5 ms·

You're massively oversimplifying reality. > The only reason anybody cares about this even for banks is that it's required by law. No it's not. Many many servi

by dcow 3y ago

You're massively oversimplifying reality. > The only reason anybody cares about this even for banks is that it's required by law. No it's not. Many many services ask for phone number as a proxy for "this is a unique human". Plenty of services ask me to verify my identity with those stupid "which one of these is your address from 2004" questions. Some ask me to upload photos of my drivers license or enter the info from the card. Services where I enter payment require my information. In fact I'd argue that the majority of the critical digital services I use require strong identity be it traditional or web3 crypto-style. It's just the angsty message boards that don't. Heck even social media requires at least a phone number these days. I simply don't buy your unfounded assertion that "the majority of relevant digital services don't need strong identity". Strong identity should be the default, anonymity only when needed or desired by a select digital community. > Are we just setting ourselves up for doom? They can steal everyone's money and pin their crimes on whoever they want? Why would you build such an epic single point of failure? The iPhone has been remotely exploitable since its introduction. Still, I don't know of a single Secure Enclave exfiltration exploit because it's hardware separated. Regardless, your doom and gloom scenario has yet to play out so I'm calling FUD. > But then what do you do if you lose your driver's license? Regardless of what that is, couldn't you just do that if you lost your bank card? There is no that. You get your license re-issued or maybe you can use SSN (which is so bad and doesn't solve anything because we devolve to digital SSN instead of DL). I don't know of any banks that let you bypass identity verification because you lost your credential. You have to go get a new credential. Fun fact, phone companies are now requiring ID verification via state issued credentials to make changes to your account. Simply having the account login credentials aren't enough anymore. Lost an hour at the Verizon store trying to get my mom a new phone for the holidays only to learn she needs a DL. > I still don't understand how this is supposed to prove anything. The human who operates the bot will have an ID for the bot to use. Nobody cares if the human uses a user-agent software to browse the web. What people care about is humans having multiple accounts, gaming systems, spamming communities, being bad actors, etc. All these things are enabled by a lack of scarcity in identity or anonymity (two sides of the same coin). Because strong identity is scarce, you don't get to make up accounts for a bot and then just roll a new one when that bot is banned. You get one shot and if you blow it and don't play by the rules your account is banned, your spam and abuse potential is now zero instead of one. > You prohibit victims of government abuse and anyone who doesn't want to be tracked from using a pseudonym, meanwhile serious criminals get IDs by remotely hacking phones or servers or bribing low-level government employees. If you're being targeted by your government then you can't use systems with strong identity anyway (whether it's form the 20th or 21st century isn't important), so it's a moot point. You can't use banks with KYC because all your accounts are frozen or being watched. You can't communicate using government regulated comms channels. Like it or not we cede a monopoly on violence to our governments. If you don't like yours then move elsewhere or yes reach for true anonymity and operate beyond the pale. > As opposed to the traditional system, which does the same thing with your actual postal address? The government does the same thing as the bank if you lose your driver's license. They mail you another one. In many cases they mail you the first one. Nooo. Trust is not rooted in your address. It's rooted in presentation of a birth certificate and residency documents to a government agency. Only after you attest to your name and bind your name to an address is an address trusted. They don't just say "oh you say your name is Paul? Great where's the best address to send this credential?", (and FWIW some even print you the credential on the spot avoiding the postal system). The fact that you either don't understand this or haven't taken the time to be careful enough about this nuance tells me you're firmly in the camp of tinfoil hat anonymity purists, and that your opinions on the matter of practical human identity can be pretty much discarded as such. No offense. I mean you said this: > Which is exactly why you should never have to give them that information, and any system that prevents you from making it up is to be destroyed. Any system where I can't just make up arbitrary details about myself is to be destroyed. Okay that's practical. > There are so few things that legitimately need this that keeping them clunky and arduous is a huge feature I don't even need to rebut this statement because it's so asinine it discredits itself. > And then all the services that want to track you demand your full name and DOB, use it to track you, and you have to use them anyway because they have a network effect or some other market power, or there are only three companies in the industry and they all do it. FUD and arguing past me. I said we need legislate the use of PII from digital credentials. We already live in a world where companies abuse everyone. We are beyond fucked on that front. So the solution isn't "stifle all innovation because it could make you slightly easier to stalk". The solution is build a strong robust framework around which information is clearly in the domain of user-controlled identity/PII and that shall not be abused without consequence, and then enforce the law. How is that not clear? The problem is EXACTLY that we can't stand up as a society and point to digital PII, because it doesn't actually exist in a clear form. We live in a blurry purgatory where nobody knows what exactly is an identifier and how it should be respected because we don't have strong digital identity. The ad industry doesn't need a credential document to track you. They just tag you with their own UUID when they see you and your shitty browser (also built by ad-tech) does the rest. Zzz... > It not only doesn't solve all problems, it only solves one problem -- how to track people who don't want to be tracked, which is a problem that could quite beneficially carry on not being solved -- and in the process it creates multiple new problems that didn't previously exist. That's not even a charitable interpretation of what I'm arguing. Thanks. It doesn't create a single new problem (or if it does it's strictly in the realm of unsophisticated doom and gloom tirade FUD). It makes a shitty system better for the vast majority of humans who'd aren't super fond of internet trolling, scalping, spam, bullying, and all manner of activities that our current system tacitly glorifies. > It's the thing that will happen, because designing such a thing with effective privacy protections is actually an extremely difficult problem even when you're competent and have good motives, but you're asking the political system do to it, which is the thing corrupted by all of the interests who don't want that problem to be solved because they want to track everyone. Privacy is not one dimensional. If you're competent you understand that privacy isn't "nobody knows anything about me". Privacy is about only sharing sensitive information with people you trust. A functioning social society involves trust. Trust no-one is not a valid pragmatic mantra. A system where the commons agree on a stable identifier and credential and then each individual is able to present the credential, attenuate the claims (e.g. transform a strong meatspace ID into a weaker but still unique pseudonymous ID for services that don't need meatspace details but still need functional identity), etc. is exactly what we need to solve problems and make progress. What we don't need is to tear down society and all become faceless anons by default. I guess this discussion probably boils down to a difference in philosophy. I'm a humanist. I want technology to augment and enhance human systems. I don't want to evolve into a trans-humanist hive mind type of civilization where we're all faceless interchangeable worker bees without any sort of reputation or identity. --- Addendum: FWIW I suspect the idea of a credential with everything a traditional drivers license has is tripping you up mentally. In the actual implementation the user is issued a selection of credentials with varying claims and can choose which one to present to any given service. The user only reveals the minimum information they're comfortable sharing with any given service. This is an enhancement possible with a digital system that's cumbersome with physical cards since sending your all the different permutations of a DL with different fields included would be unwieldy and expensive.

withinboredom 3y ago
> Many many services ask for phone number as a proxy for "this is a unique human". This is how we end up with personal accounts as an admin of Facebook ads of fortune 500 companies, and the like. By not allowing multiple accounts, you prevent partitioning of life/business, you prevent abused spouses from creating a secret identity to seek help through, you prevent whistleblowers from blowing the whistle, you prevent people from being able to have conversations about part of their life they don't want associating with their identity. > Strong identity should be the default People can have multiple passports! They can choose which passport to show when entering a country. I have a US ID and a Dutch ID, a US social security number and a Dutch one, a US phone number, and a Dutch one. Why should I have the privilege to have multiple accounts while you do not, simply because I moved to another country? > Lost an hour at the Verizon store trying to get my mom a new phone for the holidays only to learn she needs a DL. Why should only people who have driver's licenses be allowed to get a phone? That seems ridiculous. > You get one shot and if you blow it and don't play by the rules your account is banned Since I've moved to the EU, I have many friends who get banned simply because their written English is bad enough to be considered a bot. How does identity prove they are a human and not a human running a bot? Please tell me this. I'm quite interested in this. > In the actual implementation the user is issued a selection of credentials with varying claims and can choose which one to present to any given service. The user only reveals the minimum information they're comfortable sharing with any given service. How is this different than what we already have? I can choose to give a service as little true information as I want. Do you just want some cryptographic user/pass that is attested via a government? What do you do if a government revokes a user's id (aka, deportation, lost id, etc)? Can they still log in? What if it expires, is it still valid for your service? My US driver's license is long expired, but it still asserts my identity even though I can no longer use it to prove I know how to drive. I don't think this is very well thought through, nor is it realistic once it hits any sort of common edge case. I really hope nothing like this ever happens.
AnthonyMouse 3y ago
[1/2] > Many many services ask for phone number as a proxy for "this is a unique human". Anyone can get as many phone numbers as they want for less than $5/each. And there is a better way to rate limit account creation -- you pay $5 to create an account. For a legitimate user this is a nominal one-time fee, but a spammer has their account banned in minutes and has to pay over and over, and the fee directly pays the costs of fighting spammers so the more there are the more funding you get. The biggest problem with this is, ironically, that we messed up our payments systems so that it's really hard to pay anyone over the internet without disclosing your identity. Which makes "pay a nominal fee instead of giving your identity" pretty hard to implement. If you want to fix something, fix that. > Strong identity should be the default, anonymity only when needed or desired by a select digital community. Anonymity has to be the default because it's needed by specific people rather than specific communities. Most people on some huge social network don't need to be anonymous but the minority who do need it desperately. They're a minority that needs to be protected even though a conglomerate would be willing to steamroll over them because they're not a large enough population to affect the bottom line. > The iPhone has been remotely exploitable since its introduction. Still, I don't know of a single Secure Enclave exfiltration exploit because it's hardware separated. Regardless, your doom and gloom scenario has yet to play out so I'm calling FUD. It hasn't been a huge problem because the majority of people haven't had a single-root digital ID on their phone and the majority of services don't currently accept one. But there have been known to be vulnerabilities in various hardware security modules, some of them remotely exploitable. It's a bad assumption that no one will ever find another one. And the problem isn't just the scale, it's the scope. Even Apple had a Secure Enclave vulnerability, which was reported to require physical access, but sometimes the attacker has physical access. And then it's not that you can access the bank accounts of millions of people, it's that you can access all the accounts of anyone whose phone you can steal because you've put every egg into the basket of that single ID. Which the attacker can then use without showing their face in a physical place. > There is no that. That's my point. That is the law against giving false information on an application for government ID, which isn't any more effective than a law against giving false information on an application for a bank account, and shouldn't be necessary on an application for phone service or similar. > I don't know of any banks that let you bypass identity verification because you lost your credential. You have to go get a new credential. You did the identity verification when you opened your account. They generally don't need to see your ID again. They were going to send a new card there anyway because the cards expire every few years and they automatically send you a new one. > Fun fact, phone companies are now requiring ID verification via state issued credentials to make changes to your account. Not because they care about your name, because they don't want attackers stealing their actual customers' phone numbers and digital credentials can be stolen remotely, so they resort to physical ID. Making the government ID a remotely stealable digital credential is not solving their problem. > Nobody cares if the human uses a user-agent software to browse the web. You don't want players using bots to play your game, so you say captcha to continue if they play suspiciously well or suspiciously long. Asking for ID doesn't work because the bot can present the human's ID. You don't want Archiveteam scraping your site, but they have many volunteers willing to each run a slow crawler from a separate IP and it's hard to distinguish the bots from real users, so you use captchas. Using IDs instead doesn't work because each of the volunteers has a unique ID. Company wants to use AI marketing bots in the same way as they pay astroturfers, but now instead of paying $1000/month they pay 100 times as many people $10/month just to use their ID. Each bot gets an ID, and the bots aren't conspicuous so they don't get banned quickly, they just post a lot of 20th percentile-quality content and really love that company's products. If anybody's ID gets banned the company replaces them with someone else. There are a million people willing to take a ban from a site they don't use in exchange for a little money. Lots of people currently use captchas in places where asking for ID wouldn't do any good. Rate limiting by ID overlaps heavily with rate limiting by IP address. > All these things are enabled by a lack of scarcity in identity or anonymity (two sides of the same coin). These are not at all the same thing. You can get access to a large number of unique identities with a relatively modest amount of resources, and demanding ID won't be effective for anything requiring more of a deterrent than that. Conversely, you can rate limit based on anything scarce, not just ID. Having users post a bond is particularly effective because you can make the amount scale with how aggressively you need to deter bad actors, and it's technically possible (though not currently convenient) to do this anonymously. You can also rate limit by reputation by using vouching systems etc. etc., none of which requires the person doing the vouching or the person being vouched for to be using the same identity on your site as they use in any other place. > Because strong identity is scarce, you don't get to make up accounts for a bot and then just roll a new one when that bot is banned. You get one shot and if you blow it and don't play by the rules your account is banned, your spam and abuse potential is now zero instead of one. This is what I mean by creating new problems. What do you do if you get hacked and then banned from everything? It's one thing to lose a $5 deposit or have to start over with a new account on one service, what do you do after your ID gets banned from all social media and every major infrastructure provider in a consolidated market? Tying everything to one root is bad. > If you're being targeted by your government then you can't use systems with strong identity anyway (whether it's form the 20th or 21st century isn't important), so it's a moot point. You can't use banks with KYC because all your accounts are frozen or being watched. You can't communicate using government regulated comms channels. There are different levels of being targeted by the government. If your abusive ex is a cop, you need to be able to operate under the radar so they can't find you. That doesn't mean they can have your bank account frozen without raising red flags, so you can still go to the bank to get enough cash to run away. > If you don't like yours then move elsewhere or yes reach for true anonymity and operate beyond the pale. In general we try to improve the government, e.g. by increasing the ability for the public to maintain their anonymity. Especially when that country is the US and the US is the country preventing other countries from e.g. providing their citizens with an anonymous bank account. Where are you even suggesting someone go? Sealand? > Nooo. Trust is not rooted in your address. It's rooted in presentation of a birth certificate and residency documents to a government agency. Only after you attest to your name and bind your name to an address is an address trusted. A birth certificate is just a piece of paper with a name on it. They have no way of knowing if that's your name. No authentication is happening there. This stuff isn't based on cryptography or signature verification or anything. It's based on it being a crime to lie about it in particular contexts, which deters people from doing that. "Attesting to your name" is something you could do just the same to the bank. All you have to do is make it illegal to give a false social security number to a bank and you have the same level of security as you do to get the government ID. > Any system where I can't just make up arbitrary details about myself is to be destroyed. Okay that's practical. Being made up is where names come from, and people don't have a single name. Married people often change their name and carry on using both of them in different contexts. A particularly relevant example is stage names. Their name in the credits isn't the name on their mortgage or in their high school year book. They'll use their stage name for a social media account. Using their other name is dangerous because if their social media account gets hacked, the name on their mortgage gets out and stalkers show up at their house. This is as true for minor celebrities as major ones, if you do certain kinds of work or discuss certain kinds of topics, so those people need to use a pseudonym on the internet. With no way for anyone to tie it to where they live. Even if they're not famous enough to have Big Tech CEOs in their address book.

by dcow 3y ago

withinboredom 3y ago

> Many many services ask for phone number as a proxy for "this is a unique human". This is how we end up with personal accounts as an admin of Facebook ads of fortune 500 companies, and the like. By not allowing multiple accounts, you prevent partitioning of life/business, you prevent abused spouses from creating a secret identity to seek help through, you prevent whistleblowers from blowing the whistle, you prevent people from being able to have conversations about part of their life they don't want associating with their identity. > Strong identity should be the default People can have multiple passports! They can choose which passport to show when entering a country. I have a US ID and a Dutch ID, a US social security number and a Dutch one, a US phone number, and a Dutch one. Why should I have the privilege to have multiple accounts while you do not, simply because I moved to another country? > Lost an hour at the Verizon store trying to get my mom a new phone for the holidays only to learn she needs a DL. Why should only people who have driver's licenses be allowed to get a phone? That seems ridiculous. > You get one shot and if you blow it and don't play by the rules your account is banned Since I've moved to the EU, I have many friends who get banned simply because their written English is bad enough to be considered a bot. How does identity prove they are a human and not a human running a bot? Please tell me this. I'm quite interested in this. > In the actual implementation the user is issued a selection of credentials with varying claims and can choose which one to present to any given service. The user only reveals the minimum information they're comfortable sharing with any given service. How is this different than what we already have? I can choose to give a service as little true information as I want. Do you just want some cryptographic user/pass that is attested via a government? What do you do if a government revokes a user's id (aka, deportation, lost id, etc)? Can they still log in? What if it expires, is it still valid for your service? My US driver's license is long expired, but it still asserts my identity even though I can no longer use it to prove I know how to drive. I don't think this is very well thought through, nor is it realistic once it hits any sort of common edge case. I really hope nothing like this ever happens.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

[1/2] > Many many services ask for phone number as a proxy for "this is a unique human". Anyone can get as many phone numbers as they want for less than $5/each. And there is a better way to rate limit account creation -- you pay $5 to create an account. For a legitimate user this is a nominal one-time fee, but a spammer has their account banned in minutes and has to pay over and over, and the fee directly pays the costs of fighting spammers so the more there are the more funding you get. The biggest problem with this is, ironically, that we messed up our payments systems so that it's really hard to pay anyone over the internet without disclosing your identity. Which makes "pay a nominal fee instead of giving your identity" pretty hard to implement. If you want to fix something, fix that. > Strong identity should be the default, anonymity only when needed or desired by a select digital community. Anonymity has to be the default because it's needed by specific people rather than specific communities. Most people on some huge social network don't need to be anonymous but the minority who do need it desperately. They're a minority that needs to be protected even though a conglomerate would be willing to steamroll over them because they're not a large enough population to affect the bottom line. > The iPhone has been remotely exploitable since its introduction. Still, I don't know of a single Secure Enclave exfiltration exploit because it's hardware separated. Regardless, your doom and gloom scenario has yet to play out so I'm calling FUD. It hasn't been a huge problem because the majority of people haven't had a single-root digital ID on their phone and the majority of services don't currently accept one. But there have been known to be vulnerabilities in various hardware security modules, some of them remotely exploitable. It's a bad assumption that no one will ever find another one. And the problem isn't just the scale, it's the scope. Even Apple had a Secure Enclave vulnerability, which was reported to require physical access, but sometimes the attacker has physical access. And then it's not that you can access the bank accounts of millions of people, it's that you can access all the accounts of anyone whose phone you can steal because you've put every egg into the basket of that single ID. Which the attacker can then use without showing their face in a physical place. > There is no that. That's my point. That is the law against giving false information on an application for government ID, which isn't any more effective than a law against giving false information on an application for a bank account, and shouldn't be necessary on an application for phone service or similar. > I don't know of any banks that let you bypass identity verification because you lost your credential. You have to go get a new credential. You did the identity verification when you opened your account. They generally don't need to see your ID again. They were going to send a new card there anyway because the cards expire every few years and they automatically send you a new one. > Fun fact, phone companies are now requiring ID verification via state issued credentials to make changes to your account. Not because they care about your name, because they don't want attackers stealing their actual customers' phone numbers and digital credentials can be stolen remotely, so they resort to physical ID. Making the government ID a remotely stealable digital credential is not solving their problem. > Nobody cares if the human uses a user-agent software to browse the web. You don't want players using bots to play your game, so you say captcha to continue if they play suspiciously well or suspiciously long. Asking for ID doesn't work because the bot can present the human's ID. You don't want Archiveteam scraping your site, but they have many volunteers willing to each run a slow crawler from a separate IP and it's hard to distinguish the bots from real users, so you use captchas. Using IDs instead doesn't work because each of the volunteers has a unique ID. Company wants to use AI marketing bots in the same way as they pay astroturfers, but now instead of paying $1000/month they pay 100 times as many people $10/month just to use their ID. Each bot gets an ID, and the bots aren't conspicuous so they don't get banned quickly, they just post a lot of 20th percentile-quality content and really love that company's products. If anybody's ID gets banned the company replaces them with someone else. There are a million people willing to take a ban from a site they don't use in exchange for a little money. Lots of people currently use captchas in places where asking for ID wouldn't do any good. Rate limiting by ID overlaps heavily with rate limiting by IP address. > All these things are enabled by a lack of scarcity in identity or anonymity (two sides of the same coin). These are not at all the same thing. You can get access to a large number of unique identities with a relatively modest amount of resources, and demanding ID won't be effective for anything requiring more of a deterrent than that. Conversely, you can rate limit based on anything scarce, not just ID. Having users post a bond is particularly effective because you can make the amount scale with how aggressively you need to deter bad actors, and it's technically possible (though not currently convenient) to do this anonymously. You can also rate limit by reputation by using vouching systems etc. etc., none of which requires the person doing the vouching or the person being vouched for to be using the same identity on your site as they use in any other place. > Because strong identity is scarce, you don't get to make up accounts for a bot and then just roll a new one when that bot is banned. You get one shot and if you blow it and don't play by the rules your account is banned, your spam and abuse potential is now zero instead of one. This is what I mean by creating new problems. What do you do if you get hacked and then banned from everything? It's one thing to lose a $5 deposit or have to start over with a new account on one service, what do you do after your ID gets banned from all social media and every major infrastructure provider in a consolidated market? Tying everything to one root is bad. > If you're being targeted by your government then you can't use systems with strong identity anyway (whether it's form the 20th or 21st century isn't important), so it's a moot point. You can't use banks with KYC because all your accounts are frozen or being watched. You can't communicate using government regulated comms channels. There are different levels of being targeted by the government. If your abusive ex is a cop, you need to be able to operate under the radar so they can't find you. That doesn't mean they can have your bank account frozen without raising red flags, so you can still go to the bank to get enough cash to run away. > If you don't like yours then move elsewhere or yes reach for true anonymity and operate beyond the pale. In general we try to improve the government, e.g. by increasing the ability for the public to maintain their anonymity. Especially when that country is the US and the US is the country preventing other countries from e.g. providing their citizens with an anonymous bank account. Where are you even suggesting someone go? Sealand? > Nooo. Trust is not rooted in your address. It's rooted in presentation of a birth certificate and residency documents to a government agency. Only after you attest to your name and bind your name to an address is an address trusted. A birth certificate is just a piece of paper with a name on it. They have no way of knowing if that's your name. No authentication is happening there. This stuff isn't based on cryptography or signature verification or anything. It's based on it being a crime to lie about it in particular contexts, which deters people from doing that. "Attesting to your name" is something you could do just the same to the bank. All you have to do is make it illegal to give a false social security number to a bank and you have the same level of security as you do to get the government ID. > Any system where I can't just make up arbitrary details about myself is to be destroyed. Okay that's practical. Being made up is where names come from, and people don't have a single name. Married people often change their name and carry on using both of them in different contexts. A particularly relevant example is stage names. Their name in the credits isn't the name on their mortgage or in their high school year book. They'll use their stage name for a social media account. Using their other name is dangerous because if their social media account gets hacked, the name on their mortgage gets out and stalkers show up at their house. This is as true for minor celebrities as major ones, if you do certain kinds of work or discuss certain kinds of topics, so those people need to use a pseudonym on the internet. With no way for anyone to tie it to where they live. Even if they're not famous enough to have Big Tech CEOs in their address book.