5 ms·

It should be possible to have a third party IdP provide the site with a trustworthy claim that the user is an adult without any more information, shouldn't it?

It should be possible to have a third party IdP provide the site with a trustworthy claim that the user is an adult without any more information, shouldn't it? I think people are a little too quick to claim victory because something is "technically impossible" when it actually isn't (efficacy of public sector IT projects notwithstanding)

empyrrhicist 3y ago
But if Wikimedia is taking broad approach to enforcing their principles, they would refuse to interface with such a privacy destroying service anyway.
- throwaway290 3y ago
  Wikipedia don't refuse to interface with privacy destroying payment systems required to collect donations. They will be fine
  - CamperBob2 3y ago
    Donations are voluntary.
    - throwaway290 3y ago
      So is your use of Wikipedia. Your point?
      - mdp2021 3y ago
        The contextual critical matter in accessing information is that you do it in privacy. When you finance the source you relatively openly promote the source. The two activities are dissimilar.
        throwaway290 3y ago
        > The contextual critical matter in accessing information is that you do it in privacy. Since when, in human history, was this an implicit critical assumption in anyone's mind? > The two activities are dissimilar. Yes they are different activities. The point is still: Wikipedia doesn't worry about integrating with systems that require you to be identified. (Actually, internet is another such system, you can't use it without providing some form of ID in probably most countries.)
        mdp2021 3y ago
        > Since when, in human history, was this an implicit critical assumption in anyone's mind? Since we discovered Dignity, that has been a fundamental tenet. (Yes there are also many occasions «in human history» when the principle got instantiated for protection against the ignorant and the malevolent.) > The point is still: Wikipedia doesn't worry about integrating with systems that require you to be identified The point is not with the occasional use of those systems in special cases (e.g. donations), but with systematic use in fruition.
        throwaway290 3y ago
        > Since we discovered Dignity, that has been a fundamental tenet. So unless you are trolling you would be able to give a rough year or decade when it became an implicit assumption and why exactly, right? ;) > The point is not with the occasional use of those systems in special cases (e.g. donations), but with systematic use in fruition. No, the point is "But if Wikimedia is taking broad approach to enforcing their principles, they would refuse to interface with such a privacy destroying service anyway" and frankly your new goalposts are not of much interest to anyone
        mdp2021 3y ago
        The poster went «But if Wikimedia is taking broad approach to enforcing their principles, they would refuse to interface with such a privacy destroying service anyway» You replied «Wikipedia don't refuse to interface with privacy destroying payment systems required to collect donations. They will be fine» You were replied with observations that attempt to explain to you why your comment is out of context, and try to show you the point: -- normal people, i.e. dignified people, and prudent people, refuse to be tracked in their consumption of information. -- Wikipedia seems to be aware of the above. -- Wikipedia seems to be unavailable to enforce «privacy destroying service[s]», there where relevant: consumption of information. -- Wikipedia also accepts donations, and the process may involve tracking that somebody promotes Wikipedia financially. This is completely different from tracking individuals in their consumption of information, so it is irrelevant in that context. That an entity accepts non-anonymous donations does not imply anything about the approach such entity holds about the treatment of privacy of its users, of the fruition of its specific services. You seemed to advance that «Wikipedia don't refuse to interface with privacy destroying payment systems required to collect donations» as in «They will be fine [in employing other «privacy destroying service[s]»]»: no, they may not, that is not good reasoning, because one thing is accepting donations, another is revealing which specific services your customers used - for example, whether they read a page about Kennedy or about Oswald. Spend the required effort when reading posts.
jchw 3y ago
This isn't a technical problem. A technical solution will not fix it.
mdp2021 3y ago
> a third party IdP provide the site with a trustworthy claim that the user is an adult Then the Identity Provider would have information about personal identity (to verify age) and information about who is requesting it. This is still www access without privacy. > too quick to claim victory What are you talking about. There are good reasons to guess that readers may be generally reading these as ghastly news, far from any sense of "victory".
- londons_explore 3y ago
  The identity provider could be one the user already has given their info to... For example, the government.
  - ulrikrasmussen 3y ago
    But now the government will know all the service providers that the user is accessing, including Wikipedia, but also porn sites.
    - londons_explore 3y ago
      There could be another intermediary who hides the site name from the government, but who doesn't see the users ID.
      - User20233201 3y ago
        Do trust the intermediary does not collude with the government?
  - mdp2021 3y ago
    Said users have certainly not allowed any government to peek into their privacy.
MarcusE1W 3y ago
I don’t think that it is technically impossible and I don’t think that’s what most people have a problem with. It might be possible, just very high effort, for in most cases (e.g. Wikipedia) very little gain. I think the problem is exactly that one possible solution is a third party that everyone has to trust with their personal data. The way thinks work in this country that might mean that a friend of an influential MP sets up a new company as we speak that then will be chosen as the one and only service provider for this verification. For a considerable fee of course. This friend will then find an acquaintance who has worked for a consultancy at some point who will then hire a (maybe British) company to implement the service, they will outsource it to a much cheaper (probably not British) company to implement it. Provided that no one except for the outsourcing company has any idea what they are doing and the money is siphoned off to the Virgin Islands already it might take a while to get the service started and then it does not work. At this time the government will notice that not only their money is gone, they have to pay more to even get it started and from then on the long chain of contractors need a lot of money on a yearly basis to keep it running. This is the moment where they turn and explain to the public that from now on they have to pay to use the internet. Remind you this is a country that only since one year requires identification to vote in elections. But everyone is now supposed to register with a third party probably non government institution to access the internet. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ They only consolation is that they probably won’t get it off the ground in the foreseeable future.
- throwaway290 3y ago
  > But everyone is now supposed to register with a third party probably non government institution to access the internet. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Wait, you could have internet connection (land line or mobile) without IDing yourself in the UK before? But how would you pay for it?
  - MarcusE1W 3y ago
    Without going to much into this, e.g. I am sure you have used free Wifi in a Café before ?
    - 3y ago

empyrrhicist 3y ago

But if Wikimedia is taking broad approach to enforcing their principles, they would refuse to interface with such a privacy destroying service anyway.

throwaway290 3y ago
Wikipedia don't refuse to interface with privacy destroying payment systems required to collect donations. They will be fine
- CamperBob2 3y ago
  Donations are voluntary.
  - throwaway290 3y ago
    So is your use of Wikipedia. Your point?
    - mdp2021 3y ago
      The contextual critical matter in accessing information is that you do it in privacy. When you finance the source you relatively openly promote the source. The two activities are dissimilar.
      - throwaway290 3y ago
        > The contextual critical matter in accessing information is that you do it in privacy. Since when, in human history, was this an implicit critical assumption in anyone's mind? > The two activities are dissimilar. Yes they are different activities. The point is still: Wikipedia doesn't worry about integrating with systems that require you to be identified. (Actually, internet is another such system, you can't use it without providing some form of ID in probably most countries.)
        mdp2021 3y ago
        > Since when, in human history, was this an implicit critical assumption in anyone's mind? Since we discovered Dignity, that has been a fundamental tenet. (Yes there are also many occasions «in human history» when the principle got instantiated for protection against the ignorant and the malevolent.) > The point is still: Wikipedia doesn't worry about integrating with systems that require you to be identified The point is not with the occasional use of those systems in special cases (e.g. donations), but with systematic use in fruition.
        throwaway290 3y ago
        > Since we discovered Dignity, that has been a fundamental tenet. So unless you are trolling you would be able to give a rough year or decade when it became an implicit assumption and why exactly, right? ;) > The point is not with the occasional use of those systems in special cases (e.g. donations), but with systematic use in fruition. No, the point is "But if Wikimedia is taking broad approach to enforcing their principles, they would refuse to interface with such a privacy destroying service anyway" and frankly your new goalposts are not of much interest to anyone
        mdp2021 3y ago
        The poster went «But if Wikimedia is taking broad approach to enforcing their principles, they would refuse to interface with such a privacy destroying service anyway» You replied «Wikipedia don't refuse to interface with privacy destroying payment systems required to collect donations. They will be fine» You were replied with observations that attempt to explain to you why your comment is out of context, and try to show you the point: -- normal people, i.e. dignified people, and prudent people, refuse to be tracked in their consumption of information. -- Wikipedia seems to be aware of the above. -- Wikipedia seems to be unavailable to enforce «privacy destroying service[s]», there where relevant: consumption of information. -- Wikipedia also accepts donations, and the process may involve tracking that somebody promotes Wikipedia financially. This is completely different from tracking individuals in their consumption of information, so it is irrelevant in that context. That an entity accepts non-anonymous donations does not imply anything about the approach such entity holds about the treatment of privacy of its users, of the fruition of its specific services. You seemed to advance that «Wikipedia don't refuse to interface with privacy destroying payment systems required to collect donations» as in «They will be fine [in employing other «privacy destroying service[s]»]»: no, they may not, that is not good reasoning, because one thing is accepting donations, another is revealing which specific services your customers used - for example, whether they read a page about Kennedy or about Oswald. Spend the required effort when reading posts.

jchw 3y ago

This isn't a technical problem. A technical solution will not fix it.

mdp2021 3y ago

> a third party IdP provide the site with a trustworthy claim that the user is an adult Then the Identity Provider would have information about personal identity (to verify age) and information about who is requesting it. This is still www access without privacy. > too quick to claim victory What are you talking about. There are good reasons to guess that readers may be generally reading these as ghastly news, far from any sense of "victory".

londons_explore 3y ago
The identity provider could be one the user already has given their info to... For example, the government.
- ulrikrasmussen 3y ago
  But now the government will know all the service providers that the user is accessing, including Wikipedia, but also porn sites.
  - londons_explore 3y ago
    There could be another intermediary who hides the site name from the government, but who doesn't see the users ID.
    - User20233201 3y ago
      Do trust the intermediary does not collude with the government?
- mdp2021 3y ago
  Said users have certainly not allowed any government to peek into their privacy.

MarcusE1W 3y ago

I don’t think that it is technically impossible and I don’t think that’s what most people have a problem with. It might be possible, just very high effort, for in most cases (e.g. Wikipedia) very little gain. I think the problem is exactly that one possible solution is a third party that everyone has to trust with their personal data. The way thinks work in this country that might mean that a friend of an influential MP sets up a new company as we speak that then will be chosen as the one and only service provider for this verification. For a considerable fee of course. This friend will then find an acquaintance who has worked for a consultancy at some point who will then hire a (maybe British) company to implement the service, they will outsource it to a much cheaper (probably not British) company to implement it. Provided that no one except for the outsourcing company has any idea what they are doing and the money is siphoned off to the Virgin Islands already it might take a while to get the service started and then it does not work. At this time the government will notice that not only their money is gone, they have to pay more to even get it started and from then on the long chain of contractors need a lot of money on a yearly basis to keep it running. This is the moment where they turn and explain to the public that from now on they have to pay to use the internet. Remind you this is a country that only since one year requires identification to vote in elections. But everyone is now supposed to register with a third party probably non government institution to access the internet. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ They only consolation is that they probably won’t get it off the ground in the foreseeable future.

throwaway290 3y ago
> But everyone is now supposed to register with a third party probably non government institution to access the internet. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Wait, you could have internet connection (land line or mobile) without IDing yourself in the UK before? But how would you pay for it?
- MarcusE1W 3y ago
  Without going to much into this, e.g. I am sure you have used free Wifi in a Café before ?
  - 3y ago