confiscate everything.

        • helenslunch@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago
          1. Yes but then they need to get a warrant.

          2. All the more reason to have it encrypted since they can’t access it even with a warrant and confiscation.

    • anivia@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      Do you want your ISP to be able to spy on your private pictures when uploading them to your self-hosted server? End-to-end encryption is a no-brainer every time you transmit private data online

      • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        Their model is that the server doesn’t know what the pictures are.

        Which is fine. It’s cool that it exists as an option, especially with someone else hosting your pictures. But it’s not for me. I want my server to see my pictures so it can play with them.

        • wreckedcarzz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          so it can play with them

          Papa jpeg: “this little jpeg went to market, this one stayed home, and this one went weeeeeee all the way along the download stream!”

          Other little jpegs: “hoorayyyyyyy”

          • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            lol I want some of them served publicly. And at some point I want to do other processing of the contents of photos.

            I have absolutely no opposition to the existence of an end to end encrypted photo service. If the process of adding new devices is easy enough, it’s what I’d want from someone else hosting. But it’s not what I need for personal hosting.

            Which, again, is fine. There’s absolutely a place for it. But the dude we’re responding to is acting like not doing it is a liability when there’s very good reason not to. (I think it’s because of platforms trying to muddy the water of what end to end encryption means to pretend they do it and confusing him.)