10 ms·

Age is just one metric. I don't want zero proof tech about information X. I don't want to have an identity. Full stop.

ambicapter 3mo ago
This can be used to have zero-proof knowledge of "over 18" or "not over 18". So they don't really get your age, except that you are in two broad ranges.
- wmf 3mo ago
  I think anon's point is that it could be used for other attributes in the future, like your nationality or... your social credit score (don't worry, it only proves that your score is over or under 500).
- onion2k 3mo ago
  If you get enough signals like that you can often narrow down a very large cohort of people to an individual. First it's 'over 18?', then it's 'over 25?', and then 'biological sex?', 'employed?', 'enjoys posting on HN?', 'active in the early morning?' and after half a dozen questions, all with binary answers that are safe individually, you can zero in on a 23 year old woman who has a job and posts on HN in the morning. Ask a few dozen questions like that and you'd be able to sieve an individual from a group of millions, especially if they're unlucky enough not to be absolutely typical.
  - alexghr 3mo ago
    Proper ZK proofs don’t work that way. N different proofs will not be linked to each other unless the circuits are written to emit a stable identifier. Obviously if you see a bunch of proofs for known circuits coming from the same IP address then yeah, you can infer a bunch of info from that metadata.
    - za_creature 3mo ago
      > N different proofs will not be linked to each other Please sign up to continue
    - xinayder 3mo ago
      > Proper ZK proofs don’t work that way. N different proofs will not be linked to each other in theory. How do you do that on paper? How do you "anonymize" this data, to make it so they aren't related to each other? This is just like Facebook implementing the Signal protocol on WhatsApp. They technically can't access your messages, but they have all the metadata which most of the times will allow someone to infer the content of the conversation.
  - 0-_-0 3mo ago
    Browser fingerprinting can already pinpoint you exactly. We should focus on that.
- adrianN 3mo ago
  You only need about 33 bits of information to uniquely identify every human.
  - DennisP 3mo ago
    Ideally, but in practice only if the bits are uncorrelated and each divides the population in half.
    - adrianN 3mo ago
      You typically collect kilobytes of information though.
- flipbrad 3mo ago
  The point perhaps is that these things enable discrimination based on extremely gross grained and defective criteria - in some ways the least relevant parts of your identity.
- hashmal 3mo ago
  the visited site won't have the info. but someone in the chain will definitely know your identity. the government, private contractors.
rocqua 3mo ago
Do you want others to have an identity? Say policemen, someone who borrowed something, the postman, people asking for donations, your doctor etc? And does it make sense that at least some people do want your identity before interacting with you?

This can be used to have zero-proof knowledge of "over 18" or "not over 18". So they don't really get your age, except that you are in two broad ranges.

wmf 3mo ago
I think anon's point is that it could be used for other attributes in the future, like your nationality or... your social credit score (don't worry, it only proves that your score is over or under 500).
onion2k 3mo ago
If you get enough signals like that you can often narrow down a very large cohort of people to an individual. First it's 'over 18?', then it's 'over 25?', and then 'biological sex?', 'employed?', 'enjoys posting on HN?', 'active in the early morning?' and after half a dozen questions, all with binary answers that are safe individually, you can zero in on a 23 year old woman who has a job and posts on HN in the morning. Ask a few dozen questions like that and you'd be able to sieve an individual from a group of millions, especially if they're unlucky enough not to be absolutely typical.
- alexghr 3mo ago
  Proper ZK proofs don’t work that way. N different proofs will not be linked to each other unless the circuits are written to emit a stable identifier. Obviously if you see a bunch of proofs for known circuits coming from the same IP address then yeah, you can infer a bunch of info from that metadata.
  - za_creature 3mo ago
    > N different proofs will not be linked to each other Please sign up to continue
  - xinayder 3mo ago
    > Proper ZK proofs don’t work that way. N different proofs will not be linked to each other in theory. How do you do that on paper? How do you "anonymize" this data, to make it so they aren't related to each other? This is just like Facebook implementing the Signal protocol on WhatsApp. They technically can't access your messages, but they have all the metadata which most of the times will allow someone to infer the content of the conversation.
- 0-_-0 3mo ago
  Browser fingerprinting can already pinpoint you exactly. We should focus on that.
adrianN 3mo ago
You only need about 33 bits of information to uniquely identify every human.
- DennisP 3mo ago
  Ideally, but in practice only if the bits are uncorrelated and each divides the population in half.
  - adrianN 3mo ago
    You typically collect kilobytes of information though.
flipbrad 3mo ago
The point perhaps is that these things enable discrimination based on extremely gross grained and defective criteria - in some ways the least relevant parts of your identity.
hashmal 3mo ago
the visited site won't have the info. but someone in the chain will definitely know your identity. the government, private contractors.

rocqua 3mo ago

Do you want others to have an identity? Say policemen, someone who borrowed something, the postman, people asking for donations, your doctor etc? And does it make sense that at least some people do want your identity before interacting with you?