this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2025
57 points (96.7% liked)
Programming
23926 readers
218 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
All said and done... people should have personally controlled access to their data. For physical things, some people have safes, others use safety deposit boxes at banks. But we don't have a digital equivalent. And the problem is that the complexity is too high for a lot of people. So something like this would be good for some people, it still won't get the majority. What we need is the digital equivalent of a fiduciary. Someone who is legally bound to look out for a person's digital interests. That would allow people to trust such a person to vet simpler wrappers around set ups like this, or anything.
Most peoples' computers and phones have encrypted data storage by default now.
They are the digital equivalent of a safe.
But most people do not want to own, manage, back up and store their own data.
Just like most people do not own or think they need a safe.
The encryption is meaningless unless someone physically take the drive. The os has the key, and M$ owns the OS. So it can read that data anytime it wants. So can anything running on the machine generally. It's mostly theater.
But yes, my point was that people don't want to because it is too much work. It needs to be easier.