Hacker News

I ran Headscale for a while, and now wireguard directly, but never really considered it to be more private.

What is Tailscale getting that my ISP and google/Facebook via their pixels and tracking scripts aren't?

> What is Tailscale getting that my ISP and google/Facebook via their pixels and tracking scripts aren't?

Tons more. A lot could be written about, but a few "for starters" things to think about:

    - The web is decentralised.  And a lot of the web trackability can be dealt with in a dozen different ways.  But Tailscale is centralised and all the data nicely structured (stable node keys etc.) and "ready to go" for metadata analysis.
    - Tailscale have "behind the firewall" visibility at a far greater level, it enables building of a topology map and associated flows.
    - Tailscale visibility is perhaps most concerning in relation to metadata surrounding mobile devices.  Where is the device ? Is it in use ? Is it near other devices (from the same customer / other customers) ? etc. etc. etc.

Yes, `--no-logs-no-support` exists for the Tailscale client — but that's per-device, per-platform inconsistent (as the docs show), forfeits support, and doesn't change the fact that coordination traffic, the DERP relays, and the control plane still run through Tailscale. You can't opt out of the centralized control plane at all.

sampullman 2 days ago [ - ]

I think you are overestimating how decentralized the web is. Tailscale (could) collect a different kind of data than e.g. Google, and I believe it's far less harmful for the average user. If you are a journalist or persecuted by a government then sure, Tailscale is bad news.

But if you think Tailscale is bad for mobile devices because they might be able to tell that you're near another Tailscale user, that is absurd. If you have a need to be physically untrackable, the only solution is to leave your tracking device at home.