6 ms·

I'm not sure how one could end up trusting such organizations besides "just taking their word for it".. also this system sounds more flawed than what you could

I'm not sure how one could end up trusting such organizations besides "just taking their word for it".. also this system sounds more flawed than what you could do with cryptocurrencies?

throwawaygh 5y ago
> I'm not sure how one could end up trusting such organizations besides "just taking their word for it" A legally binding contract with sufficiently punitive clauses. It's a solved problem for people who care about privacy/secrecy. Have you ever worked with highly proprietary or secret data/code in a professional context? > also this system sounds more flawed than what you could do with cryptocurrencies? I have no idea how cryptocurrencies are supposed to help with things like location privacy. Maybe it's suposed to help with the privacy of financial transactions? But I can already buy shit with a combo of cash and visa gift cards purchased in cash; not anonymously, due to cameras everywhere, but again, not sure how crypto is supposed to help.
- hypertele-Xii 5y ago
  > It's a solved problem for people who care about privacy/secrecy. Have you ever worked with highly proprietary or secret data/code in a professional context? You mean like Edward Snowden and stuff?
  - throwawaygh 5y ago
    This thread is not discussing criminal invasion of privacy, but rather the more mundane "legally selling your info" invasions of privacy. Fortunately, that means we're working with a threat model don't include US citizens fleeing to other jurisdictions. Illustrative example: Suppose I could get Visa to sign a contract that says they won't sell my personal info. The original parent asked why I would just "take their word" that they won't sell my info. The answer to that query is that contracts or consumer protection laws with sufficiently punitive clauses are a perfectly fine mechanism. You counter with Snowden. But... I'm not particularly worried about the CEO of Visa defecting to Russia so that he can tell the highest bidder how often I visit the liquor store. A sufficiently punitive contract with Visa prohibiting the sharing or sale of my information would likely be sufficient deterrent. Now, figuring out how to get Visa to sign such a contract is difficult, of course. But the actual enforcement mechanism for mandating privacy is straight-forward and doesn't involve crypto foo nonsense. But even if we were discussing criminal invasions of privacy, I'm not sure how digital tulips are supposed to prevent data exfiltration by an trusted insider. Or, for that matter, preventing the liquor store from selling exactly the same info as Visa by leveraging the facial recognition in their POS system.
smitty1e 5y ago
Neither am I. Perhaps multiple, layered arrangements. Trust doesn't scale, though.

I'm not sure how one could end up trusting such organizations besides "just taking their word for it".. also this system sounds more flawed than what you could do with cryptocurrencies?

throwawaygh 5y ago

> I'm not sure how one could end up trusting such organizations besides "just taking their word for it" A legally binding contract with sufficiently punitive clauses. It's a solved problem for people who care about privacy/secrecy. Have you ever worked with highly proprietary or secret data/code in a professional context? > also this system sounds more flawed than what you could do with cryptocurrencies? I have no idea how cryptocurrencies are supposed to help with things like location privacy. Maybe it's suposed to help with the privacy of financial transactions? But I can already buy shit with a combo of cash and visa gift cards purchased in cash; not anonymously, due to cameras everywhere, but again, not sure how crypto is supposed to help.

hypertele-Xii 5y ago
> It's a solved problem for people who care about privacy/secrecy. Have you ever worked with highly proprietary or secret data/code in a professional context? You mean like Edward Snowden and stuff?
- throwawaygh 5y ago
  This thread is not discussing criminal invasion of privacy, but rather the more mundane "legally selling your info" invasions of privacy. Fortunately, that means we're working with a threat model don't include US citizens fleeing to other jurisdictions. Illustrative example: Suppose I could get Visa to sign a contract that says they won't sell my personal info. The original parent asked why I would just "take their word" that they won't sell my info. The answer to that query is that contracts or consumer protection laws with sufficiently punitive clauses are a perfectly fine mechanism. You counter with Snowden. But... I'm not particularly worried about the CEO of Visa defecting to Russia so that he can tell the highest bidder how often I visit the liquor store. A sufficiently punitive contract with Visa prohibiting the sharing or sale of my information would likely be sufficient deterrent. Now, figuring out how to get Visa to sign such a contract is difficult, of course. But the actual enforcement mechanism for mandating privacy is straight-forward and doesn't involve crypto foo nonsense. But even if we were discussing criminal invasions of privacy, I'm not sure how digital tulips are supposed to prevent data exfiltration by an trusted insider. Or, for that matter, preventing the liquor store from selling exactly the same info as Visa by leveraging the facial recognition in their POS system.

smitty1e 5y ago

Neither am I. Perhaps multiple, layered arrangements. Trust doesn't scale, though.