Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The window to deploy surveillance-resistant systems is running out

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 330 posts

Re: The window to deploy surveillance-resistant systems is running out

#241

Post by jsnell »

stickfigure wrote: post #117
Quigglez wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to make sure we're talking about the same thing. When I hear people say "vaccine passport" I assume they mean "COVID-19 vaccination documentation". Is that a correct interpretation, or does a vaccine passport mean something more? If it is just "COVID-19 vaccination documentation", has there been a push to not allow the paper documentation? I've been primarily using my paper documentation without issue. As far…

I need to lead this with "I'm fully vaccinated and pro-vaccine" so nobody gets the wrong idea (I'm disappointed that this is the state of discourse) BUT... Anyone can print a piece of paper. If vaccination requirements are going to have any teeth whatsoever, they will need to be much more invasive. A central database is the minimum. You'll need holographic cards with your picture, like driver's licenses. Spot checks…

The vaccination certificate in the EU has a QR code that can be cryptographically verified to have been issued by a legit authority, tells why the certificate has been issued (e.g. vaccination, negative test, etc), and embeds the name of the person such that their identity can be cross-checked against some form of official ID.

So there's no need for anything more complex than a piece of paper you can download + print. What you can't do is make a QR code of your own, change the validity reason of an existing code, or use somebody else's certificate with your own identity.

Re: The window to deploy surveillance-resistant systems is running out

#243

Post by throwawaygh »

toss1 wrote: post #167
vanusa wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Specifics needed on (a) please.

They don't require you buy the device - they merely require apps that run on the device to do certain necessary things, such as drive a motor vehicle, enter certain buildings, use public transportation, etc. The migration to "Oh we now have mobile enabled -- X" is already happening, with "X" being boarding pass, driver's license, building pass, payment method, etc. First, it's a convenience, then it becomes a require…

> they

Who does any of the things you listed?

AFAIK we're actually in exactly the opposite situation. I can be imprisoned for not having a physical copy of my driver's license while operating my vehicle!

> First, it's a convenience, then it becomes a requirement.

What requires a smartphone app?

> At that point, we'll need two devices.

So, just to be clear, you're going to carry two smartphones. One that has a PNG of your driver's license on it and another that doesn't.

...why? What's the "win" here? And if you're so concerned with privacy why on earth are you carrying around that second smartphone? Just carry around the first one with the appropriate PNGs/QR codes and leave it at that.

I mean, all of this is kind of beside the point, but I'm asking for clarification because I'm genuinely bewildered about your threat model.

> For those wealthy enough and who GAF about various issues, that would be a very cheap device and the second device would be your "real" one.

If by "wealthy enough" you mean "has 40 bucks, or any friend who bought a smartphone in the last 3 years and doesn't want their old one."

Re: The window to deploy surveillance-resistant systems is running out

#244

Post by mdp2021 »

rgrieselhuber wrote: post #166
foxfluff wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you try running banking apps on the PinePhone? My bank has made it (almost) impossible to make payments without a phone, btw. Either you need to receive SMS messages or use their proprietary app. I could receive SMS messages without a phone but I would expect this to be a solution that eventually gives me more trouble than it's worth.

There are plenty of banks out there.

None of the banks in the country where a friend of mine lives offer the services he demands: he is planning to live the country.

Many in this branch of discussion seem to be measuring their possibilities against a current situation in their area - while in some other regions the situation is worse to desperate - and they are not seeing a trend.

Re: The window to deploy surveillance-resistant systems is running out

#245

Post by CodeGlitch »

edave64 wrote: post #242
CodeGlitch wrote: post #210

I mean.. Using Twitter doesn't help. Perhaps start there Mr Snowdon?

He what's that communication to reach people. You do public communicate where the public is.

He's famous enough to have his own web page running on his own server. Have an RSS feed so journalists and the like can get updates.

This is basic stuff that anyone with an interest in technology can achieve with minimal funds.

Re: The window to deploy surveillance-resistant systems is running out

#246

Post by mdp2021 »

growse wrote: post #223
digisign wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a looking-forward statement... projecting current trends 5-10 years in the future. More likely will be a de-facto requirement to participate in society rather than a law. As I mentioned in another comment, many private companies are already requiring it.

Another forward-looking statement might be that "governments will require constant 24-hour curfews 10 years from now". After all, that's just projecting and extrapolating from recent historical events (temporary movement restrictions, or lockdowns). Anyone can make "forward looking statements". If they're going to be useful and not dismissed as hysterical fear-mongering, then it helps if they're actually credible.

> it helps if they're actually credible

In some societies, "ability and availability to install mobile applications" is now taken for granted. This comes from the fact that in some societies the vast majority of the members take sheepish "what others do must be right" behaviour as granted. Those mentalities are enablers for regulations that may claim to mirror alleged "de facto" situations - making relevant prospects credible.

Surely many state supported sacrifices to privacy of the recent times (in some regions) were "supported" with "Don't they have FB anyway?" (thing is, of course, no they don't - a few would never).

> projecting and extrapolating from recent historical events

When some of the «recent historical events» come in "support" of already established desiderata of some parts (say, cashless society - to be intended as option dropping), creating an acceleration towards said trends, then they get relevant.

Re: The window to deploy surveillance-resistant systems is running out

#247

Post by derbOac »

throwawaygh wrote: post #164

Surveillance-resistant systems are not an answer to authoritarianism. Private companies do not have freedom of operation in authoritarian regimes. It's a special sort of odd neoliberal fantasy where capitalists or technologists can route around an authoritarian social movement that seizes the power of the state. Do you want to know what happens to people who think they can route around an authoritarian regime with cl…

I strongly agree with you, but at the same time think giving more control to individuals in terms of communication, expression, and infrastructure is probably helpful?

Non-technological and technological solutions aren't mutually exclusive.

I guess I always think of the the quasiomnipotent totalitarian state as a kind of theoretical [anti?]ideal state, sort of like "what's the worst possible case scenario and how does this do in that scenario?"

The goalposts are always being moved but that doesn't mean you shouldn't adjust accordingly.

Re: The window to deploy surveillance-resistant systems is running out

#248

Post by throwawaygh »

matthewdgreen wrote: post #236
bentcorner wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technology people make this mistake a lot. They see a problem like "the government might track all of our payments in the future" and create bitcoin. Or "the government might rootkit our phones" and creates an open source hardware phone. Or "the government might want to see who you are communicating with" and create an E2E encrypted chat application. None of these solutions do anything to solve the original problem,…

I am the author of the original tweet, so allow me to push back on this point of view. Technology people are not the solution to this problem, we are the problem. And we really need to stop being the problem. There have been authoritarian governments before, and still are all over the world: but they've never had access to technology anywhere near as powerful as what we have today, e.g., ubiquitous user location or u…

Okay, so we delete existing repositories and stop collecting that data for now. I'm in full agreement.

I just don't see how developing new systems is any sort of solution.

> It's possible that authoritarian regimes are very efficient and will somehow force companies to build insecure systems that can be abused

The genie is out of the bottle. Issuing an edict to "do things like you did them in 2022" doesn't exactly require genius-level administrative talent...

It's also a bit presumptuous to assume that a future authoritarian regime wouldn't have expert technologists at their disposal... why do you make this assumption? Technologists are just people; a few will be partisans and many more will go along to get along. (To wit: how many of your colleagues at Johns Hopkins who have personal issues with the defense industry don't take boatloads of $$$ from DoD? Or at very least submit to NSF CFPs that are transparently adjacent to concurrently running DARPA programs? Ditto for colleagues who have beef with the tech industry?)

> and force consumers to adopt them at Google scale.

No forcing of consumers required. Just point a gun at whoever has market power and tell them to do things like they were done in 2022. After all, we are talking about an authoritarian regime.

You make a reasonable case for deleting existing troves of data, and a good counter-factual case for never developing smartphones in the first place. But, again, the genie is out of the bottle.

Re: The window to deploy surveillance-resistant systems is running out

#249

Post by ecdouvhr »

throwawaygh wrote: post #234
distances wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paying bills in a physical branch will get expensive fast, at least here every bank that even allows that will take 3-10€ per bill.

Interesting; I wasn't aware. In the US it's still very normal (and free) to deposit/withdraw cash at physical branches.

In most of Europe, depositing cash rarely happens unless you're a business owner depositing the day's earnings. Withdrawals is easier from an ATM.

Many banks require you to call ahead if you want to make a large cash withdrawal, and if you make a large deposit you need to be able to document where you got the money from or had the authorities called on you.

Re: The window to deploy surveillance-resistant systems is running out

#250

Post by ecdouvhr »

bentcorner wrote: post #180
CameronNemo wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any of those people will happily accept a stack of paper bills. Have you actually tried depositing large amounts of cash on a regular basis? Sounds like a good way to get your account flagged and suspended. Not to mention the Treasury's seeming animosity toward cash as an instrument of payment.

There's a middle ground here that has existed for a long time. Mail hand-written cheques for your bills, deposit your paystub into your bank account, withdraw cash on a periodic basis for daily spending. You don't even need to use a banking card for any of this. I haven't been to a store that has refused cash and have never been required to use a banking app.

Where do you still use checks? I don't think I've seen one since the 90's.
Post reply on HN