3 ms·

> Please read up on GDPR "purpose limitation". I am reasonably familiar with the contents of GDPR, having looked into it more after attending a lecture on the

> Please read up on GDPR "purpose limitation". I am reasonably familiar with the contents of GDPR, having looked into it more after attending a lecture on the subject [0]. > We cannot use IP address except for antifraud, so it is not legally viable for us to try to link zero-knowledge proofs into a profile based on IP address. If your users must rely on you obeying a policy, then please just say that. Right now, it seems to me that you claim to use technical means to prevent Brave from learning browsing histories [1]. > my home AT&T IP address wanders often, so do many others; mobile even more variable. IP addresses can be so identifying that they have been ruled as personally-identifiable information by the European Court of Justice [2]. > I think you are mistrusting prematurely. But as noted in my item 1, we are talking to PIA about using an IP relay (not full VPN). This got delayed by their work on handshake.org but we're restarting it. Thank you for stating clearly that you aren't using PIA (aka "IP masking") at the moment for Brave Payments. You might consider your users who are worried about data breaches and compromised servers as much as they are worried about Brave's intentions. Please don't take my criticisms personally. > Putting these through separate Tor circuits is possible, as we also randomly space them out in time. Oh, you do randomly delay ballot submissions? I have not been able to find any such logic in the code but would be happy to be pointed to it. The specific way in which you choose delays is, of course, crucial to it providing security. [0] <https://petsymposium.org/2018/program.php> https://petsymposium.org/2018/program.php> [1] <https://brave.com/faq-payments/#anonymous-contributions> https://brave.com/faq-payments/#anonymous-contributions> [2] <https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/european-cour.. https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/european-cour....

BrendanEich 8y ago
> If your users must rely on you obeying a policy, then please just say that. I did just say that, several times -- but with conditions that do not make it a matter of "policy" only. We agree IP address should be masked for self-funded users. Working on it! We are very familiar with how any user log can be used as a history, but anonized proofs that can't link to a user id except illegally to IP address are not on the same level of threat as the Blendle, Flattrplus, etc. histories taken in the clear -- never mind Google et al. surveillance. To equate the tech and not make any distinctions does a disservice to us in my view. I'm not sure you did equate, but see next paragraph. Tech alone is never enough for anything like what we are doing. Addresses matter, if not IP then on blockchain. There are side channels. There will be bugs. IMHO you have to include the social and legal constraints, too. Even a p2p with ZKP solution has some risk due to the blockchain addresses, which need purpose-limited terms under GDPR too. On road, will get you links to code for randomizing time between ANONIZE sessions as soon as I can.
- ohmygodel 8y ago
  > Tech alone is never enough for anything like what we are doing. You'd be surprised how far you can get. For example, protocol design exist that provide strong message anonymity: mixnets, DC-nets, and secure multiparty computation (MPC). Tor is great at its goals, but it accepts weaker security for low latency that Brave doesn't need. Tor is also unfortunately blocked in many companies and countries by technology and/or policy. Mixnets are freely available [0]. MPC is sold commercially [1]. (I have no personal or professional connection to either project.) > On road, will get you links to code for randomizing time between ANONIZE sessions as soon as I can. Looking forward to it. Many thanks for the serious engagement. I look forward to recommending Brave to my friends and colleagues in the not-distant future! [0] <https://katzenpost.mixnetworks.org> https://katzenpost.mixnetworks.org> [1] <https://www.unboundtech.com/> https://www.unboundtech.com/>
  - BrendanEich 8y ago
    Here's a non-tech issue that already causes some idealists to scorn us: most publishers want to be paid in fiat. That means AML/KYC/anti-sanction-list/etc. Pretty unideal but we are not waiting for others to achieve Utopia. We want to help creators get users funding them sooner, and while some take crypto, most (esp. of size) want fiat.
    - ohmygodel 8y ago
      Honestly, I don't know why you need a blockchain in the first place. Just run your own accounting servers, which you already are doing for the Anonize ballots. It is certainly possible to take in money from identified (i.e. non-anonymous) users and pay out money to identified publishers without being able to determine which users are responsible for which payments to the publishers. However, I also don't see any problem with using Ethereum for transferring money.
      - BrendanEich 8y ago
        Oh, that q ("why you need a blockchain") is easy. Fiat only would require us to be an MSB or MTA, heavy licensing lift and no ability to grant users for free from the user growth pool we precreated before the BAT sale. The user growth pool is the number one reason in my view. Also we like macro-auditability from funding wallet to omnibus settlement, to show we took the %ages we promised.

BrendanEich 8y ago

> If your users must rely on you obeying a policy, then please just say that. I did just say that, several times -- but with conditions that do not make it a matter of "policy" only. We agree IP address should be masked for self-funded users. Working on it! We are very familiar with how any user log can be used as a history, but anonized proofs that can't link to a user id except illegally to IP address are not on the same level of threat as the Blendle, Flattrplus, etc. histories taken in the clear -- never mind Google et al. surveillance. To equate the tech and not make any distinctions does a disservice to us in my view. I'm not sure you did equate, but see next paragraph. Tech alone is never enough for anything like what we are doing. Addresses matter, if not IP then on blockchain. There are side channels. There will be bugs. IMHO you have to include the social and legal constraints, too. Even a p2p with ZKP solution has some risk due to the blockchain addresses, which need purpose-limited terms under GDPR too. On road, will get you links to code for randomizing time between ANONIZE sessions as soon as I can.

ohmygodel 8y ago
> Tech alone is never enough for anything like what we are doing. You'd be surprised how far you can get. For example, protocol design exist that provide strong message anonymity: mixnets, DC-nets, and secure multiparty computation (MPC). Tor is great at its goals, but it accepts weaker security for low latency that Brave doesn't need. Tor is also unfortunately blocked in many companies and countries by technology and/or policy. Mixnets are freely available [0]. MPC is sold commercially [1]. (I have no personal or professional connection to either project.) > On road, will get you links to code for randomizing time between ANONIZE sessions as soon as I can. Looking forward to it. Many thanks for the serious engagement. I look forward to recommending Brave to my friends and colleagues in the not-distant future! [0] <https://katzenpost.mixnetworks.org> https://katzenpost.mixnetworks.org> [1] <https://www.unboundtech.com/> https://www.unboundtech.com/>
- BrendanEich 8y ago
  Here's a non-tech issue that already causes some idealists to scorn us: most publishers want to be paid in fiat. That means AML/KYC/anti-sanction-list/etc. Pretty unideal but we are not waiting for others to achieve Utopia. We want to help creators get users funding them sooner, and while some take crypto, most (esp. of size) want fiat.
  - ohmygodel 8y ago
    Honestly, I don't know why you need a blockchain in the first place. Just run your own accounting servers, which you already are doing for the Anonize ballots. It is certainly possible to take in money from identified (i.e. non-anonymous) users and pay out money to identified publishers without being able to determine which users are responsible for which payments to the publishers. However, I also don't see any problem with using Ethereum for transferring money.
    - BrendanEich 8y ago
      Oh, that q ("why you need a blockchain") is easy. Fiat only would require us to be an MSB or MTA, heavy licensing lift and no ability to grant users for free from the user growth pool we precreated before the BAT sale. The user growth pool is the number one reason in my view. Also we like macro-auditability from funding wallet to omnibus settlement, to show we took the %ages we promised.