181–190 of 472 posts
For non-Americans (and Americans) that don't quite understand what SSN is and why it's a problem, CGP Grey [1] has a great (and short) video about the history and why it's not technically an identifier, but has become one. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Erp8IAUouus
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think we've got liability pretty well buttoned-up in the banking industry. I'm more concerned about the non-bank businesses. (I recently obtained utilities at a new house. All three utilities-- electrical, gas, and water/sewer-- use my SSN as an authenticator for my account. In 2024.)
It isn't great, but I don't think there's much risk there. There's not really much of a motivation for some random person to get into my utility account. The balance is never positive. Utilities are physically bolted to my house. They're pretty heavily regulated too. If someone wanted to steal electricity from my house, they can use the outlet on my patio that has zero authentication whatsoever.
That info is, in fact, already easily obtained trough leaks, but I just wanted to give your "utilities" case some clarity. Now the fraudster can apply for a creditcard in your name, and before the month has passed you are on the hook for $3000 in cc charges/debt which cost the fraudster a mere 12 minute phone call and 10 minutes skimming trough the leaked records from this HN post to find your SSN.
Ahh, cool, pour the corpus through GPTs and start tweeting Congressional rep personal info at them until they pass a law to outlaw data brokers (in keeping with historical precedent [1] [2]). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Privacy_Protection_Act [2] https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/dodging-the-thought-poli...
For argument sake, instead of outlawing data brokers wouldn’t it be better to design a better ID system that renders one’s name, dob, and SSN as harmless information? I don’t know what that would look like but if I had congresses attention I’d like them to fix the problem rather than playing whack-a-mole with banning data sources. I don’t think any actual solutions come from that.
We should fix the problem and ban the data-sources. Whack-a-mole makes it sound like we're talking about a ban on one company, but what clearly needs to be done is a categorical ban on super sketchy business practices, and that seems simple enough. Data-brokers, if they are going to exist at all, need to accept the burden of proof to establish that every single row involves consent, and they need to acquire new consent for every single resale of the information. If that makes the whole industry unprofitable, too fucking bad. And if this looks bad for business, it gets even worse: good luck getting consent for reselling what is mine without offering me a cut.
Since the above kind of common sense looks crazy these days, let's throw in something even more radical. For anyone looking to fund UBI, ^ here's a start. The trouble with the often-mentioned idea of "tax the data" as a solution for privacy concerns is that these taxes are just redistributing wealth from corporations to governments, while all of profit is made with our information. Who wants the monetized details of their personal life to pay for the next unjust war, or even the roads in some place they don't live. If we are so valuable, put some of that money back in our hands, and if the price doesn't sound fair to us, then let us opt out of the sale.
Ahh, cool, pour the corpus through GPTs and start tweeting Congressional rep personal info at them until they pass a law to outlaw data brokers (in keeping with historical precedent [1] [2]). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Privacy_Protection_Act [2] https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/dodging-the-thought-poli...
For argument sake, instead of outlawing data brokers wouldn’t it be better to design a better ID system that renders one’s name, dob, and SSN as harmless information? I don’t know what that would look like but if I had congresses attention I’d like them to fix the problem rather than playing whack-a-mole with banning data sources. I don’t think any actual solutions come from that.
The government now knows what we do most of the time anyway: layer-2 logs on our phones are constant. We lost any privacy some time ago. So now, getting security back might be a net win.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-08-13/trust-exchange-digita...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Someone created a magnet link yesterday Are you against simply sharing the infohash here? I'd like to download the leak to see what information it has on myself and my family, but I don't really relish the idea of signing up for a breachforums account and sifting though its posts if I can avoid it.
Here is a strongly encrypted base64 version to keep hackers out: bWFnbmV0Oj94dD11cm46YnRpaDozY2FhNzFmM2VjOGNiY2NjNmZjYTRmZWI3MTg1ZGEyYmFiMTQ5YmE3JmRuPU5QRCZ0cj11ZHA6Ly90cmFja2VyLm9wZW5iaXR0b3JyZW50LmNvbTo4MCZ0cj11ZHA6Ly90cmFja2VyLm9wZW50cmFja3Iub3JnOjEzMzcvYW5ub3VuY2U= Allegedly, the password (also base64 encrypted) is: aHR0cHM6Ly91c2RvZC5pby8=
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For argument sake, instead of outlawing data brokers wouldn’t it be better to design a better ID system that renders one’s name, dob, and SSN as harmless information? I don’t know what that would look like but if I had congresses attention I’d like them to fix the problem rather than playing whack-a-mole with banning data sources. I don’t think any actual solutions come from that.
Funny you should say that. Australia is trying to launch TEx -designed on open-source models to do this kind of thing. It's hitting the usual roadblocks of public acceptance of government mandated ID, in an economy which trashed the "australia card" idea back in the 80s. We're wiser now, we've been frogs boiled slowly: the downsides of central safe ID/auth are outweighed by the risks of loss of info giving everyone 1…
So i imagine the "Number of people driven to suicide" KPI is going to be pretty high. They're not going to want to ship something that performs worse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US has three dumb points pushing back on this. The first is religious nuts who think it would be a "mark of the beast" The second is anti-government types who are, well, anti-government anything. The third is many business owners, because it would become much harder/risky to hire illegal immigrants to work.
The "mark of the beast" types are pretty much fine with cards that have chips in them, but they really hate it when you threaten to implant those chips into people and they want cash to remain an option - same as the anti-government types. I don't share their apocalyptic or anti-government concerns, but I'm actually kind of grateful for their passionate opposition to both of those things anyway. I don't really want a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In many countries in Europe, your ID card contains a chip with a cryptographic key, much like chip&pin on a debit or credit card. Those bits of information are worthless when you need to create a cryptographic signature with your ID card to do almost anything important. If the card is lost or stolen they can just remove your old one from the keyserver. It's literally just public key crypto. Identity theft is rampant…
> Those bits of information are worthless when you need to create a cryptographic signature with your ID card to do almost anything important. That depends on the type of attack you're protecting against. It might prevent an attacker from filing your taxes for you, but many companies are still going to use this kind of information as primary key. But it's not going to stop an attacker from pretending to be a bank emp…
My country's version uses separate mechanisms with separate passwords for "identify me, revealing my name/DoB/number" and "sign something". Obviously not impossible to pretend that you're signing an innocuous document and have you sign something else, but it at least removes some of the low-hanging fruit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hobby Lobby's CEO provided a handy list of reasons why they do not use bar codes, none of which have anything to do with them being marks of beasts https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hobby-lobby-mark-of-the-be...
I will say that their list of reasons is deeply flawed. > Human beings can't read a bar code. - they can, and more importantly they almost never have to > A lot of our product comes from cottage industries in Asia that couldn't mark their goods with bar codes if they tried. - They can be added at the store/warehouse level, not every product needs one, and I've never seen a store that worked entirely on bar codes 100%…