palata

26 ms·

601.
by palata 6mo ago
Is that how it went? My feeling is that more and more people are realising that social media are terrible for the children (well, for everybody, but children we want to protect). Therefore more governments are looking into preventing childr
602.
by palata 6mo ago
> Well why did you say to them it doesnt have downsides? It has downsides and a very essential one like privacy. It is possible to do age verification in a privacy-preserving manner. So... you're wrong here.
603.
by palata 6mo ago
I disagree with that part. Parents cannot be responsible for what other children can do. If all the children use social media, good luck preventing your kid from participating. "It's okay, just be completely disconnected from ever
604.
by palata 6mo ago
> You move past that, and people rightfully tell you that your scheme outright breaks privacy, or that it makes too many assumptions or is too complex to easily verify it actually preserves privacy. Encryption is too complex to easily ve
605.
by palata 6mo ago
Because privacy-preserving age verification is less extreme than banning them entirely. It should be strictly easier to get it accepted. Except that people can't read for 5min and understand that age verification can be done in a priva
606.
by palata 6mo ago
And it's possible to do age verification in a privacy-preserving manner. I'm tired of repeating it, people should get informed before they complain. We could totally discuss whether or not privacy-preserving age verification is a
607.
by palata 6mo ago
> but those are nothing compared to the tradeoffs And my whole point is that it's possible to do age verification in a privacy-preserving manner, and before complaining about the tradeoffs, you should get informed about what they ar
608.
by palata 6mo ago
Zero knowledge proofs don't carry a risk of data breach, because they are zero knowledge.
609.
by palata 6mo ago
Yes, but they can still collude. It's possible to do age verification in a way that prevents that. Look e.g. at Privacy Pass.
610.
by palata 6mo ago
> Moreover, collusion between the government and the entity making the age check can also theoretically deanonimize. Hmmm... no? That's not how zero knowledge works.
611.
by palata 6mo ago
> It does have an obvious flaw in that whoever you give the token to has no proof it's actually yours. Which isn't necessarily a flaw, depends on the threat model. For actual age verification that we care about (e.g. make it ha
612.
by palata 6mo ago
Not to Google, and not to any of the TooBigTech, obviously. For those, we need to enforce regulations (that already exist but are ignored). As a user, the only thing you can do against TooBigTech is to complain to your government (if they c
613.
by palata 6mo ago
> laws don't just appear Antitrust laws have existed for decades. They just have to be honoured.
614.
by palata 6mo ago
It's not just "look for porn", it's "being exposed to stuff they shouldn't be exposed to". E.g. the problem of social media is not that kid access information. It's more that kids get harassed by othe
615.
by palata 6mo ago
Are you calling me a corporate apologist? For one, corporations want less regulation. "Being a hacker" does not mean "being stuck in the 80s", IMO. If TooBigTech cryptographically controls everything, it becomes harder t
616.
by palata 6mo ago
As a hacker, I want antitrust to break TooBigTech such that they can't cryptographically lock me out of everything. Those who want less regulation are not hackers, but rich and powerful assholes.
617.
by palata 6mo ago
> Currently you can often identify people, sure, but there's hassle involved You vastly underestimate the current state of surveillance capitalism. > You could also look at who is heavily lobbying for this, you'll find it is
618.
by palata 6mo ago
> It’s entirely reasonable to have some preventative measures but acknowledging that there are ways to circumvent them and accept that as a reasonable conclusion. I totally agree. That can be used as an argument in favour of age verifica
619.
by palata 6mo ago
With cryptography. Look at e.g. Privacy Pass, there is an RFC about it.
620.
by palata 6mo ago
"Not using" doesn't make any noise. If you just "don't use", you will just use less and less stuff. Google doesn't give a shit, but smaller companies are the ones using reCAPTCHA and that kind of shit. Con
621.
by palata 6mo ago
Developers implement what they are told to implement. People who make those decisions in companies just don't give a damn, they will happily use whatever is easier/cheaper. Usually something from TooBigTech, sponsored by surveilla
622.
by palata 6mo ago
AOSP is open source. There are plenty of AOSP-based systems (starting with GrapheneOS). No need for a new one. The thing here is that Google is building technology to prevent alternatives from connecting at all. We fundamentally cannot solv
623.
by palata 6mo ago
> Simply create a new smart device operating system Why does it have to be new? Plenty of open source OSes exist... starting with Android! GrapheneOS is based on AOSP, you would call it Android. If I show you a phone running GrapheneOS,
624.
by palata 6mo ago
GrapheneOS users (and actually just citizen who care) in the EU should complain to the DMA team [1]. As with everything: the more people complain, the higher priority it gets. [1]: https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/co
625.
by palata 6mo ago
GPLv3 would not prevent remote attestation AT ALL .
626.
by palata 6mo ago
I disagree. The reason we are where we are today is the lack of antitrust.
627.
by palata 6mo ago
Motorola won't change a thing about hardware attestation. GrapheneOS is locked out from reCAPTCHA because GrapheneOS is signed by GrapheneOS and not by Google. The way it's going, by the time the Motorola + GrapheneOS phone is out
628.
by palata 6mo ago
No. The hardware attestation (which is used by strict Play Integrity) checks the signature on your OS. It is totally possible to allow signatures other than Google, but Play Integrity doesn't do that. Companies could totally decide
629.
by palata 6mo ago
> Also, personally I care less and less. As long as my banks and government apps work If most people care less and less, the result would be that banks and government apps will also work less and less. Look, companies have to prioritise.
630.
by palata 6mo ago
> because the EU currently doesn't want to antagonize US any more with their tech fines Yeah, I say it as "because the US bully the EU to prevent them from doing it".

More ›