Live data from Hacker News

Surveillance is not safety: A statement on the UK's latest threat to privacy [pdf]

signal.org

271–280 of 357 posts

Re: Surveillance is not safety: A statement on the UK's latest threat to privacy [pdf]

#271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

zero knowledge proofs exist, don't they? also it matters "private from whom, and what". You can make what sites you visit private from the government, and your identity a secret from the site, but the inverse isn't true, the government would know the identity, and the site would obviously know someone visited it. The problem with this whole thing is the expectation of privacy online for interactions where their IRL e…

ZKP age verification doesn't verify because you can just copy someone else's token.

You can also... ask someone else to pass selfie-age-verification during an account registration, no?

Re: Surveillance is not safety: A statement on the UK's latest threat to privacy [pdf]

#272
post #227

Surveillance is not education, and it is education that will reap long term improvement. Education is hard but effective whilst surveillance is easy and ineffective. Guess which option politicians take?

Guess which funding is getting impacted to enable this kind of law.

...and the race to the bottom finds another pathway to acceleration.

Re: Surveillance is not safety: A statement on the UK's latest threat to privacy [pdf]

#273
post #38

I sometimes wonder whether the people in the tech industry who worked on things like secure boot, attestation, and DRM saw this as the inevitability open source advocates always saw it as. Did they think, as they worked to transfer final say from users to corporations, by technical means, that politicians couldn't transfer that control to themselves by political means? Did they think they could lock things down to ex…

My impression is that people who can work on stuff like that are the kind who just take the stuff in the world for granted. "This is how the world is, we need digital restrictions so now we need to implement them." "I don't have a say about whether DRM or remote attestation is standard business practice or not, it is just how it is." This is akin to how two kinds of people respond to law. The first kind think "This i…

> My impression is that people who can work on stuff like that are the kind who just take the stuff in the world for granted.

Some are also doing it for the technical challenge, especially those working on new tech rather than refining what already exists. Like the people who try to solve the great problems of mathematics/physics (or find interesting new ones) for the challenge of it (and sometimes refuse prizes & recognition if they do solve or otherwise discover something vital).

This sort of person is often blinkered to the possible extreme long-term outcomes, or are able to mentally separate themselves from them (“I just made the discovery, I didn't use it to do anything bad” or “I was paid for it, follow the money source and blame them”). Of course once a genie is out of the bottle, other sorts of people are more than eager to ask it for wishes…

Re: Surveillance is not safety: A statement on the UK's latest threat to privacy [pdf]

#274
post #38

I sometimes wonder whether the people in the tech industry who worked on things like secure boot, attestation, and DRM saw this as the inevitability open source advocates always saw it as. Did they think, as they worked to transfer final say from users to corporations, by technical means, that politicians couldn't transfer that control to themselves by political means? Did they think they could lock things down to ex…

My impression is that people who can work on stuff like that are the kind who just take the stuff in the world for granted. "This is how the world is, we need digital restrictions so now we need to implement them." "I don't have a say about whether DRM or remote attestation is standard business practice or not, it is just how it is." This is akin to how two kinds of people respond to law. The first kind think "This i…

> This is akin to how two kinds of people respond to law. The first kind think "This is the law, we must follow it" and the other kind think "This law doesn't make sense, we must change it".

There exist more kinds:

- the "rebel": "this is a law/rule, so I have to trespass it". This often holds for people who are either annoyed by rules or red tape or for people who see no hope of changing the law. An example are the "blade runners" in London who organize to destroy lots of surveillance cameras at once, in particular those that are used to enforce low-emission laws. [1]

- the "evil": "this is law, so I will (ab)use it for my personal gain".

[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/ulez-cameras-van...

Re: Surveillance is not safety: A statement on the UK's latest threat to privacy [pdf]

#275
post #233

Surveillance is a tool. It's neither right nor wrong, good or evil. It can be used to create safety (as it is by police forces, when authorized by judges, in compliance with democratically voted laws), or can be misused to create terror (and, as we've seen before, it never needed cellphones for that). We should guard against the misuses and create enough legal frameworks to protect individuals' privacy (and aggressiv…

> Surveillance is a tool. It's neither right nor wrong, good or evil. What is it a tool for, it is a tool for observing while no person is present therefore breaking privacy. Privacy, a state in which one is not observed or disturbed by other people. Any tool is (as long as it exists) always used for right or wrong, good or evil. However what might be good or evil is very subjective. Both in the moment and looking ba…

> What is it a tool for,

A nuclear weapon is a tool. You can use it to blast a city-killing asteroid, one you just noticed, into pieces that'd burn in the atmosphere (and miss the city). You can also use it to mass murder an entire population.

> it is a tool for observing while no person is present therefore breaking privacy.

The capacity exists, but it's not necessarily used all the time. We should create the legal frameworks to protect ourselves from the misuse of the technology.

Re: Surveillance is not safety: A statement on the UK's latest threat to privacy [pdf]

#276

Have they never heard of "the boy who cried wolf"? First of all, age verification is not mass surveillance, it is possible to verify your age without disclosing who you are to the site you're visiting, and without disclosing what site you visited to the government. There are even age verification services (and I do despise them fully, this should be a government provided service!) that use only facial features to det…

Thank you for writing this.

Of all the topics I’ve had to work with in my career, this one has caused me by far the most frustration. I like to think the hacker community is generally scientifically-minded and open to rational debate, but online discussion of this subject uniquely tends to cause people to hunker down, refuse to engage productively, and resort to name-calling. This might feel righteous, but ultimately leads to own-goals from us.

Firstly, to make one thing clear, it’s _absolutely_ possible to do age verification in a privacy-preserving manner. A technology called Privacy Pass exists that separates the roles in the age-verification question. This would make it possible to have a solution where the government can attest to your age without knowing what website you’re trying to visit (e.g. pornography, or an online casino, or just purchasing alcohol online). This is just a matter of fact. I’d recommend reading RFC 9576 for more details on the separation of roles here, it’s a really nice protocol.

There seems to be some misconception that privacy-preserving solutions for age verification aren’t permitted under various legislations. I don’t know where this comes from, but certainly Ofcom _mandates_ the minimisation of unnecessary data collection. This doesn’t mean that suboptimal technologies aren’t in use, but there’s certainly nothing precluding the use of fully privacy-preserving solutions.

We should be pushing for privacy-preserving age verification. It’s easy and convenient to say it’s the job of parents, and label anyone who doesn’t use parental controls as a bad parent, but at the end of the day, a government’s job is to look after its citizens regardless of whether they have good parents. If instead of engaging productively we stonewall the topic based on a vaguely-directed-but-intense distrust of Government, then governments will implement it anyway, and the solutions will be bad. We know this is the case, because it already happens.

I participated in a very productive workshop last year with representatives from government as well as various privacy-conscious companies, including Mozilla. I was pleasantly surprised at how productive we could be when we all worked together on this. We all walked away with a much better understanding of some of the problems, some of the nuances involved, and some possible paths forward.

Re: Surveillance is not safety: A statement on the UK's latest threat to privacy [pdf]

#277
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My impression is that people who can work on stuff like that are the kind who just take the stuff in the world for granted. "This is how the world is, we need digital restrictions so now we need to implement them." "I don't have a say about whether DRM or remote attestation is standard business practice or not, it is just how it is." This is akin to how two kinds of people respond to law. The first kind think "This i…

That doesn't really answer the question. Suppose there is some peon at Microsoft who is ordered to write code for Pluton and then does it because they don't want to be fired, expecting to hide behind the Nuremberg defense. The people in your second group will naturally disapprove of this. But regardless of that, we can ask the same question of the person giving the orders. Someone in these companies initiated these p…

> Suppose there is some pe[rs]on at Microsoft who is ordered to write code for Pluton and then does it because they don't want to be fired, expecting to hide behind the Nuremberg defense. The people in your second group will naturally disapprove of this.

I would rather say: people who are too "rebellious"/"non-obedient" don't get into a position where they are ordered to write code for Pluton.

Re: Surveillance is not safety: A statement on the UK's latest threat to privacy [pdf]

#278
post #24

So, in this order: 1. You need a camera on your computer to allow a third party to verify your age before viewing adult content 2. It applies to social media too 3. It applies to your operating system too 4. Unless you age verify, the law demands your computer must be powerful enough to run an AI, or be internet-equipped and send your private photos to a third party, to detect and prohibit nudity. It must be capable…

The fear towards adult content is so insane. I know it’s mostly a pretext, but a meaningful portion of the population will accept pretty much whatever restrictions because they are so afraid of their kids seeing naked bodies

Re: Surveillance is not safety: A statement on the UK's latest threat to privacy [pdf]

#279
post #24

So, in this order: 1. You need a camera on your computer to allow a third party to verify your age before viewing adult content 2. It applies to social media too 3. It applies to your operating system too 4. Unless you age verify, the law demands your computer must be powerful enough to run an AI, or be internet-equipped and send your private photos to a third party, to detect and prohibit nudity. It must be capable…

>Next step, certainly to outlaw most operating systems and older devices. They won't have to. Instead, they'll just make some new essentially mandatory tech which older devices cannot run – update or stop existing, societally. ---- Phones and email already seem this way (i.e. "required") – from my perspective as an internet user whom doesn't use phone/email, personally. Nobody believes me when answering "no phone, no…

Email is the most free, decentralized communication channel we have. It’s fully async, so you consume it at the pace you want. What makes you against emails? Just curious

Re: Surveillance is not safety: A statement on the UK's latest threat to privacy [pdf]

#280

Signal should come out swinging. Here's a pitch. The Government is going to put a snitch on every phone, tape every bedroom, and listen in every evening on every home. Every doctor's visit. Every therapy session. Every pub. Every street. Every store. When the snitches phone home, what you type to your lover may get the cops sent to your home. Artificial stasi in every desktop, laptop, tablet, camera, and phone. Aroun…

I’m afraid too many people would hear that and say „I don’t care“
Post reply on HN