You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Some self-hosted photo libraries offer end-to-end encryption (e.g., Ente), while others store photos unencrypted (e.g., Immich).
This may be considered an asset (enhanced privacy) or an issue (the server is unable to see/read photos, so most features must be done in the client, for example face detection).
At least to me, this is an important thing to consider when choosing a photo library.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Yes, it seems to be the same. I apologize for not being able to find it in my search before opening this one.
Even though I believe the title of the linked issue is a bit misleading: from my understanding, encryption for data at storage may be implemented in different ways (e.g., the server may hold all the encryption keys), while end-to-end encryption (e2ee) strictly implies the client to hold the keys. However, reading the linked issue in Immich repo and the discussion in #68, it is clear that it actually refers to e2ee.
Some self-hosted photo libraries offer end-to-end encryption (e.g., Ente), while others store photos unencrypted (e.g., Immich).
This may be considered an asset (enhanced privacy) or an issue (the server is unable to see/read photos, so most features must be done in the client, for example face detection).
At least to me, this is an important thing to consider when choosing a photo library.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: