4 ms·

>and why were they retained for longer than was necessary? it's stated in the article. In most cases they weren't, the data breach only affected people who dis

>and why were they retained for longer than was necessary? it's stated in the article. In most cases they weren't, the data breach only affected people who disputed the result of their age verification. Of course in principle Discord or any third party should never need any photographic identity themselves to begin with if countries would bother to implement a proper trusted identity system where the data stays with an authority and they simply sign off on requests. Like in South Korea or the eID features you have on most European national ID cards.

whatever1 1y ago
So they process 70k disputes per day? If not, why 70k ids were stolen? It’s a flawed design. No reason to retain the personal info for more than the processing time. Aka the duration of the dispute process itself (not the queue of disputes). The principal engineer who signed it off should go to jail.
- debo_ 1y ago
  It's not 70k per day. A dispute takes longer than a day; this was their entire ongoing dispute queue.
  - whatever1 1y ago
    So they were retaining data that they were not actively processing. They were just waiting to be processed. Aka, the system design was wrong. The buck has to stop somewhere. Somebody signed it off.
    - debo_ 1y ago
      I'm not sure how you're coming to that conclusion. If, for example, the id verification says "your id appears to be fake" and the user disputes it, what happens next? A dispute usually has several back-and-forth steps where one party is waiting for the other to respond.
      - whatever1 1y ago
        As simple as: “We are processing your request, once we need more evidence we will contact you.” The day that their turn has come remind them to upload their personal data. Process the request, delete the data in 24 hours. If you don’t hear back, even better, less private data to worry about.
        debo_ 1y ago
        This is not a tradeoff-less scenario. Most users will be pretty irritated if, for example, you ask them to re-upload the front and back of the id in question at a later date because you deleted it last time for their protection. I personally think doing ID verification of physical documents over the internet is just a non-starter. I've unfortunately had to support such systems for years at a time, and I'm thankful I don't do it anymore.
        soco 1y ago
        They were already irritated, right. Also keeping around a file which you said yourself it was not useful, makes still no sense - especially when you regularly delete the useful files by policy. So yes, the failure was by design.
    - esseph 1y ago
      You're asking for accountability? Nobody has time for that, stop being silly.
- exasperaited 1y ago
  > The principal engineer who signed it off should go to jail. Indeed.
Dylan16807 1y ago
> it's stated in the article. In most cases they weren't, the data breach only affected people who disputed the result of their age verification. Saying this only affected disputes doesn't answer the question. It also makes it clear they knew deleting IDs was important, but did they not have proper deletion in their dispute system? If this was only new active disputes, I would expect discord to say so, but it sounds like the data in the leak goes back a lot further.
exasperaited 1y ago
> Of course in principle Discord or any third party should never need any photographic identity themselves to begin with if countries would bother to implement a proper trusted identity system where the data stays with an authority and they simply sign off on requests. Indeed. But in the UK the only really loud voices against the porn age laws are also the same voices against the latest digital ID proposals. It's logical to say "we don't need either of these two things". But the status quo of ID verification of all kinds (for things like finance agreements, some online purchases, KYC, checking into some hotel chains if you're not the card holder who paid, etc.) is horrifying and involves uploading scans of paper documents. Every time someone says "I don't need a digital ID thanks" I ask them how many times they've let someone take a flatbed or photocopier scan of their passport or driving licence in real life (it's usually not zero) and then I ask them to explain to me how they would do that if it is online, and if they ever asked how long they are retained.
- Dylan16807 1y ago
  I mostly agree, but your list of situations is places you want your actual identity to be verified. For age checks, a core feature should be not identifying yourself.
  - exasperaited 1y ago
    Yes, but a core feature of contemporary digital ID is age-only digital attestation -- that is, yes this unnamed person is old enough. The absence of such means that there are few ways for people to verify their ages without handing over scans of their IDs to far too many organisations. In the UK we do have one means to do this that is not widely used yet: since all mobile phone providers attempt to block adult content by default until the owner proves they are an adult (a pretty long-standing pre-existing child safety/parental control initiative by PAYG providers that has evolved to be standard across all contract types), the question of "can you prove you are 18" can now be delegated to the MNOs. But not all the age verification agencies are doing it.

whatever1 1y ago

So they process 70k disputes per day? If not, why 70k ids were stolen? It’s a flawed design. No reason to retain the personal info for more than the processing time. Aka the duration of the dispute process itself (not the queue of disputes). The principal engineer who signed it off should go to jail.

debo_ 1y ago
It's not 70k per day. A dispute takes longer than a day; this was their entire ongoing dispute queue.
- whatever1 1y ago
  So they were retaining data that they were not actively processing. They were just waiting to be processed. Aka, the system design was wrong. The buck has to stop somewhere. Somebody signed it off.
  - debo_ 1y ago
    I'm not sure how you're coming to that conclusion. If, for example, the id verification says "your id appears to be fake" and the user disputes it, what happens next? A dispute usually has several back-and-forth steps where one party is waiting for the other to respond.
    - whatever1 1y ago
      As simple as: “We are processing your request, once we need more evidence we will contact you.” The day that their turn has come remind them to upload their personal data. Process the request, delete the data in 24 hours. If you don’t hear back, even better, less private data to worry about.
      - debo_ 1y ago
        This is not a tradeoff-less scenario. Most users will be pretty irritated if, for example, you ask them to re-upload the front and back of the id in question at a later date because you deleted it last time for their protection. I personally think doing ID verification of physical documents over the internet is just a non-starter. I've unfortunately had to support such systems for years at a time, and I'm thankful I don't do it anymore.
        soco 1y ago
        They were already irritated, right. Also keeping around a file which you said yourself it was not useful, makes still no sense - especially when you regularly delete the useful files by policy. So yes, the failure was by design.
  - esseph 1y ago
    You're asking for accountability? Nobody has time for that, stop being silly.
exasperaited 1y ago
> The principal engineer who signed it off should go to jail. Indeed.

Dylan16807 1y ago

> it's stated in the article. In most cases they weren't, the data breach only affected people who disputed the result of their age verification. Saying this only affected disputes doesn't answer the question. It also makes it clear they knew deleting IDs was important, but did they not have proper deletion in their dispute system? If this was only new active disputes, I would expect discord to say so, but it sounds like the data in the leak goes back a lot further.

exasperaited 1y ago

> Of course in principle Discord or any third party should never need any photographic identity themselves to begin with if countries would bother to implement a proper trusted identity system where the data stays with an authority and they simply sign off on requests. Indeed. But in the UK the only really loud voices against the porn age laws are also the same voices against the latest digital ID proposals. It's logical to say "we don't need either of these two things". But the status quo of ID verification of all kinds (for things like finance agreements, some online purchases, KYC, checking into some hotel chains if you're not the card holder who paid, etc.) is horrifying and involves uploading scans of paper documents. Every time someone says "I don't need a digital ID thanks" I ask them how many times they've let someone take a flatbed or photocopier scan of their passport or driving licence in real life (it's usually not zero) and then I ask them to explain to me how they would do that if it is online, and if they ever asked how long they are retained.

Dylan16807 1y ago
I mostly agree, but your list of situations is places you want your actual identity to be verified. For age checks, a core feature should be not identifying yourself.
- exasperaited 1y ago
  Yes, but a core feature of contemporary digital ID is age-only digital attestation -- that is, yes this unnamed person is old enough. The absence of such means that there are few ways for people to verify their ages without handing over scans of their IDs to far too many organisations. In the UK we do have one means to do this that is not widely used yet: since all mobile phone providers attempt to block adult content by default until the owner proves they are an adult (a pretty long-standing pre-existing child safety/parental control initiative by PAYG providers that has evolved to be standard across all contract types), the question of "can you prove you are 18" can now be delegated to the MNOs. But not all the age verification agencies are doing it.