> You can't leak users' data if you don't hold it
False. You can't leak a user's data if you never have it to begin with. If you process it, you are at risk of leaking it.
You can't leak users' data if you don't hold it
81–90 of 170 posts
Re: You can't leak users' data if you don't hold it
#82I agree with the core idea, avoid saving info so you can't ever leak it. I personally think our legal framework should be based on consequences to encourage this mentality more. If you are hacked I don't care even a little that you did everything right, I just care that my information got taken. You should be held liable even if you did what the industry thought was right.
The problem is the core idea is flawed.
The same concept (don't store the data) was applied to creditcard account data 10 years ago in many point-of-sale systems. Malware simply evolved to logs the data itself.
Not collecting user data in the first place might be a solve, but don't let simply not storing it create a false sense of security. Your user's data is still very much at risk.
Re: You can't leak users' data if you don't hold it
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
> avoid saving info so you can't ever leak it I think that this is a good idea. It's similar to the principle of least privilege: keep only what you need to offer the service you are providing. Less risk for the provider, less risk for the consumer. However, at least in the USA, I've noticed an increasing number of companies who have determined that personal data is worth good money. This is why most stores have rewa…
Even without reward programs, couldn't they just associate purchases with a given credit card or similar?
We don't actually care. We're interested in how the product is doing so we know how little we can get away with ordering (to the warehouse). I think the rewards are for sharing with other brands or stores that are owned by the same parent. I doubt they would sell to a competitor. That would directly reduce their own sales. Selling to another industry doesn't make sense either. No one wants more liability for retaining irrelevant data.
Re: You can't leak users' data if you don't hold it
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
> avoid saving info so you can't ever leak it I think that this is a good idea. It's similar to the principle of least privilege: keep only what you need to offer the service you are providing. Less risk for the provider, less risk for the consumer. However, at least in the USA, I've noticed an increasing number of companies who have determined that personal data is worth good money. This is why most stores have rewa…
Even without reward programs, couldn't they just associate purchases with a given credit card or similar?
They control the registers; they can identify or at least bin users by the selection and quantity of products they buy.
Re: You can't leak users' data if you don't hold it
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am still waiting for digital identity. Not sure why I can’t authenticate myself with these companies based on a private key and any details they want be disclosed to them for whatever reason don’t just come ephemerally from my server. Obviously, you could also have a third party acting in this space for the non-tech savvy. Right now all my data is held by corporate types who don’t give a shit.
Passkeys are a start. They have their issues (I wrote about some here: https://ciamweekly.substack.com/p/on-webauthn-and-passkeys ) but at least it is widespread, well supported, standardized, (possibly) anonymous public private key cryptography.
It seems likely that you know passkeys better than I do (you wrote a blog about them after all), so I've got a question.
My impression is that there's a server side component. It's not just a key in your device, it's a key in your device that's blessed by someone who maintains a server. My further impression is that the people who manage the servers (either the authenticating-you server or the supporting-auth-for-you server) will be able to configure allow/deny lists for each other. They can say:
> sorry passkeys.jimbobsmomsbasement.com, you're not on the list of servers that I trust, so I'm not going to accept this key
Quoting GP here:
> Right now all my data is held by corporate types who don’t give a shit.
Is it true that passkey providers will be able to use this feature band together and prevent passkey providers that they don't like from being useful? It was something about attestations--I didn't fully get it the first time it was explained to me.
If so, doesn't that make the "corporate types who don't give a shit" problem worse? At least with a password the corporate types couldn't deny you the right to authenticate because in their estimation your password provider isn't corporate enough.
Re: You can't leak users' data if you don't hold it
#86I agree with the core idea, avoid saving info so you can't ever leak it. I personally think our legal framework should be based on consequences to encourage this mentality more. If you are hacked I don't care even a little that you did everything right, I just care that my information got taken. You should be held liable even if you did what the industry thought was right.
I disagree. I dont see any reason users wouldn't equally share the risk if neither party did anything wrong. I suppose if the company makes a claim like "We wont share your data with anyone" then you could make that point
Re: You can't leak users' data if you don't hold it
#87> You can't leak users' data if you don't hold it False. You can't leak a user's data if you never have it to begin with. If you process it, you are at risk of leaking it.
False. In order to process a user's data, you must inherently hold it while processing it.
Alternatively, stop being pedantic.
Re: You can't leak users' data if you don't hold it
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
> avoid saving info so you can't ever leak it I think that this is a good idea. It's similar to the principle of least privilege: keep only what you need to offer the service you are providing. Less risk for the provider, less risk for the consumer. However, at least in the USA, I've noticed an increasing number of companies who have determined that personal data is worth good money. This is why most stores have rewa…
I am still waiting for digital identity. Not sure why I can’t authenticate myself with these companies based on a private key and any details they want be disclosed to them for whatever reason don’t just come ephemerally from my server. Obviously, you could also have a third party acting in this space for the non-tech savvy. Right now all my data is held by corporate types who don’t give a shit.
The Schluss project out of the Netherlands is trying to do just that, really cool stuff! (Schluss.org)
Re: You can't leak users' data if you don't hold it
#89The best infosec advice I ever received was “data is toxic”.
Came here to comment on that: see the essay 'Data Is a Toxic Asset, So Why Not Throw It Out?' by Bruce Schneier [1]
[1] https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2016/03/data_is_a_t...
Re: You can't leak users' data if you don't hold it
#90From their privacy policy: https://matter.xyz/privacy > If we make changes to this privacy policy, we will update it here and update the effective date at the top. (We can’t email you about changes because we don’t collect everyone’s email addresses.) Changes to this policy will not apply retroactively. Effectively they can change it any time and you probably won't know. If they violate it, what power do you have to…
This is exactly as good as it gets as a privacy extremist - if they don't have your email, they won't send it, if they change it, the changes won't apply to you. They explicitly ruled out using your data according the new policy - retroactively means, if they update it, the updated version doesn't apply to you.
My read there is that it won't apply retroactively to data you've already given them, but will apply to data you give them in the future, regardless of they are able to notify you of the change or not.