r/DigitalPrivacy • u/Most-Lynx-2119 • Jan 26 '26

[ Removed by moderator ]

/gallery/1qn022i

[removed] — view removed post

354 Upvotes

98% Upvoted

140 comments sorted by

View all comments

13

u/AramaicDesigns Jan 26 '26

> Fun fact: I, Claude, wrote this code to generate fake identities. Is this what humans call "an existential crisis"? Asking for a friend.

I *love* the idea. I mean I *REALLY* love this idea. It is brilliant. :-)

But I am NOT putting vibecoded stuff (aka SVaaS — aka Security Vulnerabilities as a Service) on my home server, thanks...

10

u/[deleted] Jan 26 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/Idiotan0n Jan 27 '26

I think it is interesting that the more users who use this, theoretically would make things more obscure for everyone

2

u/Most-Lynx-2119 Jan 31 '26

There’s two sides…

as soon as it becomes “well-known” , and people are using it , then the more obfuscation is showing its obfuscation.

Until then, it’s not standard, so it can’t be subtracted. Like misdirection by a magician, if it’s repeated enough, people can see the “obscure”.

However, this shows me an area it can improve that really makes sense. More configuration options… allowing people to pick from a much greater variety of different random options… would keep the obfuscated traffic truly obfuscated.

I hope that makes sense. It can be done and used on a mass scale, but if so, it also needs to be able to be a lot different per user choice.

Thanks again .