Skip to content

Queer Dating Apps: Beware Who You Trust With Your Intimate Data

Technology
1 1 12
  • When discussing the intersection of data privacy and LGBTQ+ experiences, it's inevitable to also talk about queer dating apps. Due to a smaller percentage of the population and a number of factors complicating in-person dating, people part of the queer community are more likely to seek online platforms to meet lovers and friends. Unfortunately, using queer dating apps can be very dangerous for privacy, and even for safety.

    Dating apps are generally horrible for everyone's privacy, but the queer population is at an even higher risk of harm due to discrimination, and even criminalization in certain regions.

    Despite the risks, LGBTQ+ people still need to fulfill their social and romantic needs like anyone else.

    This isn't an easy task outside the online realm either. Discrimination can be much worse in physical environments that aren't specifically catering to the queer community. In some regions, this can even mean a greater risk of physical aggression.

    LGBTQ+ people aren't necessarily safe to date in the same ways cisgender heterosexual people are, increasing the need for safe spaces.

    Another important factor is that a smaller percentage of the population necessarily creates a smaller dating pool. Even if someone were to avoid entirely online services, if they aren't located in a town large enough to host LGBTQ+ venues and events, or if they live in an environment where revealing their queer identity could be unsafe to them, online spaces might be their only viable option to find connections.

    Sadly, this isn't ideal. In today's world, it seems very few services (if any) are considering the importance of data privacy for dating apps seriously enough.

    For this reason, it is crucial to acknowledge the dangers, and learn about ways to minimize the risks, and to stay safe while looking for romantic or sexual partners online.

  • Google Killed Your Attention Span with SEO-Friendly Articles

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    111 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    12 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 109 Stimmen
    10 Beiträge
    57 Aufrufe
    L
    Yeah, I agree. It's a great starting place. Recently I needed a piece of information that I couldn't find anywhere through a regular search. ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini all gave a similar answers, but it was only confirmed when I contacted the company directly which took about 3 business days to reply.
  • 21 Stimmen
    19 Beiträge
    100 Aufrufe
    B
    The AI only needs to alert the doctor that something is off and should be tested for. It does not replace doctors, but augments them. It's actually a great use for AI, it's just not what we think of as AI in a post-LLM world. The medically useful AI is pattern recognition. LLMs may also help doctors if they need a starting point into researching something weird and obscure, but ChatGPT isn't being used for diagnosing patients, nor is anything any AI says the "final verdict". It's just a tool to improve early detection of disorders, or it might point someone towards an useful article or book.
  • 0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    12 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • The Trump Mobile T1 Phone looks both bad and impossible

    Technology technology
    42
    1
    139 Stimmen
    42 Beiträge
    191 Aufrufe
    S
    "Components" means in this case the phone and the sticker.
  • iFixit says the Switch 2 is even harder to repair than the original

    Technology technology
    126
    1
    698 Stimmen
    126 Beiträge
    516 Aufrufe
    Y
    My understanding is that if they've lasted at least a month and haven't died on you, you probably got a "good" batch and what you have now will be what it stays as for the most part, but a fair number of gulikits just sort of crap out at the 1-2 mo mark. So heads up on that.
  • 1 Stimmen
    8 Beiträge
    40 Aufrufe
    L
    I think the principle could be applied to scan outside of the machine. It is making requests to 127.0.0.1:{port} - effectively using your computer as a "server" in a sort of reverse-SSRF attack. There's no reason it can't make requests to 10.10.10.1:{port} as well. Of course you'd need to guess the netmask of the network address range first, but this isn't that hard. In fact, if you consider that at least as far as the desktop site goes, most people will be browsing the web behind a standard consumer router left on defaults where it will be the first device in the DHCP range (e.g. 192.168.0.1 or 10.10.10.1), which tends to have a web UI on the LAN interface (port 8080, 80 or 443), then you'd only realistically need to scan a few addresses to determine the network address range. If you want to keep noise even lower, using just 192.168.0.1:80 and 192.168.1.1:80 I'd wager would cover 99% of consumer routers. From there you could assume that it's a /24 netmask and scan IPs to your heart's content. You could do top 10 most common ports type scans and go in-depth on anything you get a result on. I haven't tested this, but I don't see why it wouldn't work, when I was testing 13ft.io - a self-hosted 12ft.io paywall remover, an SSRF flaw like this absolutely let you perform any network request to any LAN address in range.
  • 0 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    22 Aufrufe
    B
    ... robo chomo?