I sometimes wonder whether the people in the tech industry who worked on things like secure boot, attestation, and DRM saw this as the inevitability open source advocates always saw it as.
Did they think, as they worked to transfer final say from users to corporations, by technical means, that politicians couldn't transfer that control to themselves by political means?
Did they think they could lock things down to extract their 30% app store fee while enforcing rules through app review (and demonstrating censorship of sites like Tumblr) that politicians wouldn't want that same rule-setting, censoring power?
Did they think their employers were going to prevent that transfer, that the trillion-dollar companies would become some sort of Che Guevara style insurgents, running a guerrilla campaign to overthrow the very system that made them trillion-dollar companies?
My impression is that people who can work on stuff like that are the kind who just take the stuff in the world for granted. "This is how the world is, we need digital restrictions so now we need to implement them." "I don't have a say about whether DRM or remote attestation is standard business practice or not, it is just how it is."
This is akin to how two kinds of people respond to law. The first kind think "This is the law, we must follow it" and the other kind think "This law doesn't make sense, we must change it".
People who look at pedestrian traffic lights and cross when it's green vs. people who look at cars and cross when there are no cars coming. The first say you must follow traffic rules and the second kind say they wouldn't be alive if they looked at the green/red light of law instead of whether there are oncoming cars: a green doesn't mean it's safe to cross and a red doesn't mean you can't cross if only there are no cars.
Somebody had to work on it before it was how the world is. When Microsoft proposed a scheme involving remote attestation and DRM in 2003, the New York Times published a critical article. Google SafetyNet a decade later barely got a whimper out of major tech outlets, much less the mainstream press.
>Somebody had to work on it before it was how the world is.
The mindset the parent described extends to what they're asked to do. They don't challenge it. It doesn't have to already be law for them to accept it and build it. It's enough that the ask comes from authority (a boss, a government) and pays.
> The first kind think "This is the law, we must follow it" and the other kind think "This law doesn't make sense, we must change it".
Indeed. I can't understand the people who blindly believe any law is good just because. Stop, think. Is the law good? What's good about it? What's bad about it? Can it be abused? Then maybe it should be changed?
I advocate that every law should have an annual review to catalog every case where it has been applied. How many were sensible positive outcomes? How many were unintended consequences? How many were clear abuses of the letter of the law? Every legislator should vote on the record based on that annual review to either renew or cancel the law.
> I can't understand the people who blindly believe any law is good just because. Stop, think. Is the law good? What's good about it? What's bad about it? Can it be abused? Then maybe it should be changed?
I think many people have an expectation that (all) laws are just and needed because... somehow they're the law.
In reality, laws can be unjust, unnecessary, biased, and completely arm-wrestled together by people strictly following an agency of their own. Other laws are put together by sheer ignorance and lack of thinking beyond mere good intentions. The first question shouldn't even be "is this law fair" but "was this law made fairly".
It creeps me that people treat laws as axioms whereas they're just polished and reinforced opinions. Sure, many laws we can agree on, and many others that don't agree on aren't worth changing, but you should always question the law and question where it came from before choosing to accept it.
I can see the same pattern with technology such as the various digital restrictions management (DRM) schemes.
There are so many laws on the books that reviewing all of them every year is completely impossible. Doing what you propose would require the government to be greatly shrunk and simplified (which, to be fair, I'm not necessarily against).
Personally I would put myself somewhere between your two "kinds of people". Many individual laws are bad and should be changed, but the rule of law itself is a good, stabilizing force that should generally be respected. If people only followed laws they 100% agree with then that would be chaos, therefore even bad laws deserve at least a modicum of respect.
> There are so many laws on the books that reviewing all of them every year is completely impossible.
Oh well, so maybe there are too many laws, let's simplify.
That is only partially tongue in cheek.
I'd say if there is no time to review and vote to keep or cancel a law, it is automatically cancelled. If it was important maybe someone will reintroduce the legislation later. Fewer laws are better, we should consolidate around laws with the most bipartisan support and scrap the rest.
But also in how I envision the system, if a law is repeatedely affirmed year after year, it should receive an increasing TTL. The formula should also have some modifier for which party controls legislature at the time. So if some law is reaffirmed multiple times under legislatures controlled by different parties, it's probably a fairly uncontroversial law, so we can increase the refresh rate to 3 or 5 years (avoid multiples of 4 since that is election cycle). Over time, the TTL can increase and perhaps there should be a way to eventually promote it to a permanent law, but that should have a very very high bar.
One can dream.. of course it won't happen, so back to your country controlled by a few oligarchs grifting for their personal profit.
> I advocate that every law should have an annual review to catalog every case where it has been applied.
I like this idea but frankly I don't trust our lawmakers to do a fair assessment of this. Maybe there's an independent, non-partisan committee that does this.
> I like this idea but frankly I don't trust our lawmakers to do a fair assessment of this.
Absolutely true. But at least it would force every legislator to put their name yay or nay on every law every year. There are few things that politicians hate more than having to be on the record for supporting or rejecting something.
Then we all could review the full list of laws they voted for or against and vote accordingly.
> My impression is that people who can work on stuff like that are the kind who just take the stuff in the world for granted. "This is how the world is, we need digital restrictions so now we need to implement them." "I don't have a say about whether DRM or remote attestation is standard business practice or not, it is just how it is."
I like to call those people "ventablackpilled". Being blackpilled is all about gloom and doom, but being ventablackpilled is beyond being blackpilled. It is when you actively want the world to be a worse place because you believe that that is how the world works.
Ironically, the very OP statement is exactly that: trying to make the world a worse place because they believe that that is how the world works.
The solution to avoiding dictatorship is engaging in politics and preventing dictatorship directly through that. Trying to retreat into the (perceived) wilderness and build barriers to dictatorship doesn't really work. But since people drafting that statement don't believe that politics work and it is, in fact, possible to both have a vibrant political scene (we have what, five viable political parties vs the American two?) and not let kids send nudes, they try to drag everyone into the same mind frame.
much much worse are the ones taking the biege pills, who of course will drag anyone who notices into there world of where which one of 59 shades of biege constitutes the true way into non confrontational , we will escalate and swat you for any hint of agitation while we decide not to decide to not provide the very function they are in charge of,passivity and conformity to bieng childless and into flabby sad kinky stuff.
legions of them.
You're giving too much thought into the issue or trying to construct something like a conspiracy out of it.
I sometimes work with people who worked on or at least worked with DRM-like stuff (Trustzone etc.). The people who make those systems and the structures that allow it falls squarely on banality of evil. It is not a big evil org or people with their own evil agendas (unlike Palantir, i think they are the true "ventablackpilled" ones). They are thousands of developers who push JIRA tickets like everyone. Many of them live in the developing world and they just pray to keep their jobs. The reason that big tech attracts developers despite their obvious and much bigger (IMO) evils is the same reason that attracts developers who make systems that can be completely closed down.
Many of the developers are not outright evil either. They sometimes voice their opinion. Their opinion doesn't matter in comparison to the business goals.
Sometimes it is understandable to write blocking software. Not all equipment is sold. Many industrial equipment is leased. So the actual owners want guarantees that their devices cannot be modified by renters.
The amount of info you can extract from an Apple phone or Graphene OS is limited due to same restrictions working in your favor too.
Similarly phones can be locked down due to radio restrictions. Nobody wants infinitely exploitable SDNs in peoples hands. It makes such SDNs a juicy target for enemies like Russia to exploit and turn into scalable attack vector as spoofing and jamming devices.
The reason those are attack vectors is also banal. We made our bed as engineers, voters, governments and business leaders one sloppy work at a time. We made shitty chips and shitty software with no care for security or safety. We sold millions of them and nobody wanted to pay to "do it right way". Worse is better. Silicon Valley style scaling up is the goal. Competition is for suckers. All those and every single one of us ate the fruits of shitty hardware and software that are protected by closed down systems. We engineers got the cushy jobs, our business leaders made 10x 100x gains from our work. We either had little voice (because making a big noise is guaranteeing that your cushy job no longer exists) or whatever we had is ignored in the hubris of shipping shit to billions of people.
<< We made our bed as engineers, voters, governments and business leaders one sloppy work at a time. We made shitty chips and shitty software with no care for security or safety. We sold millions of them and nobody wanted to pay to "do it right way".
I dunno. By that I mean, I am sure it happens, but I am not sure this is the reason for it. FWIW, I am not an engineer, but I have a window into that world.
In my little corner of the universe, we are going through belt tightening exercises already. So it is an interesting game of less meetings, shoving as much as you can onto others and the classic 'doing more with less'. In other words, even for internal customer's 'doing it the right way' is imply not a priority. On the other hand, getting more people, bigger budgets and somehow money saved is. 'Doing it the right way' is a distant ideal.
All that said, I don't think you are that wrong with the 'banality of evil' thought.
> This is akin to how two kinds of people respond to law. The first kind think "This is the law, we must follow it" and the other kind think "This law doesn't make sense, we must change it".
There exist more kinds:
- the "rebel": "this is a law/rule, so I have to trespass it". This often holds for people who are either annoyed by rules or red tape or for people who see no hope of changing the law. An example are the "blade runners" in London who organize to destroy lots of surveillance cameras at once, in particular those that are used to enforce low-emission laws. [1]
- the "evil": "this is law, so I will (ab)use it for my personal gain".
> My impression is that people who can work on stuff like that are the kind who just take the stuff in the world for granted.
Some are also doing it for the technical challenge, especially those working on new tech rather than refining what already exists. Like the people who try to solve the great problems of mathematics/physics (or find interesting new ones) for the challenge of it (and sometimes refuse prizes & recognition if they do solve or otherwise discover something vital).
This sort of person is often blinkered to the possible extreme long-term outcomes, or are able to mentally separate themselves from them (“I just made the discovery, I didn't use it to do anything bad” or “I was paid for it, follow the money source and blame them”). Of course once a genie is out of the bottle, other sorts of people are more than eager to ask it for wishes…
> This is akin to how two kinds of people respond to law. The first kind think "This is the law, we must follow it" and the other kind think "This law doesn't make sense, we must change it".
What? I don't understand how this is a "two kinds of people" generalization, when the two categories aren't even mutually-exclusive?
One can think a law is bad and should change, while simultaneously recognizing the rule of law and following it.
It's pretty weird to try to pit those two perspectives against each other
If there is a stupid law, there are several things you can do:
You can follow it anyway and make no attempt to improve the situation, allowing the stupid consequences to follow indefinitely. (Notice that anyone who follows the law while doing nothing because they've been convinced reform efforts will be ineffective are in this group.)
You can follow it anyway while trying to change it, attempting to limit the time the stupid consequences exist.
Or you can refuse to follow it.
But the people in the last group should still be trying to reform the law, both so that they don't have to risk being prosecuted for doing the right thing, and in order to get the people in the first and second groups to stop doing the stupid thing the people in the third group are already refusing to do.
If you don’t expect it to be obeyed or enforced, then I would say that means it should be fast tracked to be changed. “Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.”
The point is that if you don't follow the law as is then what expectation can you have that anyone follows your changed law - and if no one does then what's the point.
There are laws in existence that no one even "law addicts" would follow unless brain damaged. On top of that sheer amount of laws makes on "following those" simply impossible. there are also conflicting laws. Some laws are even refused to be enforced by the police.
It is a dynamic world where respect for law, trying to change law and plainly saying: "go fuck yourself, not gonna do it" should and do coexist.
Absolutely all laws followed strictly to the letter would kill a society.
Suppose there is some peon at Microsoft who is ordered to write code for Pluton and then does it because they don't want to be fired, expecting to hide behind the Nuremberg defense. The people in your second group will naturally disapprove of this.
But regardless of that, we can ask the same question of the person giving the orders. Someone in these companies initiated these programs, so are they merely fools who couldn't predict the obvious consequences that others did, or are they truly malicious?
> Suppose there is some pe[rs]on at Microsoft who is ordered to write code for Pluton and then does it because they don't want to be fired, expecting to hide behind the Nuremberg defense. The people in your second group will naturally disapprove of this.
I would rather say: people who are too "rebellious"/"non-obedient" don't get into a position where they are ordered to write code for Pluton.
>People who look at pedestrian traffic lights and cross when it's green vs. people who look at cars and cross when there are no cars coming. The first say you must follow traffic rules and the second kind say they wouldn't be alive if they looked at the green/red light of law instead of whether there are oncoming cars: a green doesn't mean it's safe to cross and a red doesn't mean you can't cross if only there are no cars.
Don't forget the selfish jerks who simply ask for whatever class of traffic that isn't them to be punitively regulated to their benefit.
(both literally and transferrable to other issues as a metaphor)
This is spot on. My wife will walk to the ends of the earth to find a crosswalk because she doesn't want to jaywalk. I use my eyes to see if there are any cars and will cross when I deem it safe.
That said, I'm not going to pretend I'm one of those people who say "this law doesn't make sense, we must change it." it's more like "this law is not convenient to me right now and I am willing to suffer the consequences of breaking it" but frankly I'm not going to start a grassroots effort to try to change it.
The people in the industry that I know were/are trying to stop fraudsters, script kiddies, nasty people, and governments from trying to exploit weaknesses and take unauthorised control of devices and services.
The problem with that is it generally requires a central point of trust.
Sure you can allow multiple points of trust, but for the unskilled user, that means that the little lock symbol becomes unreliable (or whatever)
Without commenting on the UK governments stuff (It is probably full of shit, but then thats what lobbying does) We as technologists need to engage with wider society and understand on their terms, the worries they have.
For this particular "proposal" it strikes at the core worry of today's kids. They are sadder, more insular, more dependent on mobile comms and exposed to much nastier stuff than millennials were at the same age.
AT my school in the very late 90s, a group of 14 year old girls went to the beach and took a disposable camera. Standard photos apart from one, which was a group of them topless. One of them brought them back from the developers into school. Somehow the topless photo was stolen and passed around various classes.
It ruined her month, even though she got the photo back. I suspect it left scars longer than that.
Now imagine not being able to get that photo back. Thats the problem for todays kids. One moment of stupidity and a lifetime of consequences. (under a certain age, if they took photos or videos of other kids, that makes them liable to be on a list, for life.)
You could say "oh education" but did you listen at that age?
Whats worse now is that there are no gates on what photos can be developed by the normal person. If you took any photo that was explicit, it almost certainly wouldn't be printed (hence why there were very little dick pics from that era).
Is what the UK government proposing workable? well looking at the OSA, almost certainly not.
However unless we, as a tech community engage with society, with useable answers that are understandable to the normal person, then we are going to be crushed by the weight of "something must be done". Absolutism is not our friend here. We need to engage and choose compromises, or lose wider freedom for ever.
> The problem with that is it generally requires a central point of trust.
The problem with it is that the people who want to use a central point of trust as a chokepoint for censorship, surveillance and monopolization keep claiming that this is required when it isn't.
> Sure you can allow multiple points of trust, but for the unskilled user, that means that the little lock symbol becomes unreliable (or whatever)
The premise being that if you have a monopoly then ordinary people can trust it. Only that isn't the case. A monopolist not only can be just as malicious or incompetent as any of the multiple players in a competitive landscape, they're more likely to be because the lack of competitive pressure allows them to be more abusive and complacent and more capable of capturing the government.
> under a certain age, if they took photos or videos of other kids, that makes them liable to be on a list, for life
That seems like a problem caused by the law. Why is it possible for any actions taken as a minor to cause someone to be put on a permanent list when we recognize that minors aren't mature enough to be held responsible for that?
> Now imagine not being able to get that photo back.
Now imagine what would be necessary to get it back. It's on some other person's private device. Either you invade everyone's privacy and private communications to check if they might have it or be privately sharing it, or they could be. The cure is worse than the disease.
> That seems like a problem caused by the law. Why is it possible for any actions taken as a minor to cause someone to be put on a permanent list when we recognize that minors aren't mature enough to be held responsible for that?
Its a second order effect. The problem is predators get children to take pictures and distribute them. To stop them escaping justice it requires a certain level of absolutism. In Common law, there are exceptions. However people exploit the system.
> Now imagine what would be necessary to get it back. It's on some other person's private device. Either you invade everyone's privacy and private communications to check if they might have it or be privately sharing it, or they could be. The cure is worse than the disease.
I mean there are loads of ways to look at this. But if we want to have strong controls over your data, then sharing should be controlled by the owner, not the platform. Currently there are no trusted environments that allow people to share securely and privately data without it being copied.
My understanding of what is being proposed is that cameras will have basic nudity detection on them, and they will refuse to take the pictures if the device is registered to a person under the age of 18.
That, more or less is not privacy invading, depending on how its done.
The central point that you are missing here is that something which was quite hard to happen in 1999 was destructive to a child life. Now its much easier to do, and there is an actual economy in sourcing, exploiting and trading these pictures/videos.
> Its a second order effect. The problem is predators get children to take pictures and distribute them.
It isn't. The solution is obvious. You punish the predators and not the children.
> My understanding of what is being proposed is that cameras will have basic nudity detection on them, and they will refuse to take the pictures if the device is registered to a person under the age of 18.
Which seems both problematic (now every device needs to be registered?) and ineffective (the predator has the children use a device registered to an adult or an older device without any such constraints).
> The central point that you are missing here is that something which was quite hard to happen in 1999 was destructive to a child life. Now its much easier to do, and there is an actual economy in sourcing, exploiting and trading these pictures/videos.
This seems to be your central premise but it's also not even true. If a predator got children to take such pictures with film camera in the 20th century and was then in possession of the negatives, there was no centralized system to detect this or prevent them from having a darkroom to make and distribute copies. The solution is to have the police arrest them, which continues to be the solution even now without needing to compromise the devices of every innocent member of the public.
> But if we want to have strong controls over your data, then sharing should be controlled by the owner, not the platform.
You're assuming the conclusion -- that there should be a platform in a position to control (i.e restrict) sharing. If communications are end to end encrypted, no one other the parties even knows what it is. That is what you are by implication prohibiting -- unintermediated private communications.
I am deeply worried about privacy. the problem that I have here is if we don't provide a sensible middle ground, we will get a terrible solution imposed (ie the age gate spyware, instead of the rollingo ut of the mobile block lists the UK already had)
> It isn't. The solution is obvious. You punish the predators and not the children.
the core problem is that in the UK more and more CSAM is being prodiced by kids themselves. Most grooming of digital images is done remotely, via exploitation. (ie I have pictures of you, please send more or I'll send them to x)
Now, because the person extorting them is not taking the pictures they had a defence of "they were sent to me, I didn't know what to do so deleted them blah blah blah"
These people hunt down the kids sending stuff to lovers and the like, that gets leaked, because kids are cruel, and try and extort them.
I would gently ask you to look in the changes into sentencing guidelines and the evidence used to compile that advice.
Yes, older devices can be used, and oncein the hands of extortionists then they are in deep shit. The point of this, and the point that Jess Phillipson was getting at, is if kids can't take these pictures as easily, they can't be leaked as easily which means there is much less (but not zero) chance of being exploited,
> You're assuming the conclusion -- that there should be a platform in a position to control
Sorry my bad phrasing.
the ideal solution here is end to end encrypted but also encrypted image but with the keys controlled by the owner of the image "private" computing is the answer, where every view of private images requires a key exchange. there are hardware locks to stop people getting at the frame buffer, only apps that you approve can have access, and flagged data that you send auto deletes and expires.
Ironically this is basically extreme copyright enforcement(everything you create, more or less is your own copyright)
But we can't get to that yet, because Ad tech/meta/google doesn't like that.
TLDR its less obvious but I also share your worry about privacy.
> the problem that I have here is if we don't provide a sensible middle ground, we will get a terrible solution imposed (ie the age gate spyware, instead of the rollingo ut of the mobile block lists the UK already had)
The problem here that if every year you're asked to make a new compromise between where you are and a fascist police state, you're only traveling in a single direction on the road to hell.
To actually stop them you need to turn around and go the other way. Dedicate your efforts to removing the existing authoritarian surveillance apparatus so that they have to spend their resources to stand still instead of you, so that failure is "it stays the same" and success is "authoritarianism declines" instead of the unacceptable premise that the only options are making it worse or making it worse even faster.
> Now, because the person extorting them is not taking the pictures they had a defence of "they were sent to me, I didn't know what to do so deleted them blah blah blah"
Any kind of sensible court is going to both take evidence of the extortion as an invalidation of that defense and also convict them of the extortion.
Moreover, "it's sometimes hard to punish the perpetrators" is a ridiculous rationale for punishing the victims in their place.
> But we can't get to that yet, because Ad tech/meta/google doesn't like that.
We can't get to that because that doesn't actually work, for multiple reasons in this context:
The first is the same reason every piece of Hollywood content is in the hands of pirates despite Disney et al demanding useless DRM. It simply doesn't work; a single vulnerability allows every piece of content to be extracted and once extracted by any one person it can then be distributed to an unlimited number of others forever. The entire premise is snake oil. The reason Hollywood wanted it to begin with, and Google and Apple adopted it to use against them, is the same -- it's hopeless at preventing copying but it enables the monopolization of devices because then unapproved competing devices are illegal.
The second reason is that the person in an image is not necessarily the person who owns the device, and the device has no way to know that. It does you no good for the "owner" of the image to control it when the device thinks the "owner" is the predator.
And the third is the pragmatic issue. People expect to be able to take a picture and share it with whoever they want. You take a picture of yourself and text it to your mom, both you and she expect her to be able to email it to friends and family etc. You take a picture of a defective mannequin to file for RMA and you expect the customer service rep to be able to upload it into their internal RMA system or forward it on to the manufacturer in another country. If the default doesn't allow this then people will justifiably object. But if it does then 99% of people will never change the defaults or even realize that they can, and then the proposal is worthless because the default everyone wants for the common case is exactly the thing you don't want in the problem case, since then the default allows the picture to fall into the hands of a thousand strangers and devices that aren't in the authoritarian ecosystem and you can't get the cat back in the bag.
> were/are trying to stop fraudsters, script kiddies, nasty people, and governments from trying to exploit weaknesses and take unauthorised control of devices and services.
While I don't doubt that's a motivation, the problem I have is it's really a question of likelihood. I feel that in terms of security focus it's very common for people to put on blinders and ignore the likelihood of an exploit in favor of "Ooooh look at this thing that COULD be exploited!"
It's fundamentally the problem I have with how CVEs are reported and handled in general.
In terms of secure boot stopping problems. Yes, it does stop someone from rooting a device which is great. However, someone that has access to root a device almost certainly also has the ability to just install a virus in the OS startup scripts. Or to modify a user executable. Or to modify the user's PATH environment variable to inject a malicious app in front of a commonly used one.
That's what I wish security focused people would weigh more heavily when they evaluate these sorts of threats. "What other damage could a malicious individual do if they had the same permissions to pull off this exploit."
> It's fundamentally the problem I have with how CVEs are reported and handled in general.
Yes, its more like a popularity contest.
But secure boot stopped(or stops) a whole bunch of driver/rootkit exploits, which was a big thing in the late 2000s. It means that a random driver that is inserted by some script kiddie raises a whole bunch of warnings, which it wouldnt have done before.
In today's world the 14-year-old girl who took a topless beach photo of herself would likely be criminally charged as an adult for production, possession and distribution of child pornography. So there's something about how our legal attitudes have changed too.
>We as technologists need to engage with wider society and understand on their terms, the worries they have.
We were the vanguard blocking this to the public's benefit, now they've voted for it our only duty is to ourselves; to make sure the rules don't apply to us.
I mean I get that, but don't you also see thats dangerous?
I think its perfectly winnable argument. For example we already _had_ age gating in the UK, its just it was at the network level on mobile internet. It worked and was unobtrusive.
The antidote to the OSA was to just extend that to domestic internet.
That argument was lost, and lost hard. mainly because we didn't engage properly with a believable solution.
> to make sure the rules don't apply to us.
The point is, they don't really apply to the determined. the same argument could be made for painkiller blister packs. The level of friction that the packs provide reduce drug based impulse suicide by 40% (depending on which study you reference)
The argument against it is "I can't be arsed with pressing the little shits out, I just want it easy". The Populist approach is making it prescription only.
Unless we engage properly, on the right level, then we are going to be worse off.
It isn't TPMs nor attestation nor DRM making this possible. It isn't secure boot either. It's walled gardens with secure boot -yes, secure boot- that the consumer can't bypass. Secure booting isn't the problem in an enterprise setting -- of course we _want secure booting_ in the enterprise. It's consumer devices that can't be jail-broken that are the problem. Although even then, the silly age verification laws and the people pushing them don't even care if the OSes run on walled garden devices.
I would posit that any device that can't be jailbroken is a walled garden. Whether the wall is made of an app store or an operating system, it's not yours if you can't do what you want with it.
Would it? Parents who so choose could restrict their teenagers from owning a device and instead give them one owned by the parent and configured not to show adult content.
A sufficiently adversarial teenager could get a different one, but they could do that regardless since it generally costs even less to get some 18 year old high school senior or homeless adult etc. to lend you their ID than to buy another device.
Oh, the people who work on secure boot, attestation, DRM, and other such features know very well, but don't care. This is because the claimed benefits for them, such as less hackers, less malware, less bot traffic, outweigh any possible downsides for the society.
I think it's even worse than that. Our industry has a strong track record of only looking at potential upsides (and pretending they're certain) and not even seeing that there may be serious downsides.
It's a kind of blindness. The kind that is, in my opinion, is one of the major reasons why we ended up building a world that's more than a bit dystopian.
That's exactly the shortsighted view I'm talking about - you are ignoring the cost of building/adopting a system that you may not control in the future.
> Did they think, as they worked to transfer final say from users to corporations, by technical means, that politicians couldn't transfer that control to themselves by political means?
Corporations are already hostile enough that it doesn't really matter:
The report says that between 30 and 40 Rockstar employees working in multiple offices in the UK and Canada were fired on October 30, all of them part of a private trade union chat group on Discord. - https://www.pcgamer.com/gaming-industry/rockstar-accused-of-...
They're ultimately employees. Their employers hire them to write the code that the employers want. If they don't write the code, employers just fire them and move on to hire some other people to write code. As much as how ethically questionable it is, it's still very rare that people would give up their jobs to defend their viewpoint.
The practical alternative is sabotage. Write the code poorly, with obvious bugs. Don't sign the full URL so the user can just delete the drm=true parameter.
Yet they stopped thinking as soon as their wallet got involved and never considered that their kids also need freedom and the ability to use technology that works for them and not against them. Selfishness and greed are the problem. The kids are just a convenient but shallow way to deflect from that.
I get the idea of refusing on principle, but the older I get the more I have started to become pessimistic towards that stance.
I have seen time and time again that individual, principled stands like this do nothing to change anything and only hurt the individual. Unless you are part of an organized movement against something, opting out doesn't help.
Opting out at the very least means that you aren't the problem. I'd agree though that it's long past time people organized against these issues because one person has very little influence over how corporations act.
Nobody implemented DRM with a gun pointed at their heads, and anyone capable of implementing harmful technology has the skills to work on something else for lots of money implementing other things. It was always a choice.
> Did they think, as they worked to transfer final say from users to corporations, by technical means, that politicians couldn't transfer that control to themselves by political means?
Makes me think of the most sobering line I ever saw in a museum (Berlin): The biggest atrocities were committed by people with a spreadsheet and a performance goal.
Having argued these topics for decades, I think that a lot of people just truly can't foresee the inevitable consequences. I don't know why, the consequences seem obvious but because they are not spelled out, many people say it won't happen.
I think you can learn about it most by reading clever, capable people from big tech corporations. Their framing often involves tradeoffs against a slow but inevitable societal pressure that is helped by compromising on freedom.
So I don't believe they are ignorant of all your points; it's rather that they don't see a realistic way how tech, corporations, and perhaps even ordinary people can go forward (being better, or richer, or more sophisticated or whatever) without making that compromise. It's as if they saw the forking paths of the future, and none will end up without technical restraints, regardless of whether they do it or whether things just get worse and someone else then does them.
But they're right. The next guy will do it if you don't. And you'll be fired meaning you won't have any power any more, and the person who thinks DRM is good will be hired and become powerful in your stead. How does that help?
I'll spell it out in case someone else truly doesn’t understand since you're just determined not to.
Pro-social actions are taken more often if you believe others will also take pro-social actions. The best way to do it is to believe you're the same as other people and that other people are good, and that you're not the patsy when you take a pro-social decision and others don't. Because you're the next guy for someone.
Twitter people expressly started their company with the idea of crowd-friendly semi-anonymous msgs on demand.
The game of GO delivers an idea where a very large construct can be built then in one move the entire thing flips to a different purpose... seems relevant somehow..
> Did they think, as they worked to transfer final say from users to corporations, by technical means, that politicians couldn't transfer that control to themselves by political means?
Why does that matter? If it's bad for politicians to usurp that power, it's already bad for corporates to have it in the first place.
I'd rather politicians use power in a way that includes democratic oversight than, say, Peter Thiel doing whatever the hell he likes.
I remember piping up about all those things. But the excuses were everywhere.
- Oh but you can turn it off so it's no issue (secure boot). Well yeah but more and more stuff just won't run then (eg iOS apps on Mac). It will become the norm to stay inside the fuzzy walled garden just like it already is on phones. And if you stray you will just be blocked from any app that does something useful.
- But companies need to be sure you are who you say you are (attestation). Yes but they will abuse that power if they can profit from it.
There's a selection effect. Some people thought these were bad and didn't implement them. Other people thought they weren't bad and implemented them. We use implementations from the latter group of people. Obviously.
Same thing is happening with age verification. We had the chance to just ask if the user is over 18 when setting the computer up, but we didn't do that so they're using a solution from a mass surveillance company instead.
> Did they think, as they worked to transfer final say from users to corporations, by technical means...
Your argument is flawed here. The truth is that measures such as secure boot do have real security benefits. They can be misused, like any technology can be, but that is not an inherent feature of the tech, but rather how it is implemented. And as the developers of such measures are not a monolith, it is unfair to paint them as merely trying to exert control. I'm not going to argue that some involved parties were trying to exert control. But lots of others were trying to implement a genuine security benefit for the users, and they don't deserve to be reprimanded as if they were some kind of apologists for authoritarianism.
> They can be misused, like any technology can be, but that is not an inherent feature of the tech, but rather how it is implemented. And as the developers of such measures are not a monolith, it is unfair to paint them as merely trying to exert control.
You can argue that exerting control is a good thing - a clever scam artist convinces a vulnerable user to paste an attack at the command line, and the benevolent OS vendor uses their control makes the attack impossible, no matter what the scam artist tells the user to do. A greedy software maker produces a spyware-laden, cookie-stealing update and asks the user to enter the admin password to install the update. The benevolent OS vendor uses their control to make such malicious updates impossible, even with the administrator password entered.
But even if the control is being used exclusively for good, it is, ultimately, control.
Does that really still apply when the people in question make six or seven figures for it? At some point we should expect some kind of individual responsibility.
That's precisely what the phrase means. People are capable of evil acts just to earn more money or advance their career. There is no real malice involved, just wilful ignorance. Though that raises the question whether there even is a meaningful difference between the two.
I often also wonders if ideological zealots ever thinks of this passage while pushing their agenda for control:
...and it was allowed to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast could even speak and cause those who would not worship the image of the beast to be killed.
Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead,
so that no one can buy or sell who does not have the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name.
Those who would think of such a passage (or any biblical passage) and those who push for a total-control agenda are disjoint sets.
Communism and fascism were both fueled by atheism (either explicit or functional), not a Judeo-Christian worldview.
"Ohne Gott und Sonnenschein bringen wir die Ernte ein." (Without God and without sun, we will get the harvest done.) - the slogan of East Germany in 1975 when people were hungry and it kept raining during harvest.
that's not Christian though (in the sense that their beliefs are not scriptural and not subjected to scriptural review)... it's something else, and it's really ugly.
We also had Christian fascist governments, like my home country Spain. One of the official doctrines of Franco's government was deemed "National Catholicism" :/
They (developers) did what they did for money. Just like everyone else. And they would do it all again.
At a corporate level, no one cares about lots of freedoms, except if it is a selling point.
If 'keeping freedoms' is a selling point then the ideal position is to gain the kudos of appearing to support this whilst also getting the benefits of the loss of freedoms. Why not get both?
I always think of the lumberjack tasked with cutting down the last redwood giant. He hesitated a bit and was somewhat reluctant to start. Several of his coworkers understood that it was slightly emotional and said they would do it if he couldn't.
It's starting to feel like ethno-nationalism is the answer.
See: the PRC. Support for surveillance is allegedly high. Anecdotally, talking to PRC citizens in circumstances where they don't need to worry about said surveillance (e.g., when they're vacationing in Japan and I want to pester someone and practice my mandarin), they generally like it. Makes them feel safe.
The CPC has sold them on a vision of them as members of the state-race "Chinese" (which is not really an ethnicity any more than "American" is) and the surveillance as a thing that keeps them and their "Chinese" lifestyle safe from non-Chinese. Uighurs have to be extra surveilled until they're also Chinese, which, many are now according to the CPC.
So PRC citizens feel safe and cozy among in the country for "their people," not realizing this whole ethnonationalist concept is at best 100 years old, maybe even younger. During the Qing dynasty, there's a whole hell of a lot of people that think of themselves as "Chinese" that definitely weren't by the dynastic government.
I smell similar happening in Russia, the USA, and Israel, with State support. It looks like right wing groups are trying to pull it off in the UK and Germany as well.
>Anecdotally, talking to PRC citizens in circumstances where they don't need to worry about said surveillance (e.g., when they're vacationing in Japan and I want to pester someone and practice my mandarin)
I'm not sure you are aware that China has monitoring operations for its citizens outside China.
Politicians always had that power, because it was always technically possible. To think we could have done anything to stop it once there was a will to do it is naive. If you doubt it, just look at Palantir. People like us built that - Thiel and his minions only paid their salaries.
The sequence of this is reversed. First Thiel got filthy rich, and THEN he used that money to hire people who didn't whistle-blow to build Palantir.
If EVERYONE that got hired to build the enshittification of humanity would just speak up about what they were asked to build there is no 'next guy' - ar at least we all know that the 'next guy' is wilfully complicit in the evil done at the company and you can disinvite him to family reunions and refuse him membership in the golf club for humanitarian violations.
I.E. What good is a mortgage payment when the next guy cant hire a plumber because the whole town knows he's a vile POS?
But the line of people doing the work, and keeping their mouths shut about it is nearly an unbroken chain from start to end. And here we are because no one wants to be the only one speaking out against evil, when we all should be.
You could work at Palantir and leak details, and I don't think thats what this discussion is about. If you wanted to destroy a company from the inside by whatever means, you'd have to get hired there.
Right, the discussion isn't about one employee trying to take down a known evil operations, rather I was positing a situation whereby these evils never got off the ground, where all of the employees tasked with building Palantir, or the like, en masse simply refused to do nefarious projects and refused the work. If they ALL or MOST then disclosed that "super rich dude wants to build a thing to erode/destroy the freedom of all but the super rich dude club" then the common knowledge would be that the full group of "next hires" is both aware of this going into the job interviews and when the nefarious project is deployed against us all, we know they are expressly complicit in the development of evils.
That's not my view of how things are, or how they would ever actually be, just one loose idea of how we might have avoided the current outcome, if all of the developers at "Nefarious, Inc." had not been trying as hard as possible to join the ranks of some subset of "rich dude club" as a gradient above poverty in any nation.
I get the need to make a living; and I have actually gone from working profitably in IT to subsistence goat farmer who's wardrobe was entirely found at the local waste transfer station's "community exchange table" for over ten years. So I do know the cost of 'declining to participate in building tools for evil' firsthand. It's not a game; and it has serious outcomes if you aren't located in, or relocate to, a place with significant natural resources for survival. Requirements include clean and plentiful rainfall, long growing seasons, volcanic or otherwise enriched||enrichable soil, healthy wild game populations and functional local systems for ensuring the durability of the same, intact social networks of mutual support among a community of people in similar conditions with the cultural traditions for shared resources, and the willing support of your spouse, partner, and dependent family members.
The learning curve from suburban North America is not so much steep, as it is a cliff. The lessons are immeasurable; and there is so much we would/will do different the next time going from "here" to "there."
Boiling the frog is a thing. As is laying the groundwork. Governments are much less likely to pull off multi-decade plans than they are to make use of whatever technology is already out there.
While I'm not fundamentally opposed to the idea I'm not convinced its going to be effective. A lot of the leaders that ultimately approved these developments are already public figures and that doesn't seem to affect their motivations.
I guess they think "someone is going to do it anyway, so it might as well be me so I can be the one who gets paid for it". But yeah, I'm sure there is also a good chunk of tech workers who are indeed useful idiots who think they are the last link in the chain.
Meanwhile Signal Corporation keeps trying to connect to updates2.signal.org even when the app is not being used. "Automatic updates", remote code execution by default with no option to disable
Silicon Valley has its own ideas of what "privacy" and "surveillance" mean
To those folks, it does not mean privacy from Silicon Valley companies
The Signal app will keep on trying to connect to the mothership
Because to the people who work on Silicon Valley software, that is not a privacy violation
The battle is over _control_ over software not privacy or surveillance. The later is not possible without the former
Silicon Valley does not want the user to have control any more than they want the government to have control
People forget how we got here. Whatever your philosophical stance, history has shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that giving most people complete control over their device has been an unmitigiated disaster.
Scams, stealing credentials, stealing money, botnets, viruses, losses of data, ransomware, etc etc etc.
What is better for most people is a locked down device like an iPad where each app has to be approved and they're incredibly sandboxed. 20 years ago we had people installing malware because a strange email promised them smiley face emojis.
When we transitioned from the single-user ODS-based Windows model (ie Win98/SE were the last of that line) to a multi-user restricted privilege model based on NT 3.0/3.5/4.0 (first as WinXP) it was meant to be better but privilege escalation was still too easy because of what users had become accustomed to doing and of what was needed to install software you downloaded.
Things like an App Store (on Mac and eventually on Windows) are actually a good thing. Signed apps are a good thing. Having to go out of your way to install unsigned apps is a good thing.
I really abhor "technical libertarians" because they never address these issues. It's all principle-based while ignoring reality, human nature and whether or not unfettered access gives users something they even need.
Also, other people pay the price. Where do you think these DDoS attacks come from? Compromised Windows PCs (primarily).
> Whatever your philosophical stance, history has shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that giving most people complete control over their device has been an unmitigiated disaster.
I'd argue that giving governments and corporations control over our devices has also been an unmitigiated disaster. You could say the same thing about any kind of freedom though couldn't you? Freedom is so dangerous after all. Look at all the problems it's caused. Giving up all of our freedoms would surely make the world better right?
People often misuse freedom. The answer to that is not to take freedom away, but to educate people on how to use their freedom, and only restrict those who have proven to be unable to handle it. Let's say your argument, that clueless users getting infected are an externality upon everyone else and thus they need to be locked down for everyone's good, is accurate (though I don't think it is). In that case, why should the majority of intelligent people be made to suffer because a minority can't handle the freedom? No, in that case the correct thing to do is to have a mechanism by which we identify people who are hurting others, and restrict them. Nobody would countenance the idea that because some people are irresponsible drivers, cars must therefore be unavailable and everyone pushed into using public transit. But that is the exact same logic people try to use to crack down on freedom of use for computers, even though they are nowhere near as dangerous as a car.
> I really abhor "technical libertarians"...
Well, I abhor those who try to take freedom away from people. So the feeling is mutual I guess.
Why as an Apple user in the UK am I considered too dumb to use a 3rd party app store but if I were 30 miles away in France I would be considered intelligent enough to cope? Because this was never about my safety. It was about their 30% as correctly supposed above.
Why in the UK Billy is considered a civil engineer but if he were 30 miles away in France it would be considered illegal for him to sign off on a bridge design? Different places arrived at different consensuses.
Either that or Apple don't want to lose their 30% until they are forced to, one jurisdiction at a time. I guess we all need to make our own inference as to which is more likely.
There were many reasons to deploy these solutions. Much of it from the perennial reason “we can’t have nice things”. Che was a murderous psychopath so I’m not sure what he was to do with freedom other than some college kids though he was edgy in the same way Manson’s followed though he was edgy.
What defines a bad tech vs a good tech? Similar arguments can be made for most research including nuclear fusion, AI, vaccines, space, polymers, combustion engines, electric motors, semiconductors...
Good tech empowers individuals and subverts authorities, corporations, oligarchs and governments. Bad tech subverts individuals and empowers authorities, corporations, oligarchs and governments.
Online is terrible for kids. Online is terrible for adults! Too many people don't have the agency or social skills to manage themselves. Conspiracy theories, anarchists and libertarians, misinformation and disinformation, weirdos and beardos and creeps of all description. People end up believing all kinds of things that just aren't real.
It'll be best for society if things are a little more regulated, a little safer. And I'm happy to help where I can. Listening to the terminally online about it would be counterproductive.
1. You need a camera on your computer to allow a third party to verify your age before viewing adult content
2. It applies to social media too
3. It applies to your operating system too
4. Unless you age verify, the law demands your computer must be powerful enough to run an AI, or be internet-equipped and send your private photos to a third party, to detect and prohibit nudity. It must be capable of running in real-time, presumably, to work on Facetime calls and such.
Next step, certainly to outlaw most operating systems and older devices. Excellent news for Google, Apple, and Microsoft, bad for Linux and alternative operating systems. Remember when schools handed out Raspberry Pis?
Edit: And they are asking for this to be implemented for free in three months, because nobody knows how software engineering works. Great job
However the original proposal was pretty much aimed at phone manufactures. It is perfectly possible for current gen phones (and previous gen) to detect nudes in camera. Infact most phones do that already in order to adjust the exposure, its just you dont see that.
The problem for the UK is that they are not legislating technically. The original proposal was tightly scoped. The problem was, because of the way government runs in the UK it was shelved. Now that its not, the original scoping has been mashed, as its been blended with an child social media ban (quite what makes them think social media is ok for elder millennials++ is also interesting)
If they actually decided to make laws like they did for building materials or cars (ie all phones must conform to EU/BS standard x/y/z) then life would be much easier for everyone. But alas we have forgotten how to govern. something must be done now
>Next step, certainly to outlaw most operating systems and older devices.
They won't have to.
Instead, they'll just make some new essentially mandatory tech which older devices cannot run – update or stop existing, societally.
----
Phones and email already seem this way (i.e. "required") – from my perspective as an internet user whom doesn't use phone/email, personally. Nobody believes me when answering "no phone, no email" – free-est man alive - their loss is disbelief.
I am very curious how you make it in current society without a phone or email. It does sound incredibly freeing, but I'm definitely having trouble comprehending how it works.
This is a common response I get. My best suggestion (for understanding) would be: just try, for an entire day day, to be phone and/or email -free. Bonus points for a typical workday replacement.
----
For the past nine years I've lived literally next door to my primary places of employement. I do bluecollar tradework, part-time (by appointment, only); I have very few clients, cultivated over years of firing bad clients. I show up, at planned times, complete jobs, go home.
I have an attorney who handles any legal contacts (my "registered agent"). Accountant handles tax BS.
My bank is adjacent to my neighborhood (since I cannot do online banking without text/email/2FA), so I just walk over for account transactions.
When a service "absolutely requires" an email (e.g. online gaming) I'll use a temporary email burner – with a corresponding online purchase (for any future account recovery needs, called-in).
In my city, most street parking is pay-by-phone. I can usually find a "free" spot, but this often takes a few extra minutes – my US city isn't huge so most stores have parking.
I do own a one-way pager; but it's been off for years. My family is essentially one other person, and is within visitable driving range.
----
Mostly I just don't like being interrupted/bothered (as much as I love socializing). Am honestly thinking about getting a landline... just to be able to "reach out" by voice, with a small whitelist.
Email is the most free, decentralized communication channel we have. It’s fully async, so you consume it at the pace you want. What makes you against emails? Just curious
My primary thoughts on exiting email came after reading Paul Graham's excellent essay on email being nothing more than a to-do list that ANYBODY can add on to [†].
SPAM-rant: I personally feel that a system needs to exist/replace email... which uses some sort of low-tx-fee crypto to "cost money" for each and every email sent. The recipients could then "refund" such fees, optionally & consentually, when they've determined that sender worthy of free-contact.
Everybody else should have to pay to call/text [Ω]. Since no such system publicly exists: I opt-out.
[†] personal anxiety is my biggest reason for hating inbox-opening
This isn’t just your photos. This is all content displayed on the device, all content captured by the camera - everything. Full take. GCHQ must be wetting themselves.
We all know this is the first political position. They'll walk back half of it, and what remains will appear to be a compromise, but was what was intended all along.
We all also know they know they will be absolutely ravaged in the next GE, at the scale of the Tories.
The question - why hand that to Farage and his far right? Is Keir Starmer a far right operative in Labour? His track revord would suggest so, but do we have any receipts?
I don't think so, I kind of wish but he was a skilled human rights lawyer, the head of CPS, an utter moron wouldn't be able to achieve this much, he's not a lettuce.
I'm afraid it's a malicious intent here, and I also wish I could see a competent government, but until one takes on FPTP and media dictating the policy, nothing changes.
The hope is in the angry youngsters, maybe they could vote Greens+LibDems in.
Alternative interpretation: the purpose of a system is what it does, and the PMs and governments are competent at something else than what you think they should be competent at.
The fear towards adult content is so insane. I know it’s mostly a pretext, but a meaningful portion of the population will accept pretty much whatever restrictions because they are so afraid of their kids seeing naked bodies
That's not what the UK is demanding. They want client side scanning malware that breaks DRM, circumvents encryption and VPNs, and bypasses other security features in order to scan everything visible on your screen.
It absolutely doesn't. However, the argument doesn't work when it's about connecting the "is the user a kid" bit to the existing and constantly running object recognition (phone cameras already run skin detection all the time to set white balance), so people invent "third parties" and "report people to authorities".
But "Is the user a kid" is already a switch that I (a parent) switch on in the device and that the kid in question can't switch off. That bit seems like a solved problem?
Why would anything else even be needed in that space? The interest of parents and tech companies likely align here.
With just enough fascistic pressure maybe Usenet can be great again. Just have to figure out how to filter known good content from the spam which I think can be solved with OpenPGP identities. Otherwise Tor and download managers for the patient people. Static generated galleries of pictures and videos spread across thousands of small sites. Some downsides of pushing people into dark corners is that all regulation goes out the window along with some tax revenue. Loss of tax revenue may be one way to get their attention.
The Government is going to put a snitch on every phone, tape every bedroom, and listen in every evening on every home. Every doctor's visit. Every therapy session. Every pub. Every street. Every store.
When the snitches phone home, what you type to your lover may get the cops sent to your home.
Artificial stasi in every desktop, laptop, tablet, camera, and phone. Around every corner. In every living room. No one will be exempt from their gaze.
Are you ready for your vacuum cleaner to phone home?
Signal the messaging app/platform? A funny thing is that Signal barely works (with VPN ofc) here in China. Sending media/images is impossible. Sometimes it’s blacked out weeks on end. Everything else seems to work fine ish (again with VPN ofc).
Signal outright lies in their privacy policy. It opens with "Signal is designed to never collect or store any sensitive information." but they collect and permanently store sensitive information in the cloud (user's name, photo, number, and contacts) and in some cases they even store the contents of messages. They've steadfastly refused to update the policy even as they introduced those features deceiving users about their risks. Signal can't really be trusted at this point.
A service that advertises itself as privacy focused refusing to update their privacy policy while adding features like this seems like a pretty big dead canary.
Did we read the same article?
You're complaining about an optional back-up service. No data is being "collected," you're giving it to them (in an encrypted form) to store on your behalf. How else would a backup service work?
If you don't want to use the cloud version, there's a feature to store backups locally on-device.
> You're complaining about an optional back-up service. No data is being "collected,"
Every app offering cloud-based backup is in fact designed to "collect and store" sensitive data. That at least is opt in. The app also collects your name, photo, phone number and worst of all a list of your contacts and permanently keeps that in the cloud and there is zero way to opt out of that data collection. No matter what excuses you want to make for them there is no getting around the fact that the device does collect and store sensitive data. Just like it can't be denied that they've added several new features none of which is reflected in their privacy policy because they've frozen it in time.
This is an app which is advertised to whistleblowers, activists, and others whose lives/freedom could depend on how well they understand the risks involved yet Signal outright lies to them about those same risks.
Shrug. If they don't, they will lose the customers who do care about privacy and they won't lose the ones that don't .. right away. However, it will near guarantee further fragmentation and circling a new solution that will be recommended to normies by their techy friends or current batch of cool kids. We have been here before. The only way to win the game is not to play. Especially with government, the moment you start playing, you lose.
Surveillance replaces ostensible individual fringe threats with a clear dangerous pervasive and (for practical purposes) irreversible threat that monotonically aggregates increasing centralized leverage over every aspect our lives, direct and indirect.
Knowledge is power. Forced revelation of our inner lives puts each of us in a position of vulnerability.
Even when "not abused", the very real latent threat actively takes away freedoms of thought and action.
It is extreme abuse.
It undermines any sense that the state works for the people, when it operationally embodies a maximalized one-way threat over all citizens.
AI collation exponentially compounds the threat, the passive and active damage.
One of the wisest ethical/safety concepts ever: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated."
Democracy that sets up the levers of total autocracy is the greatest possible perversion and threat to democracy. Democracy only works as long as it recognizes government is the greatest threat to freedom. And that strict limitations on its power over citizens is the only defense.
I'm slowly coming around to the idea that closed source software was the original sin of the modern digital surveillance state.
Due to the fact that it can't easily be modified without the source, software is uniquely able to act against the interests of its owner in a way almost no other product can. Client side scanning wouldn't be viable if people could just install a mod that disables it, and remote attestation would be a much harder sell if the availability of such mods were expected.
Maybe software copyright should require releasing the source and build tools just like patents require releasing the design...
I didn’t mind Starmer but this is finally giving me the leg up onto the anti-Starmer bandwagon.
What a dreadful legacy to leave - a sad attempt to get the biggest possible bang for the smallest possible buck. Also, 3 months? Perhaps that is as long as he expects to be pm.
Kudos to signal for coming out on side with this, and quickly. I only hope that this stance is quickly picked up as a counterpoint to the ever-so-strong narrative that more hastily concocted sledge-hammer legislation is the best step forward.
This step forward is instead of building understanding of, and solutions for, the erosion of communities, trust and empathy for others. I feel these things might (MIGHT!) be overlooked symptoms of poor investment, policies and governance for healthy society. Crikey, perhaps I shouldn't try and call that into account, it sounds like I might be cynical about politics. Oh dear...
> Despite [iphone age verification] children can still take, view, share and save nude images. The government therefore wants Apple and Google to block nudity across the whole device by default, so they can only be deactivated via age assurance.
We tolerate the systematic child rape and run cover for the perps, but teens sending n00dz is a bridge too far. It's time for the UK to nut up and start holding these kids accountable. This works well, too, because it's deactivated on the devices used by adults, so they can continue to view their child porn, I guess.
Governments have been pushing surveillance since the earliest days of the consumer Internet.
The earliest example I can remember is the Clipper Chip. That was dead three years after it was proposed.
This current idiocy - proposed by a PM who promoted a very good friend of the most notorious paedophile in recent history to ambassador, against the recommendations of the civil service - is similarly doomed. Three months to implement huge changes to every OS on the planet? Like that's even remotely likely.
Signal refuses to answer: Why won't they release/open source all of their backend infra automation scripts/tools/etc...
There's no reasonable reason why a 501(c)(3) won't put this out there to make sure there's redundancy so we could built an alternate network if they're compromised by some gag order.
Probably because its leadership seems to have been taken over by more politically and less technically inclined people (for better and/or worse) who don't understand why it matters.
The trade is we get (hopefully) people very dedicated to keeping the org developing the stuff alive and well-funded, and gaining mainstream acceptance/attention.
Signal did such things always. They delayed years to clarify licensing to allow iOS forks. And hid server source code for a year to hide MobileCoin integration.
Signal just can't be trusted at this point. They're probably compromised. My theory is that that's why the very first line of their privacy is a lie saying that it's designed to never collect or store sensitive data when they keep a list of your contacts forever in the cloud (and in some cases now even message contents).
People really should stop conflating the technical requirements for an optional back service, with they are always collecting our data and anything is a lie.
The back up service is optional, but Signal still collects your name, photo, phone number, and worst of all, your contacts. That is not optional. There is nothing you can do to stop it. That information will be collected and stored in the cloud. It's also exactly the kind of information Signal used to brag about not being able to provide to law enforcement because they never collected it in the first place. Well, now they do collect it, but they never updated the webpages that they wrote back when they didn't to reflect the new reality, just like they never updated their privacy policy.
The average person doesn't think that far ahead. They just hear "a cause I like can be furthered by implementing 1984" and so they support it.
Check out any comment section on transportation policy, environmental policy, professional licensing for trades other than software. Look at how HN, people who should know how this sausage is made, schemes about how policy and technology can be used by government to enforce it's will and preferences upon other people in ways they cannot avoid or resist. It's not a case of divide and conquer, it's a case of completely lacking principals. Nobody believes in privacy, civil rights or that the application of government (violence) should be expensive and difficult and politically fraught when it's an application that they like. Nobody is thinking far enough ahead to wonder how those systems will be used when the whims and dispositions of government and society shift.
Just this morning I was reading a comment where some jerk was scheming about how the government should (the implication being that now that AI makes it easy to automate) scrape property listings and fine people for not pulling permits when there's a diff from the prior listings and that the whole thing can be automated and anyone innocent can just have the government tour their home to prove it.
There is something to be said about true believers, who will go out of their way to not 'live and let live'. I remember getting extra antsy when one such individual was flying drones over private properties looking for signs for what they believe is an issue.
Tech.. it truly is a tool and something of a true reveal of character. It immediately shows what you do with power.
The average person hold all kinds of conflicting views.
The average middle class parent will surveil the shit out of their children, for example.
Hence the title of the article is not completely correct. The outcome of surveillance is the intent of the entity surveilling. In the case of the parent, this is likely the safety of their offspring. In the case of a state entity, it's likely the safety of the people in power of the state. This second type of safety is very dangerous and does not include your safety.
I think you are onto something with intent here. By now, we effectively know that various power centers are getting away with things that normal people do not. If true, the concern is not that we are getting away with things, but that we might be thinking that maybe current arrangement is no longer suitable. In other words, they are literally preparing for a worst case scenario. And to me, this seems silly now. As in, I buy the fear of a peasant uprising and being on the wrong side of the scythe, but I sincerely doubt peasants will actually do anything.
> The average middle class parent will surveil the shit out of their children, for example.
Most of those parents will argue that they have the right to do that and are actively recommending other parents to do the same. It happens so much that a local celebrity actually said the following recently (paraphrased)"As long as you live in my house I(the parent) have the right to go through your room, your stuff and your phone whenever I want".
In my country this is actually illegal as kids have a right to privacy just like the parents, though it happens so much since kids don't have the resources to sue their parents therefore people think this is normal (and kids grow up thinking it is normal).
I doubt the average person gives it much thought at all.
This certainly isn't a result of democratic overreach by a concerned group of citizens. No demographic is demanding this.
It's one of those "create the infrastructure for stasi 2.0" the epstein elite tries to periodically ram down our throats ironically using "think of the children" to manufacture consent.
Its been getting pretty bad for a long while now. On the topic of UK privacy, there's an interesting requirement that if you are a "data controller" processing "personal" data for "non-exempt" purposes, you need to register with the ICO to go on the register. Even can apply to individuals.
Sounds great until you realize anyone that does that effectively gets their residential address publicly doxxed and archived by archive.org (unless they can use a separate company address or spend money on a po box). And to make it worse, unless you have an obvious named company it's basically useless for looking up data controllers.
The UK should just be banned from modern technology until their government has evolved socially enough to respect privacy. Companies need to pull out and stay out, because that's the only way the UK government will learn a lesson.
I'm sure when this law goes through they won't stop and will shortly be lining up some even crazier surviellance tech.
I'm thinking something that automatically scans your computer for porn or other things, like ripped film mp4s and sends it to the goverment to be analysed.
Or perhaps little gps trackers that children are mandated to wear at all times.
They do. The tenders don't write themselves. The scale of corruption is unprecedented, yet nothing - as it seems - is being reported or even questioned by civil service.
The counter must be as visceral is the claim. They make an emotional pitch:your children are in danger, surveillance is the solution. The counter must show the dangers in visceral, emotionally relevant way. This surveillance is actually a risk to parents and children as well - that by the accusation of an opaque, unaccountable system, you will be labelled a pedophile, and your kids taken away. That when sharing a picture of your own child with your own mother, you will have to worry about what the electronic bureaucracy will label your picture as.
Abstractions like privacy,and categorical claims, aren't going to reverse this. A properly pitched campaign could do. Sure, complain that politicians and the public are dumb. That may make you feel better but it won't change this an iota. Talking to people in the terms they care about might.
>>> That when sharing a picture of your own child with your own mother, you will have to worry about what the electronic bureaucracy will label your picture as.
I 100% agree on the need to counter emotional fire with emotional fire. And this is the right way to combat this sort of overreach
However, I do think that “the choir” need to rethink what is and is not privacy - a huge amount of the benefits of having our every waking moment monitored by the virtual world (which is going to happen) can be lost if we don’t allow epidemiology to follow our digital selves.
Detecting one’s word use is slipping might signal a trip to the doctors or a thousand other digital tells that will help us improve our lives. If we have to fight against ads and digital searches for terrorism, at least let’s get the benefits too.
That's all very well, but we just plain don't have a legal, economic, or technical system which will allow separation of the good uses from the bad uses. Once data is in someone else's possession, there's f-all way to prevent it being used to do whatever the possessor wants. Even if there is a legal agreement, it's easily abrogated, or overridden by insolvency law, or by a company having a "we can update our terms" clause. Some of this I can imagine how to address - insolvency law could be changed, for example - but in the absence of a fully robust system, promises of "we will only use your data for good" are not credible. Those who actually want to use data for good should be on the side of robust assurance of that, not just plead that they can be trusted and that no accountability is needed.
It’s hard to enforce a law so we should not have the law seems a poor argument.
Let’s say we define personal data about, generated by or inferred from the actions of a natural person as owned by the society as a whole. And misuse is liable to 5% of annual turnover. It’s more or less GDPR. That seems viable - and I am sure an army of class action lawyers will be happy to help out
(Ok I need to work on a better proposal but I think this is more doable than you are allowing for)
I don't think we necessarily disagree. I am pessimistic about laws being effective in this case, but that doesn't mean we should not try to find ones that are. I like your idea. Thinking and trials in that direction would be good.
Data using organisations often seem to prefer fig-leaf laws that aren't effective, and lobby against ones that might be effective. "My data use is a good use, therefore I should not be subject to restrictions and oversight". Instead, anyone with a use of data which is valuable to the public should not see themselves as on the same side as the advertisers and surveillance vendors. They should see themselves as on the opposite side.
Characterising people who analyse reprehensible material in order to try to save children from abuse as “pedos working for government to watch all the reported images” is, quite frankly, disgusting.
How long until we find out the politicians have written in an exemption for themselves and the security apparatus? I hope my pessimism is unwarranted in this case, but it certainly isn't unfounded.
What the UK is trying to do here is evil and authoritarian. Its the sort of thing people brushed off as conspiracy theories not long ago. It is completely and utterly unacceptable.
I recently talked to a brit who expressed their fear of... knives. It blew my mind. The UK has one of the lowest murder rates in the world, 5 times less than the US, but they're so incredibly afraid.
They are just plain embracing a culture of paranoia, cowardice and extreme surveillance. I wouldn't care because I don't live there except the dystopian tech and business models they're developing ends up crossing the seas.
To be fair, pointy knives are unnecessary. At least I haven't found a use for them, though I stab myself with them occasionally when unloading the dishwasher.
Some people will tell you that they need a pointy knife for cutting tomatoes but they should try using a serrated knife instead: it's much better.
Getting the eyes out of potatoes, working with tough meat like beef or goat, ... knives are the most popular weapon, but that just because we're not allowed guns. If you take the point from knives then we can attack with the sharp side to the throat fairly effectively. Mandate blunt knives and we'll have to beat people around the head with bricks. Ban bricks and we'll ... and so on.
Because in the UK people believe, media enhances this, they can get stabbed for little to no reason or over a small argument due to mostly due to social tensions but also poverty. In the US it seems you have a high chance of not getting stabbed/shot if you don't agitate. So I think the paranoia about knives does not correlate with the likely hood of getting stabbed but with the unpredictability of it.
I agree that this is the wrong direction to develop into.
From what I could tell a man was stabbed, didn't die, a minor event that happens every day in cities everywhere and always has - and then the locals decided to have a pogrom.
100%. The public tend to get very angry when police kill innocent people. So the govt want to squash any uprising which is exactly what they've been doing by taking down any video that allows people against the status quo to coalesce and coordinate. They want people to very energetic about voting for one of a few awful options which amount to /dev/null.
"One of the most prolific criminals in all of San Francisco tells
@adam22
that “crime in San Francisco is over with” because of Flock cameras + drones. He complains that he can’t even do drivebys anymore.
It’s simple: when the risk of getting caught is too high, crime plummets."
This is really disingenuous coming from Signal who pioneered secure compute architecture for a number of useful features [1][2]. On-device checks are no more "surveillance" than Signal's private contact discovery is, and the same slippery slope argument applies there.
It's also technically incoherent: the exact same kind of "surveillance" is already applied by every single phone, because that's how the Photos app (or whatever it's called on Android) searches for cat pictures based on the text "cat". I can't recall any Signal statements about cat recognition technology leading to "reporting people to government authorities".
The "cover-ups" link right in the beginning is a real mask-off moment though. This is not a measured statement informed by the reality of modern Britain. It's an American view informed by the twitter cesspool and divisive rhetoric of the far right. It's a real shame to see Signal falling so low.
> It's also technically incoherent: the exact same kind of "surveillance" is already applied by every single phone, because that's how the Photos app (or whatever it's called on Android) searches for cat pictures based on the text "cat". I can't recall any Signal statements about cat recognition technology leading to "reporting people to government authorities".
Are you suggesting that the automatic scanning of photos on a phone (which has led to wrongful arrests[1]) is not surveillance?
I also can't stand the privacy violation of CSS. But
> Child safety looks like well-funded education, robust social services, and meaningful guardrails on the very AI technologies and platforms the current government is eagerly courting.
is such a weak, unrealistic, slow and idealistic solution to the real suffering of children. I was hoping this thread might offer up some better alternatives.
There are three kinds of figures that come from the parties wishing you to be afraid so that you will give them full control of your life: lies, damn lies, and statistics. Don't be made a fool of by believing any of those. And don't be doubly fool by acting as if any of those are the reason for this kind of surveillance.
Detection, even if "on-device, fully private". Is meant to notify others, the person viewing the image already knows what they are viewing. I would argue that the notifying of others of what (kind of imagery/category) you are viewing, is the main violation of privacy, even if the actual imagery is withheld.
Actually withholding the image may make it harder to fight the accusation (in court) if wrongly categorized.
For now the category argued seems to be "nude children" but what safeguards are there that prevent another category "politically sensitive"?
Are any of us expecting that there are safeguards in today's global political environment? in tomorrow's?
Honestly, the only safeguards against abuse of surveillance are that the surveillance not happen in the first place.
Once it has happened, the only safeguards keeping the owners of the system from using it to coerce and control the masses exist in the form of pitchforks and ropes wielded by the masses, and the days when that was a real potential for repealing any such coercion and control are fully in the distant past.
These systems are made possible and installed beyond the reach of any constituent based consent - see the current condition of Ring cameras, Flock, and the many tools created by Palantir et. al and much like the boiled frog analogy the citizenry has sat in their movie theatre and restaurant seats telling each other soothing lies about how the goal was to make us even safer from ourselves and now we are steps away from the fully immersive per-person verified identity and 24-7 observation of what everything, everyone read, writes, says, and does. Exactly as the 'foil hats' have been telling them would happen if they didn't speak up sooner.
Tough cookies, we all get exactly what we deserve for letting it get this far out of hand. It's no use crying over spilt milk.
Surveillance is a tool. It's neither right nor wrong, good or evil. It can be used to create safety (as it is by police forces, when authorized by judges, in compliance with democratically voted laws), or can be misused to create terror (and, as we've seen before, it never needed cellphones for that).
We should guard against the misuses and create enough legal frameworks to protect individuals' privacy (and aggressively uphold those protections). Private companies already do that - if I query a database for PII without proper approvals, or I query it outside the approval's boundaries, it'll take a couple minutes for me to receive something between a harshly worded e-mail and a visit from a couple large people who appear surgically incapable of smiling.
> Surveillance is a tool. It's neither right nor wrong, good or evil.
What is it a tool for, it is a tool for observing while no person is present therefore breaking privacy.
Privacy, a state in which one is not observed or disturbed by other people.
Any tool is (as long as it exists) always used for right or wrong, good or evil. However what might be good or evil is very subjective. Both in the moment and looking back on the use of the tool. Therefore it might be best to consider not creating the tool at all, instead of the current we'll try it and see what happens rhetoric.
A nuclear weapon is a tool. You can use it to blast a city-killing asteroid, one you just noticed, into pieces that'd burn in the atmosphere (and miss the city). You can also use it to mass murder an entire population.
> it is a tool for observing while no person is present therefore breaking privacy.
The capacity exists, but it's not necessarily used all the time. We should create the legal frameworks to protect ourselves from the misuse of the technology.
This might make sense as some entirely abstract theoretical statement, but in real political theory it's not exactly sound to imagine a government spending a massive pile of cash to create a tool that they never use, and if it's usefulness is greater when misused it will be misused.
Then it hits reality and it takes about 5 minutes for governments to start abusing it and when caught will retroactively legalise their actions https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23769206
> The capacity exists, but it's not necessarily used all the time.
By choosing not to engage with a tool you are deciding that the tool serves you and your goals (perception of good) best by not being used. You can make it illegal to use the tool but as long as the tool exists it does not mean it won't be used.
Think of the millions devices part of a botnet or web accessible camera's that are being used illegally by malicious actors.
Isn't it worth considering if we actually need and/or want this tool to be build in the first place?
"Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, that they didn't stop to think if they should"
This tool is already built. This is why the focus should be on legal frameworks that help us prevent misuse and punish abuses in a way rigorous enough to prevent it.
Not all misuse will be prevented, but we need to build the tools (which aren’t more technology) to prevent the abuse.
You don't give a stranger the keys to your house but we run their code every day.
This is wrong regardless of there being surveillance present.
We all know where it went wrong and can't say we did not know.
Won't somebody think of the children appears to be the world's most effective method of bringing in restrictive and privacy destroying laws, yet they just don't work.
The idea is that people who have politics like yours can be “visited” by the police and asked to “voluntarily” come down to the station for an interview about “hateful rhetoric” on social media. Doesn’t matter how you vote if actual political opposition is outlawed, which is where the UK is heading rapidly aided by digital surveillance.
Well yes, the great cabal of people bringing in these immense rafts of surveillance are the very people who commit, or who certainly hang out with the people who commit the most heinous acts. See the Epstein files.
Notice the same people will also talk during the daytime about morals and equality, while then conducting genocide in the evening.
Not even Saudi Arabia does the kinda draconian bullshit the UK is doing nowadays. This is what happens when your government is occupied by foreign agent traitors.
We already have warrants, judicial oversight and public audits to prevent abuse of power. Not sure what's authoritarian about standard overt surveillance.
No, not in the UK. XKEYSCORE surveillance tools are used without a warrant signed by a judge (the police grant themselves "warrants" covering unlimited uses for a period pending renewal, which I would have assumed constituted a "general warrant", something prohibited in UK constitutional law... but I am not a UK lawyer).
MI5, MI6, and NCA are immune to Freedom of Information, and you cannot sue in open court; you can take it to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, who will not even let your lawyer see the relevant information to the case.
Everything you said is true and inteligence agencies should not be above the law. But the logical response to that is to fight for strict oversight, judicial reform, and to disallow the misuse of those tools, not to abolish surveillance entirely. A broken system should be fixed, not thrown away (unless there is an alternative better system which is not plagued with these issues).
This was so profound. Now that I think of it there is nobody to watch the watcher and we should just dismantle society and let the local warlords sort out the crime rate. /s
Beyond the fact that this isn't true, it's even less credible coming from a new, anonymous account. If privacy is really so dangerous and has no value, you should have no issue making comments like these under a publicly identifiable account.
I noticed you skipped over every other part of my comment to focus on an irrelevant one. Is that an admission that you don't actually stand by what you say?
Internet pseudonymity from other strangers on a public forum is very different from being anti-surveillance. I am not sure how you could equate the two.
I would have absolutely no problem if the state contacted HN to obtain my IP access logs and other identifying information if I were to post something illegal here. Expecting privacy from random internet users is not the same thing as demanding immunity from law enforcement.
Surveillance which violates the privacy or other rights of lawful citizens is worse than crime, I argue. The criminal fears the police, but the government obeys nobody.
Security cameras in public areas, I don't have a problem. Government mandated scanning software running on my PC, yeah, I have a problem. It amounts to a warrantless search.
It's no more "warrantless search" than object recognition in your photo app. Signal deliberately misrepresents the policy, which is about connecting (already existing, local) object recognition to (already existing, local) established adulthood of the user.
No, it's much worse than you suggest. Quoting the government:
> The government therefore wants Apple and Google to block nudity across the whole device by default, so they can only be deactivated via age assurance.
All smartphones and tablets will be required to detect and block adult content on the device. You can avoid it by showing photo ID, but it's bizarre that the default state should be to assume the user is not an adult until proven otherwise.
Article 1 of the ECHR guarantees that "every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions". "Until they show government ID" isn't in there!
Perhaps I'm jumping the gun to assume this will be used as a precedent to require on-device scanning for illegal content, and further extended from smartphones to desktop PCs. However, I'm not optimistic.
How is it worse than I suggested? There's no "surveillance", for all intents and purposes it's just a hole in functionality requiring age verification to be filled. Article 1 doesn't guarantee that as a kid I can use my possessions to acquire a bottle of vodka.
You don't need to show a government ID, I never did. Also, I trust Apple-mediated age verification with a single bit output to any vendor much more than a random B2B SaaS.
More generally, the backstop on abusing system is always political. It can't be just a passive immutable barrier with any variation seen as a slippery slope (see the US government just buying commercial intel on citizens). Our political system just saw two ~new national parties spring up in additional to already established three (plus national parties) and MPs revolting at a mild inconveniences to their constituents. We're alright.
People are less likely to commit crimes if they know the state has the tools to identify and prosecute them. Surveillance provides that capability, and reducing it makes solving and deterring crime much harder.
The cost is manageable as long as it's used for the right reasons and that the data is kept secure. The benefits of deterring violence outweigh those risks.
Billionaires may be a bigger threat but criminals are a threat nonetheless.
Have they never heard of "the boy who cried wolf"?
First of all, age verification is not mass surveillance, it is possible to verify your age without disclosing who you are to the site you're visiting, and without disclosing what site you visited to the government. There are even age verification services (and I do despise them fully, this should be a government provided service!) that use only facial features to determine your age (you can call it surveillance, but not "mass").
See, the thing is, no matter how good your intent is, no matter how noble your cause, if you use lies and half-truths to further your argument or resist change, it only serves to undermine it all. For example "They do not deserve surveillance," is so disingenuous, if a site is required to verify age, the only children whose age might be verified are those who might have been exposed to that harmful content otherwise anyways, they're not being selected for surveillance, no one is trying to spy on children (or could possibly benefit from doing so using this method, since it is so unreliable), but they're framing it as it is so.
This isn't like "DRM" or "the nsa is spying on everyone", and there is a big difference between Signal (how are they involved in all this? is this just opportunistic politicking?) being required to verify peer-to-peer messaging from a porn site or or a live-cam site for sex workers requiring both parties to be age verified (where children do get trafficked!!).
Don't get me wrong, I don't like the idea, i really hate it but the prevailing positions in areas of the internet like here is so irrational and unreasonable.
You can't flash your private parts at children, you can't take children to a strip club, they're required by law to check IDs (even night clubs are!!). if that same interaction happens on the internet, suddenly no age verification is needed?
Is it because this problem has been left unaddressed for so long that so many are just too used to "the old way of doing things" despite the ever increasing human suffering caused by lack of regulations and laws like this?
I hope legislators grow a pair and stand up to these tech-crusaders who will burn down the world so long as they feel their corner is safe and secure.
Shame on everyone who refuses to have a nuanced discussion on this and instead takes an all-or-nothing position against any sort of legislature that would reduce (not eliminate) the harm being done. To mean, such people are no different than catholics, teachers, administrators, and anyone else in a position to do something about harm against children but turned the other way because their little world would be too shaken otherwise. Hiding behind "mah privacy!!" doesn't absolve you of the responsibility to at least attempt to be nuanced about it, at least propose an actual solution instead of just "I don't what the solution is, but not this" or "parents are at fault, I don't care" or something lazy like that. I wish I didn't know that when it comes to their own interests, wannabe technocrats like these are ingenious in developing tech like homomorphic encryption, differential privacy and zero-knowledge-proofs; this isn't about anyone's privacy or mass surveillance, it's about preservation of the status quo, apathy and faulty slippery-slope fallacy thinking.
> it is possible to verify your age without disclosing who you are to the site you're visiting, and without disclosing what site you visited to the government.
I can't believe people are really okay with a system where you have to show your real face to access websites. Cameras on phones went from a novelty to a government mandate so you can be observed.
There are various other potential methods to verify one's age, all of which are forbidden by OFCOM. Account age, zero-knowledge proofs, key signing, some kind of OAuth thing, physical tokens that require proof of age to buy, etc. The only permitted ones require your to link your real-life identity. This is a huge boon to the intelligence services and law enforcement.
Even among the few permitted verification methods, there are obstacles. Each site usually provides only one verification method at one verification provider. You may have to trust a company you never heard of before. Sometimes the photo fails (maybe their system thinks you don't look old enough) and they ask for ID too, or the photo fails and you are locked out of verification. Some services only allow credit card verification (e.g. Steam), so if you have poor credit you aren't able to even view the store page despite being of age.
What I say is, we don't need any of this. For thirty or so years we had client-side optional Parental Controls, and it worked fine. Many adult sites voluntarily use a <meta name="rating"> tag to ensure sites are correctly identified. The ability of adults to access adult content was not impeded. Parental Controls work better than verification because 1) many sites will not deploy age verification, and 2) it's trivial to overcome photo-based ID by holding your device up to a picture of an adult on a television set.
> There are various other potential methods to verify one's age, all of which are forbidden by OFCOM. Account age, zero-knowledge proofs, key signing, some kind of OAuth thing, physical tokens that require proof of age to buy, etc. The only permitted ones require your to link your real-life identity.
This is just not true. See 4.17 here, for example [1]
> The only permitted ones require your to link your real-life identity. This is a huge boon to the intelligence services and law enforcement.
Then let's talk about THAT!! why is that not the discussion instead of "nah, we'll find a solution some other day, for now, let's not solve anything"??
> Even among the few permitted verification methods,
These laws are still being debated, what's permitted has not been decided, why is Signal not advocating for a privacy friendly alternative. Why are our options lose all privacy to the most horrible people ever who will do us harm versus let the children suffer!
> You may have to trust a company you never heard of before.
Why do I have to? Why can't the government itself issue something as simple as a timestamp CA certificate signature for a secret that expires every few weeks, requiring facial/ID verification directly with the government to generate a new secret? the site only needs to verify that the signature is correct. a signed token you show random sites. and this is the most naive idea i brought up for discussion without things like zkp even considered. Lawmakers aren't being told by the likes of Signal "there is a better way to do this, let's discuss" they're being told "ignore what all the scientists, research, law enforcement, social workers are telling you so we can watch porn in secret".
> For thirty or so years we had client-side optional Parental Controls, and it worked fine.
It absolutley did not work fine! the toll of human suffering is inexcusably abominable! I shudder in confusion between whose head i should rip off or why this damn planet hasn't been burned down to ashes already at the very thought of all that has been perpetrated using this technology. The internet multiplied and empowered many things, chief amongst them is human cruelty and apathy.
> For thirty or so years we had client-side optional Parental Controls, and it worked fine....
Save your breath, even amongst those who genuinely wish to do well, they have employees and user generated content they can't keep up with. There is no excuse for this. Forget about the tiny span in human history that is the past 30 years. How many people died of industrial accident at the begining of the industrial revolution, how many people died because of car accidents before all the car safety and traffic laws were in place. Take that and multiply that by like a billion and that might come close to painting a fair picture of the internet. Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. The internet isn't special, it's just a tool, a technology that connects people. Except billions are connected, and now they can abuse and harm each other across national borders , timezones and continents and maximize their profit from it.
HN and tech-world in general is like any other industry that caused massive suffering until it was regulated. I keep making the same simple comparison of a stripper IRL vs live cam porn over the internet, and no one in this thread even wants to attack that simple example that I picked because it isn't overly sensationalized and universally accepted that laws should force strip clubs to check IDs in any country on the planet. I didn't bring up pedos, human trafficking, revenge porn and so much more in between. and that's just the sexual dramatic stuff, not the seemingly harmless stuff that is easier to brush away and dismiss.
People can see your face and make decisions when they interact with you IRL, they can't over the internet. The problem is huge and the fact that the internet has been young and unregulated does not excuse looking the other way.
I can't believe I'm defending politicians' (however ill intended) agendas against HN/tech-world. but here we are. If things progress this route, I would even cheer as everyone (self included) loses any semblance of privacy or democracy because the alternative was these masses keeping looking the other way at human suffering instead of finding sensible middle grounds, especially when the tech is there. This is insane to me! things crypto-bros (both kind!) have been trying to make main stream like zkp and homomorphic encryption and so much more can actually solve a critical fault of the internet, and the choice is to just let people suffer instead of risking a potential slipper slope.
> Bare in mind we aren't banning the internet, just kids on social media.
It's neither. it isn't social media only, there will be various sites that are age restricted, similar to IRL businesses.
> A billion people have died from.... the internet? Youve GOT to explain this one lol how exactly?
I didn't claim 'died', you assumed. I meant sum total of suffering and pain facilitated by it. The internet is just a "road", except it connected everyone. sex, violence, extortion, slavery, you name it. a decent argument could be made that in the past one or two decades alone more slaves were trafficked and traded than in the entire history of the transatlantic trade, except smartphones, wifi and 5G were used to facilitate trade and allow real-time live HD monitoring of the "merchandize" and advertisement to buyers thereof. think of it in terms of graph theory perhaps, edges and nodes and all. just in the past 30 or so years the planet's population doubled and all those "nodes" have the capability to form edges with all other nodes on demand, interact with and in engage in unregulated commerce (cryptocurrency doesn't help either).
> think of it in terms of graph theory perhaps, edges and nodes and all.
So we should ban letters as well because of all the badness they facilitated? Lots of crime has used telephones, we should also ban telephones yes? Because graph theory's etc?
as you said, the internet isn't being banned, so why would you stretch what i said to mean "ban letters"? sending letters to minors might require age verification if it were a real problem, you already need to verify your age to open a cell service, children can't sign up for mobile plans. you're trying to make this about something it's not so you can win an argument, I don't care who wins the argument, let's solve the problem. Your whataboutism doesn't have solutions attached to it, only winning of internet points.
> The internet is just a "road", except it connected everyone. sex, violence, extortion, slavery, you name it.
The internet doesn't cause slavery. It's facilitates it in the sense that its a communications network. To say THE INTERNET caused slavery is like saying telephones cause drug dealing because dealers use phones to contact drug users.
> sending letters to minors might require age verification if it were a real problem
phone sex is already banned without credit card verification or if you sound like a minor for example. and you're being disingenuous as well, clearly this entire thread is not about "correspondence", i clearly said "interact", simply talking to kids IRL doesn't require ID verification either. But when you enter a bar, a night club, a sex store, buy alcohol at a convenience store, etc... or hang out at the play ground people can see your face and judge your age. You can't pretend to be another child at a playground as a grown person and fool everyone. If the actuality of people calling or mailing children to groom them like that was a reality, and tech existed to verify age over phone/mail, then absolutely, can you articulate a reason why that shouldn't be done other than you not wanting to be a tad bit inconvenienced?
Speaking of, do you know how common it was by all sorts of middle parties to listen in on POTS phone calls? or paper mail being intercepted by law enforcement? (not that I support either - just putting into context the history of surveillance and societal acceptance of it).
zero knowledge proofs exist, don't they? also it matters "private from whom, and what". You can make what sites you visit private from the government, and your identity a secret from the site, but the inverse isn't true, the government would know the identity, and the site would obviously know someone visited it.
The problem with this whole thing is the expectation of privacy online for interactions where their IRL equivalents don't have such an expectation. Even if there was no harm being done to anyone, it isn't a rational argument if you subscribe to the ideal of equal treatment under the law.
Zero knowledge proofs exist in theory, but none of these age verification laws that are introduced use them, probably on purpose. I'm certain that every government will want to know what sites everyone visits.
but why does it have to be that way. why not have zkp age verification processes anyways, inconvenience aside, what's the harm. If they refuse to let us use them, they need to explain why. I don't disagree with the malicious intent you're talking about but we can have it so that they have no legitimate excuse to require collection of site visit data. all the emotion and fervor aside, why can't we talk about having this as a standardized process that excludes third parties.
Governments are banking on being able to purchase that site visit data anyways, bypassing their own laws that prohibit them to do surveil, we can require them by means of technology to comply with laws and for the last time resolve the "but the children" argument.
it works if it is time-scoped and full age/id verification is done directly with the government. if you're malicious that way, you can likewise verify your id/face and just give a minor access after verifying anyways. you can get a zkp token that can prevent the site owner and the government from colluding and revealing your activity. zkp is one of many ways to solve this as well.
Of all the topics I’ve had to work with in my career, this one has caused me by far the most frustration. I like to think the hacker community is generally scientifically-minded and open to rational debate, but online discussion of this subject uniquely tends to cause people to hunker down, refuse to engage productively, and resort to name-calling. This might feel righteous, but ultimately leads to own-goals from us.
Firstly, to make one thing clear, it’s _absolutely_ possible to do age verification in a privacy-preserving manner. A technology called Privacy Pass exists that separates the roles in the age-verification question. This would make it possible to have a solution where the government can attest to your age without knowing what website you’re trying to visit (e.g. pornography, or an online casino, or just purchasing alcohol online). This is just a matter of fact. I’d recommend reading RFC 9576 for more details on the separation of roles here, it’s a really nice protocol.
There seems to be some misconception that privacy-preserving solutions for age verification aren’t permitted under various legislations. I don’t know where this comes from, but certainly Ofcom _mandates_ the minimisation of unnecessary data collection. This doesn’t mean that suboptimal technologies aren’t in use, but there’s certainly nothing precluding the use of fully privacy-preserving solutions.
We should be pushing for privacy-preserving age verification. It’s easy and convenient to say it’s the job of parents, and label anyone who doesn’t use parental controls as a bad parent, but at the end of the day, a government’s job is to look after its citizens regardless of whether they have good parents. If instead of engaging productively we stonewall the topic based on a vaguely-directed-but-intense distrust of Government, then governments will implement it anyway, and the solutions will be bad. We know this is the case, because it already happens.
I participated in a very productive workshop last year with representatives from government as well as various privacy-conscious companies, including Mozilla. I was pleasantly surprised at how productive we could be when we all worked together on this. We all walked away with a much better understanding of some of the problems, some of the nuances involved, and some possible paths forward.
Signal is on the right side here. I think it's time for us techies to fight back by developing the future. I'm trying to do my part - https://mediaden.ca
Also looking to get involved with the meshtastic project.
I used to agree with this, but now I don't actually think I do. Apple's app privacy report can be used to guarantee network access for any iOS app - https://support.apple.com/en-us/102188
That only shows the domain eg facebook.com, not facebook.com/tracking-script. There's no reason that they can't put all the bad stuff on the same essential, first-party domain needed for the app which makes DNS blocking and viewing not effective.
That's why you can't block youtube ads with DNS, only with a browser-level adblocker because the browser adblocker is able to block the specific paths.
You can view the full encrypted traffic with something like mitmproxy, but there's ways apps can detect or prevent it.
For me, right now, I think it's conceivably a security advantage if the source isn't public. I know security by obscurity isn't a strategy alone, but with an incredibly difficult surface area to attack, I think user's using the app are very well protected, except for against nation states.
Same people screaming 1984 have five authenticator apps installed on their fingerprinted tracking device and 2fa with their phone number, and have no idea what 'sensors off' does.
Palpable irony present when a chat provider whom requires personally identifiable information to use their service complains about privacy...
Follow-up/P.S.: There's a Doctorow piece [0] which I think is relevant here. It's about how individual refusal (e.g. to quit your job at an employer when they require an authenticator-app) is an inferior substitute for "real" politics on both a practical and emotional level.
> It's obvious why we might prefer to substitute voting or shopping for politics: they're activities you do alone. You don't have to find anyone else to do them with you. [...] Individual consumption choices don't change the world, but if you've been convinced that the only way to change the world is by voting with your wallet then when the world stays terrible, you can only conclude that your friends and neighbors have ruined by things by voting (shopping) wrong. [... and] every political disappointment in your life is down to your friends' personal defects.
What's wrong with two-factor authentication? TOTP work without any network connection and only requires synchronized clocks to work. You could even do TOTP with pend and paper if you wanted (and were fast enough), no computer needed at all.
Two-factor is one thing. They're mandating client-side scanning in every operating system. This was previously rejected for obvious privacy reasons.
There are already phones with an anti-nudity feature as a parental control option, but the key there is that it's optional. The major pivot with age verification is that all devices treat all users as a child until they identify themselves with a third party. This allows a rhetorical paradox that the controls are only for children, when they apply to adults too by default.
I sometimes wonder whether the people in the tech industry who worked on things like secure boot, attestation, and DRM saw this as the inevitability open source advocates always saw it as.
Did they think, as they worked to transfer final say from users to corporations, by technical means, that politicians couldn't transfer that control to themselves by political means?
Did they think they could lock things down to extract their 30% app store fee while enforcing rules through app review (and demonstrating censorship of sites like Tumblr) that politicians wouldn't want that same rule-setting, censoring power?
Did they think their employers were going to prevent that transfer, that the trillion-dollar companies would become some sort of Che Guevara style insurgents, running a guerrilla campaign to overthrow the very system that made them trillion-dollar companies?
My impression is that people who can work on stuff like that are the kind who just take the stuff in the world for granted. "This is how the world is, we need digital restrictions so now we need to implement them." "I don't have a say about whether DRM or remote attestation is standard business practice or not, it is just how it is."
This is akin to how two kinds of people respond to law. The first kind think "This is the law, we must follow it" and the other kind think "This law doesn't make sense, we must change it".
People who look at pedestrian traffic lights and cross when it's green vs. people who look at cars and cross when there are no cars coming. The first say you must follow traffic rules and the second kind say they wouldn't be alive if they looked at the green/red light of law instead of whether there are oncoming cars: a green doesn't mean it's safe to cross and a red doesn't mean you can't cross if only there are no cars.
Somebody had to work on it before it was how the world is. When Microsoft proposed a scheme involving remote attestation and DRM in 2003, the New York Times published a critical article. Google SafetyNet a decade later barely got a whimper out of major tech outlets, much less the mainstream press.
https://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/30/business/technology-a-saf...
>Somebody had to work on it before it was how the world is.
The mindset the parent described extends to what they're asked to do. They don't challenge it. It doesn't have to already be law for them to accept it and build it. It's enough that the ask comes from authority (a boss, a government) and pays.
> The first kind think "This is the law, we must follow it" and the other kind think "This law doesn't make sense, we must change it".
Indeed. I can't understand the people who blindly believe any law is good just because. Stop, think. Is the law good? What's good about it? What's bad about it? Can it be abused? Then maybe it should be changed?
I advocate that every law should have an annual review to catalog every case where it has been applied. How many were sensible positive outcomes? How many were unintended consequences? How many were clear abuses of the letter of the law? Every legislator should vote on the record based on that annual review to either renew or cancel the law.
> I can't understand the people who blindly believe any law is good just because. Stop, think. Is the law good? What's good about it? What's bad about it? Can it be abused? Then maybe it should be changed?
I think many people have an expectation that (all) laws are just and needed because... somehow they're the law.
In reality, laws can be unjust, unnecessary, biased, and completely arm-wrestled together by people strictly following an agency of their own. Other laws are put together by sheer ignorance and lack of thinking beyond mere good intentions. The first question shouldn't even be "is this law fair" but "was this law made fairly".
It creeps me that people treat laws as axioms whereas they're just polished and reinforced opinions. Sure, many laws we can agree on, and many others that don't agree on aren't worth changing, but you should always question the law and question where it came from before choosing to accept it.
I can see the same pattern with technology such as the various digital restrictions management (DRM) schemes.
There are so many laws on the books that reviewing all of them every year is completely impossible. Doing what you propose would require the government to be greatly shrunk and simplified (which, to be fair, I'm not necessarily against).
Personally I would put myself somewhere between your two "kinds of people". Many individual laws are bad and should be changed, but the rule of law itself is a good, stabilizing force that should generally be respected. If people only followed laws they 100% agree with then that would be chaos, therefore even bad laws deserve at least a modicum of respect.
> There are so many laws on the books that reviewing all of them every year is completely impossible.
Oh well, so maybe there are too many laws, let's simplify.
That is only partially tongue in cheek.
I'd say if there is no time to review and vote to keep or cancel a law, it is automatically cancelled. If it was important maybe someone will reintroduce the legislation later. Fewer laws are better, we should consolidate around laws with the most bipartisan support and scrap the rest.
But also in how I envision the system, if a law is repeatedely affirmed year after year, it should receive an increasing TTL. The formula should also have some modifier for which party controls legislature at the time. So if some law is reaffirmed multiple times under legislatures controlled by different parties, it's probably a fairly uncontroversial law, so we can increase the refresh rate to 3 or 5 years (avoid multiples of 4 since that is election cycle). Over time, the TTL can increase and perhaps there should be a way to eventually promote it to a permanent law, but that should have a very very high bar.
One can dream.. of course it won't happen, so back to your country controlled by a few oligarchs grifting for their personal profit.
Most people live such sheltered lives that they haven't seen injustice or engaged with the subject matter seriously if they have not seen it.
> I advocate that every law should have an annual review to catalog every case where it has been applied.
I like this idea but frankly I don't trust our lawmakers to do a fair assessment of this. Maybe there's an independent, non-partisan committee that does this.
> I like this idea but frankly I don't trust our lawmakers to do a fair assessment of this.
Absolutely true. But at least it would force every legislator to put their name yay or nay on every law every year. There are few things that politicians hate more than having to be on the record for supporting or rejecting something.
Then we all could review the full list of laws they voted for or against and vote accordingly.
> My impression is that people who can work on stuff like that are the kind who just take the stuff in the world for granted. "This is how the world is, we need digital restrictions so now we need to implement them." "I don't have a say about whether DRM or remote attestation is standard business practice or not, it is just how it is."
I like to call those people "ventablackpilled". Being blackpilled is all about gloom and doom, but being ventablackpilled is beyond being blackpilled. It is when you actively want the world to be a worse place because you believe that that is how the world works.
Ironically, the very OP statement is exactly that: trying to make the world a worse place because they believe that that is how the world works.
The solution to avoiding dictatorship is engaging in politics and preventing dictatorship directly through that. Trying to retreat into the (perceived) wilderness and build barriers to dictatorship doesn't really work. But since people drafting that statement don't believe that politics work and it is, in fact, possible to both have a vibrant political scene (we have what, five viable political parties vs the American two?) and not let kids send nudes, they try to drag everyone into the same mind frame.
I think it's vantablack unless you mean like a Starbucks Venti cup of black
much much worse are the ones taking the biege pills, who of course will drag anyone who notices into there world of where which one of 59 shades of biege constitutes the true way into non confrontational , we will escalate and swat you for any hint of agitation while we decide not to decide to not provide the very function they are in charge of,passivity and conformity to bieng childless and into flabby sad kinky stuff. legions of them.
You're giving too much thought into the issue or trying to construct something like a conspiracy out of it.
I sometimes work with people who worked on or at least worked with DRM-like stuff (Trustzone etc.). The people who make those systems and the structures that allow it falls squarely on banality of evil. It is not a big evil org or people with their own evil agendas (unlike Palantir, i think they are the true "ventablackpilled" ones). They are thousands of developers who push JIRA tickets like everyone. Many of them live in the developing world and they just pray to keep their jobs. The reason that big tech attracts developers despite their obvious and much bigger (IMO) evils is the same reason that attracts developers who make systems that can be completely closed down.
Many of the developers are not outright evil either. They sometimes voice their opinion. Their opinion doesn't matter in comparison to the business goals.
Sometimes it is understandable to write blocking software. Not all equipment is sold. Many industrial equipment is leased. So the actual owners want guarantees that their devices cannot be modified by renters.
The amount of info you can extract from an Apple phone or Graphene OS is limited due to same restrictions working in your favor too.
Similarly phones can be locked down due to radio restrictions. Nobody wants infinitely exploitable SDNs in peoples hands. It makes such SDNs a juicy target for enemies like Russia to exploit and turn into scalable attack vector as spoofing and jamming devices.
The reason those are attack vectors is also banal. We made our bed as engineers, voters, governments and business leaders one sloppy work at a time. We made shitty chips and shitty software with no care for security or safety. We sold millions of them and nobody wanted to pay to "do it right way". Worse is better. Silicon Valley style scaling up is the goal. Competition is for suckers. All those and every single one of us ate the fruits of shitty hardware and software that are protected by closed down systems. We engineers got the cushy jobs, our business leaders made 10x 100x gains from our work. We either had little voice (because making a big noise is guaranteeing that your cushy job no longer exists) or whatever we had is ignored in the hubris of shipping shit to billions of people.
<< We made our bed as engineers, voters, governments and business leaders one sloppy work at a time. We made shitty chips and shitty software with no care for security or safety. We sold millions of them and nobody wanted to pay to "do it right way".
I dunno. By that I mean, I am sure it happens, but I am not sure this is the reason for it. FWIW, I am not an engineer, but I have a window into that world.
In my little corner of the universe, we are going through belt tightening exercises already. So it is an interesting game of less meetings, shoving as much as you can onto others and the classic 'doing more with less'. In other words, even for internal customer's 'doing it the right way' is imply not a priority. On the other hand, getting more people, bigger budgets and somehow money saved is. 'Doing it the right way' is a distant ideal.
All that said, I don't think you are that wrong with the 'banality of evil' thought.
> This is akin to how two kinds of people respond to law. The first kind think "This is the law, we must follow it" and the other kind think "This law doesn't make sense, we must change it".
There exist more kinds:
- the "rebel": "this is a law/rule, so I have to trespass it". This often holds for people who are either annoyed by rules or red tape or for people who see no hope of changing the law. An example are the "blade runners" in London who organize to destroy lots of surveillance cameras at once, in particular those that are used to enforce low-emission laws. [1]
- the "evil": "this is law, so I will (ab)use it for my personal gain".
[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/ulez-cameras-van...
The rebel is just a subset of the second type, and an effective subset if you look at history.
The evil is just a subset of the first type, abuse and use are functionally the same action within a poorly or properly constructed law/policy.
> My impression is that people who can work on stuff like that are the kind who just take the stuff in the world for granted.
Some are also doing it for the technical challenge, especially those working on new tech rather than refining what already exists. Like the people who try to solve the great problems of mathematics/physics (or find interesting new ones) for the challenge of it (and sometimes refuse prizes & recognition if they do solve or otherwise discover something vital).
This sort of person is often blinkered to the possible extreme long-term outcomes, or are able to mentally separate themselves from them (“I just made the discovery, I didn't use it to do anything bad” or “I was paid for it, follow the money source and blame them”). Of course once a genie is out of the bottle, other sorts of people are more than eager to ask it for wishes…
> This is akin to how two kinds of people respond to law. The first kind think "This is the law, we must follow it" and the other kind think "This law doesn't make sense, we must change it".
What? I don't understand how this is a "two kinds of people" generalization, when the two categories aren't even mutually-exclusive?
One can think a law is bad and should change, while simultaneously recognizing the rule of law and following it.
It's pretty weird to try to pit those two perspectives against each other
Then you are the first kind. Since the law will not change, you will continue to follow it.
> "This is the law, we must follow it" and the other kind think "This law doesn't make sense, we must change it".
There's zero point in changing the law if you don't expect it to be obeyed and enforced. Those positions are not opposites.
If there is a stupid law, there are several things you can do:
You can follow it anyway and make no attempt to improve the situation, allowing the stupid consequences to follow indefinitely. (Notice that anyone who follows the law while doing nothing because they've been convinced reform efforts will be ineffective are in this group.)
You can follow it anyway while trying to change it, attempting to limit the time the stupid consequences exist.
Or you can refuse to follow it.
But the people in the last group should still be trying to reform the law, both so that they don't have to risk being prosecuted for doing the right thing, and in order to get the people in the first and second groups to stop doing the stupid thing the people in the third group are already refusing to do.
If you don’t expect it to be obeyed or enforced, then I would say that means it should be fast tracked to be changed. “Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.”
The point is that if you don't follow the law as is then what expectation can you have that anyone follows your changed law - and if no one does then what's the point.
You say "should be", I say "won't". One of those is a statement about material reality.
There are laws in existence that no one even "law addicts" would follow unless brain damaged. On top of that sheer amount of laws makes on "following those" simply impossible. there are also conflicting laws. Some laws are even refused to be enforced by the police.
It is a dynamic world where respect for law, trying to change law and plainly saying: "go fuck yourself, not gonna do it" should and do coexist.
Absolutely all laws followed strictly to the letter would kill a society.
The critical mass of people who don’t use critical thinking as their main means of decision-making.
That doesn't really answer the question.
Suppose there is some peon at Microsoft who is ordered to write code for Pluton and then does it because they don't want to be fired, expecting to hide behind the Nuremberg defense. The people in your second group will naturally disapprove of this.
But regardless of that, we can ask the same question of the person giving the orders. Someone in these companies initiated these programs, so are they merely fools who couldn't predict the obvious consequences that others did, or are they truly malicious?
> Suppose there is some pe[rs]on at Microsoft who is ordered to write code for Pluton and then does it because they don't want to be fired, expecting to hide behind the Nuremberg defense. The people in your second group will naturally disapprove of this.
I would rather say: people who are too "rebellious"/"non-obedient" don't get into a position where they are ordered to write code for Pluton.
>People who look at pedestrian traffic lights and cross when it's green vs. people who look at cars and cross when there are no cars coming. The first say you must follow traffic rules and the second kind say they wouldn't be alive if they looked at the green/red light of law instead of whether there are oncoming cars: a green doesn't mean it's safe to cross and a red doesn't mean you can't cross if only there are no cars.
Don't forget the selfish jerks who simply ask for whatever class of traffic that isn't them to be punitively regulated to their benefit.
(both literally and transferrable to other issues as a metaphor)
This is spot on. My wife will walk to the ends of the earth to find a crosswalk because she doesn't want to jaywalk. I use my eyes to see if there are any cars and will cross when I deem it safe.
That said, I'm not going to pretend I'm one of those people who say "this law doesn't make sense, we must change it." it's more like "this law is not convenient to me right now and I am willing to suffer the consequences of breaking it" but frankly I'm not going to start a grassroots effort to try to change it.
Replying to this comment so I can refer to it later.
The people in the industry that I know were/are trying to stop fraudsters, script kiddies, nasty people, and governments from trying to exploit weaknesses and take unauthorised control of devices and services.
The problem with that is it generally requires a central point of trust.
Sure you can allow multiple points of trust, but for the unskilled user, that means that the little lock symbol becomes unreliable (or whatever)
Without commenting on the UK governments stuff (It is probably full of shit, but then thats what lobbying does) We as technologists need to engage with wider society and understand on their terms, the worries they have.
For this particular "proposal" it strikes at the core worry of today's kids. They are sadder, more insular, more dependent on mobile comms and exposed to much nastier stuff than millennials were at the same age.
AT my school in the very late 90s, a group of 14 year old girls went to the beach and took a disposable camera. Standard photos apart from one, which was a group of them topless. One of them brought them back from the developers into school. Somehow the topless photo was stolen and passed around various classes.
It ruined her month, even though she got the photo back. I suspect it left scars longer than that.
Now imagine not being able to get that photo back. Thats the problem for todays kids. One moment of stupidity and a lifetime of consequences. (under a certain age, if they took photos or videos of other kids, that makes them liable to be on a list, for life.)
You could say "oh education" but did you listen at that age?
Whats worse now is that there are no gates on what photos can be developed by the normal person. If you took any photo that was explicit, it almost certainly wouldn't be printed (hence why there were very little dick pics from that era).
Is what the UK government proposing workable? well looking at the OSA, almost certainly not.
However unless we, as a tech community engage with society, with useable answers that are understandable to the normal person, then we are going to be crushed by the weight of "something must be done". Absolutism is not our friend here. We need to engage and choose compromises, or lose wider freedom for ever.
> The problem with that is it generally requires a central point of trust.
The problem with it is that the people who want to use a central point of trust as a chokepoint for censorship, surveillance and monopolization keep claiming that this is required when it isn't.
> Sure you can allow multiple points of trust, but for the unskilled user, that means that the little lock symbol becomes unreliable (or whatever)
The premise being that if you have a monopoly then ordinary people can trust it. Only that isn't the case. A monopolist not only can be just as malicious or incompetent as any of the multiple players in a competitive landscape, they're more likely to be because the lack of competitive pressure allows them to be more abusive and complacent and more capable of capturing the government.
> under a certain age, if they took photos or videos of other kids, that makes them liable to be on a list, for life
That seems like a problem caused by the law. Why is it possible for any actions taken as a minor to cause someone to be put on a permanent list when we recognize that minors aren't mature enough to be held responsible for that?
> Now imagine not being able to get that photo back.
Now imagine what would be necessary to get it back. It's on some other person's private device. Either you invade everyone's privacy and private communications to check if they might have it or be privately sharing it, or they could be. The cure is worse than the disease.
> That seems like a problem caused by the law. Why is it possible for any actions taken as a minor to cause someone to be put on a permanent list when we recognize that minors aren't mature enough to be held responsible for that?
Its a second order effect. The problem is predators get children to take pictures and distribute them. To stop them escaping justice it requires a certain level of absolutism. In Common law, there are exceptions. However people exploit the system.
> Now imagine what would be necessary to get it back. It's on some other person's private device. Either you invade everyone's privacy and private communications to check if they might have it or be privately sharing it, or they could be. The cure is worse than the disease.
I mean there are loads of ways to look at this. But if we want to have strong controls over your data, then sharing should be controlled by the owner, not the platform. Currently there are no trusted environments that allow people to share securely and privately data without it being copied.
My understanding of what is being proposed is that cameras will have basic nudity detection on them, and they will refuse to take the pictures if the device is registered to a person under the age of 18.
That, more or less is not privacy invading, depending on how its done.
The central point that you are missing here is that something which was quite hard to happen in 1999 was destructive to a child life. Now its much easier to do, and there is an actual economy in sourcing, exploiting and trading these pictures/videos.
> Its a second order effect. The problem is predators get children to take pictures and distribute them.
It isn't. The solution is obvious. You punish the predators and not the children.
> My understanding of what is being proposed is that cameras will have basic nudity detection on them, and they will refuse to take the pictures if the device is registered to a person under the age of 18.
Which seems both problematic (now every device needs to be registered?) and ineffective (the predator has the children use a device registered to an adult or an older device without any such constraints).
> The central point that you are missing here is that something which was quite hard to happen in 1999 was destructive to a child life. Now its much easier to do, and there is an actual economy in sourcing, exploiting and trading these pictures/videos.
This seems to be your central premise but it's also not even true. If a predator got children to take such pictures with film camera in the 20th century and was then in possession of the negatives, there was no centralized system to detect this or prevent them from having a darkroom to make and distribute copies. The solution is to have the police arrest them, which continues to be the solution even now without needing to compromise the devices of every innocent member of the public.
> But if we want to have strong controls over your data, then sharing should be controlled by the owner, not the platform.
You're assuming the conclusion -- that there should be a platform in a position to control (i.e restrict) sharing. If communications are end to end encrypted, no one other the parties even knows what it is. That is what you are by implication prohibiting -- unintermediated private communications.
I am deeply worried about privacy. the problem that I have here is if we don't provide a sensible middle ground, we will get a terrible solution imposed (ie the age gate spyware, instead of the rollingo ut of the mobile block lists the UK already had)
> It isn't. The solution is obvious. You punish the predators and not the children.
the core problem is that in the UK more and more CSAM is being prodiced by kids themselves. Most grooming of digital images is done remotely, via exploitation. (ie I have pictures of you, please send more or I'll send them to x)
Now, because the person extorting them is not taking the pictures they had a defence of "they were sent to me, I didn't know what to do so deleted them blah blah blah"
These people hunt down the kids sending stuff to lovers and the like, that gets leaked, because kids are cruel, and try and extort them.
I would gently ask you to look in the changes into sentencing guidelines and the evidence used to compile that advice.
Yes, older devices can be used, and oncein the hands of extortionists then they are in deep shit. The point of this, and the point that Jess Phillipson was getting at, is if kids can't take these pictures as easily, they can't be leaked as easily which means there is much less (but not zero) chance of being exploited,
> You're assuming the conclusion -- that there should be a platform in a position to control
Sorry my bad phrasing.
the ideal solution here is end to end encrypted but also encrypted image but with the keys controlled by the owner of the image "private" computing is the answer, where every view of private images requires a key exchange. there are hardware locks to stop people getting at the frame buffer, only apps that you approve can have access, and flagged data that you send auto deletes and expires.
Ironically this is basically extreme copyright enforcement(everything you create, more or less is your own copyright)
But we can't get to that yet, because Ad tech/meta/google doesn't like that.
TLDR its less obvious but I also share your worry about privacy.
> the problem that I have here is if we don't provide a sensible middle ground, we will get a terrible solution imposed (ie the age gate spyware, instead of the rollingo ut of the mobile block lists the UK already had)
The problem here that if every year you're asked to make a new compromise between where you are and a fascist police state, you're only traveling in a single direction on the road to hell.
To actually stop them you need to turn around and go the other way. Dedicate your efforts to removing the existing authoritarian surveillance apparatus so that they have to spend their resources to stand still instead of you, so that failure is "it stays the same" and success is "authoritarianism declines" instead of the unacceptable premise that the only options are making it worse or making it worse even faster.
> Now, because the person extorting them is not taking the pictures they had a defence of "they were sent to me, I didn't know what to do so deleted them blah blah blah"
Any kind of sensible court is going to both take evidence of the extortion as an invalidation of that defense and also convict them of the extortion.
Moreover, "it's sometimes hard to punish the perpetrators" is a ridiculous rationale for punishing the victims in their place.
> But we can't get to that yet, because Ad tech/meta/google doesn't like that.
We can't get to that because that doesn't actually work, for multiple reasons in this context:
The first is the same reason every piece of Hollywood content is in the hands of pirates despite Disney et al demanding useless DRM. It simply doesn't work; a single vulnerability allows every piece of content to be extracted and once extracted by any one person it can then be distributed to an unlimited number of others forever. The entire premise is snake oil. The reason Hollywood wanted it to begin with, and Google and Apple adopted it to use against them, is the same -- it's hopeless at preventing copying but it enables the monopolization of devices because then unapproved competing devices are illegal.
The second reason is that the person in an image is not necessarily the person who owns the device, and the device has no way to know that. It does you no good for the "owner" of the image to control it when the device thinks the "owner" is the predator.
And the third is the pragmatic issue. People expect to be able to take a picture and share it with whoever they want. You take a picture of yourself and text it to your mom, both you and she expect her to be able to email it to friends and family etc. You take a picture of a defective mannequin to file for RMA and you expect the customer service rep to be able to upload it into their internal RMA system or forward it on to the manufacturer in another country. If the default doesn't allow this then people will justifiably object. But if it does then 99% of people will never change the defaults or even realize that they can, and then the proposal is worthless because the default everyone wants for the common case is exactly the thing you don't want in the problem case, since then the default allows the picture to fall into the hands of a thousand strangers and devices that aren't in the authoritarian ecosystem and you can't get the cat back in the bag.
> were/are trying to stop fraudsters, script kiddies, nasty people, and governments from trying to exploit weaknesses and take unauthorised control of devices and services.
While I don't doubt that's a motivation, the problem I have is it's really a question of likelihood. I feel that in terms of security focus it's very common for people to put on blinders and ignore the likelihood of an exploit in favor of "Ooooh look at this thing that COULD be exploited!"
It's fundamentally the problem I have with how CVEs are reported and handled in general.
In terms of secure boot stopping problems. Yes, it does stop someone from rooting a device which is great. However, someone that has access to root a device almost certainly also has the ability to just install a virus in the OS startup scripts. Or to modify a user executable. Or to modify the user's PATH environment variable to inject a malicious app in front of a commonly used one.
That's what I wish security focused people would weigh more heavily when they evaluate these sorts of threats. "What other damage could a malicious individual do if they had the same permissions to pull off this exploit."
> It's fundamentally the problem I have with how CVEs are reported and handled in general.
Yes, its more like a popularity contest.
But secure boot stopped(or stops) a whole bunch of driver/rootkit exploits, which was a big thing in the late 2000s. It means that a random driver that is inserted by some script kiddie raises a whole bunch of warnings, which it wouldnt have done before.
We have come a long way since windows 2000
In today's world the 14-year-old girl who took a topless beach photo of herself would likely be criminally charged as an adult for production, possession and distribution of child pornography. So there's something about how our legal attitudes have changed too.
>We as technologists need to engage with wider society and understand on their terms, the worries they have.
We were the vanguard blocking this to the public's benefit, now they've voted for it our only duty is to ourselves; to make sure the rules don't apply to us.
I mean I get that, but don't you also see thats dangerous?
I think its perfectly winnable argument. For example we already _had_ age gating in the UK, its just it was at the network level on mobile internet. It worked and was unobtrusive.
The antidote to the OSA was to just extend that to domestic internet.
That argument was lost, and lost hard. mainly because we didn't engage properly with a believable solution.
> to make sure the rules don't apply to us.
The point is, they don't really apply to the determined. the same argument could be made for painkiller blister packs. The level of friction that the packs provide reduce drug based impulse suicide by 40% (depending on which study you reference)
The argument against it is "I can't be arsed with pressing the little shits out, I just want it easy". The Populist approach is making it prescription only.
Unless we engage properly, on the right level, then we are going to be worse off.
It isn't TPMs nor attestation nor DRM making this possible. It isn't secure boot either. It's walled gardens with secure boot -yes, secure boot- that the consumer can't bypass. Secure booting isn't the problem in an enterprise setting -- of course we _want secure booting_ in the enterprise. It's consumer devices that can't be jail-broken that are the problem. Although even then, the silly age verification laws and the people pushing them don't even care if the OSes run on walled garden devices.
Corporate devices that can't be jailbroken are also a problem. It's a right-to-repair and e-waste issue.
But they are not walled gardens.
I would posit that any device that can't be jailbroken is a walled garden. Whether the wall is made of an app store or an operating system, it's not yours if you can't do what you want with it.
But corporate devices can boot any OS you might like.
Sure, they have MEs that maybe you can't disable, but you can firewall them.
Server kit is just not like consumer kit. Even laptops are [still, for now] a lot better than smartphones in this regard.
> Although even then, the silly age verification laws and the people pushing them don't even care if the OSes run on walled garden devices.
Believe me, the people writing the age verification laws care a great deal whether the age verification can be turned off by the device owner.
The whole exercise would be pointless if teenage device owners could turn the censorship off.
Would it? Parents who so choose could restrict their teenagers from owning a device and instead give them one owned by the parent and configured not to show adult content.
A sufficiently adversarial teenager could get a different one, but they could do that regardless since it generally costs even less to get some 18 year old high school senior or homeless adult etc. to lend you their ID than to buy another device.
How do you feel about California's age verification law?
And yet you can secure boot Linux
For now.
It's been more than 20 years since I was hearing "for now", so I guess any time now huh
Oh, the people who work on secure boot, attestation, DRM, and other such features know very well, but don't care. This is because the claimed benefits for them, such as less hackers, less malware, less bot traffic, outweigh any possible downsides for the society.
I think it's even worse than that. Our industry has a strong track record of only looking at potential upsides (and pretending they're certain) and not even seeing that there may be serious downsides.
It's a kind of blindness. The kind that is, in my opinion, is one of the major reasons why we ended up building a world that's more than a bit dystopian.
There is definitely a common type of computer security enthusiast for whom the need for security is absolute and costs don't even enter the equation.
Ironically, Signal folks have shown those leanings a lot when they forbade people from backing up their messages.
The difference is who controls it. If you want to set up secure boot with your own keys, good on you, go for it.
That's exactly the shortsighted view I'm talking about - you are ignoring the cost of building/adopting a system that you may not control in the future.
> Did they think, as they worked to transfer final say from users to corporations, by technical means, that politicians couldn't transfer that control to themselves by political means?
Corporations are already hostile enough that it doesn't really matter:
The report says that between 30 and 40 Rockstar employees working in multiple offices in the UK and Canada were fired on October 30, all of them part of a private trade union chat group on Discord. - https://www.pcgamer.com/gaming-industry/rockstar-accused-of-...
Leaked Amazon Whole Foods Docs: Workforce Diversity Helps Prevent Unions - https://www.informationliberation.com/?id=61403 (summarizing https://www.businessinsider.com/whole-foods-tracks-unionizat...)
Microsoft Are Fixated on “Hate Speech” With Lopsided XBOX Live Enforcement Strike System - https://www.techopse.com/microsoft-are-fixated-on-hate-speec...
They're ultimately employees. Their employers hire them to write the code that the employers want. If they don't write the code, employers just fire them and move on to hire some other people to write code. As much as how ethically questionable it is, it's still very rare that people would give up their jobs to defend their viewpoint.
The practical alternative is sabotage. Write the code poorly, with obvious bugs. Don't sign the full URL so the user can just delete the drm=true parameter.
A weak alternative since the remaining work to build an oppressive system is still reduced compared to before your contribution.
I am guessing they thought "My kids are depending on me to pay our mortgage and buy food"
Yet they stopped thinking as soon as their wallet got involved and never considered that their kids also need freedom and the ability to use technology that works for them and not against them. Selfishness and greed are the problem. The kids are just a convenient but shallow way to deflect from that.
I get the idea of refusing on principle, but the older I get the more I have started to become pessimistic towards that stance.
I have seen time and time again that individual, principled stands like this do nothing to change anything and only hurt the individual. Unless you are part of an organized movement against something, opting out doesn't help.
Opting out at the very least means that you aren't the problem. I'd agree though that it's long past time people organized against these issues because one person has very little influence over how corporations act.
Idk, sounds better than being dead, just in my opinion.
Nobody implemented DRM with a gun pointed at their heads, and anyone capable of implementing harmful technology has the skills to work on something else for lots of money implementing other things. It was always a choice.
That you could work someplace else doesn't mean someplace else is hiring someone with your skills, or that you could afford a pay cut if necessary.
This is true for fruit pickers or uber drivers or whatever but it is ridiculously out of place statement for software engineers.
I know a guy who's been looking for work for like a year, and he's got a math degree.
Or more likely these days, "I need to stay employed so I can legally stay in this country."
[flagged]
> Did they think, as they worked to transfer final say from users to corporations, by technical means, that politicians couldn't transfer that control to themselves by political means?
Makes me think of the most sobering line I ever saw in a museum (Berlin): The biggest atrocities were committed by people with a spreadsheet and a performance goal.
It should be present tense. Especially in Berlin.
> Did they think
Having argued these topics for decades, I think that a lot of people just truly can't foresee the inevitable consequences. I don't know why, the consequences seem obvious but because they are not spelled out, many people say it won't happen.
It's difficult to get someone to understand something when his salary relies on him not understanding it.
The problem is that even when you do spell out the consequences many of them will wave them away.
That was nicely put.
I think you can learn about it most by reading clever, capable people from big tech corporations. Their framing often involves tradeoffs against a slow but inevitable societal pressure that is helped by compromising on freedom.
So I don't believe they are ignorant of all your points; it's rather that they don't see a realistic way how tech, corporations, and perhaps even ordinary people can go forward (being better, or richer, or more sophisticated or whatever) without making that compromise. It's as if they saw the forking paths of the future, and none will end up without technical restraints, regardless of whether they do it or whether things just get worse and someone else then does them.
A lot of harm would be prevented if people didn't do bad shit under the assumption the next guy will do it if they don't. You're the next guy.
But they're right. The next guy will do it if you don't. And you'll be fired meaning you won't have any power any more, and the person who thinks DRM is good will be hired and become powerful in your stead. How does that help?
> You are the next guy
If you don't understand this, then you just don't understand.
Everyone can be the next guy. I can be him or the next next guy can. Do you know the prisoner's dilemma?
Yes, and I'm advocating for a specific quadrant.
You only get to choose a half. The previous guy chooses the quadrant.
I'll spell it out in case someone else truly doesn’t understand since you're just determined not to.
Pro-social actions are taken more often if you believe others will also take pro-social actions. The best way to do it is to believe you're the same as other people and that other people are good, and that you're not the patsy when you take a pro-social decision and others don't. Because you're the next guy for someone.
Twitter people expressly started their company with the idea of crowd-friendly semi-anonymous msgs on demand.
The game of GO delivers an idea where a very large construct can be built then in one move the entire thing flips to a different purpose... seems relevant somehow..
> Did they think, as they worked to transfer final say from users to corporations, by technical means, that politicians couldn't transfer that control to themselves by political means?
Why does that matter? If it's bad for politicians to usurp that power, it's already bad for corporates to have it in the first place.
I'd rather politicians use power in a way that includes democratic oversight than, say, Peter Thiel doing whatever the hell he likes.
I remember piping up about all those things. But the excuses were everywhere.
- Oh but you can turn it off so it's no issue (secure boot). Well yeah but more and more stuff just won't run then (eg iOS apps on Mac). It will become the norm to stay inside the fuzzy walled garden just like it already is on phones. And if you stray you will just be blocked from any app that does something useful.
- But companies need to be sure you are who you say you are (attestation). Yes but they will abuse that power if they can profit from it.
There's a selection effect. Some people thought these were bad and didn't implement them. Other people thought they weren't bad and implemented them. We use implementations from the latter group of people. Obviously.
Same thing is happening with age verification. We had the chance to just ask if the user is over 18 when setting the computer up, but we didn't do that so they're using a solution from a mass surveillance company instead.
> Did they think, as they worked to transfer final say from users to corporations, by technical means...
Your argument is flawed here. The truth is that measures such as secure boot do have real security benefits. They can be misused, like any technology can be, but that is not an inherent feature of the tech, but rather how it is implemented. And as the developers of such measures are not a monolith, it is unfair to paint them as merely trying to exert control. I'm not going to argue that some involved parties were trying to exert control. But lots of others were trying to implement a genuine security benefit for the users, and they don't deserve to be reprimanded as if they were some kind of apologists for authoritarianism.
> They can be misused, like any technology can be, but that is not an inherent feature of the tech, but rather how it is implemented. And as the developers of such measures are not a monolith, it is unfair to paint them as merely trying to exert control.
You can argue that exerting control is a good thing - a clever scam artist convinces a vulnerable user to paste an attack at the command line, and the benevolent OS vendor uses their control makes the attack impossible, no matter what the scam artist tells the user to do. A greedy software maker produces a spyware-laden, cookie-stealing update and asks the user to enter the admin password to install the update. The benevolent OS vendor uses their control to make such malicious updates impossible, even with the administrator password entered.
But even if the control is being used exclusively for good, it is, ultimately, control.
There is no difference between the tech and how it is implemented.
The phrase 'banality of evil' comes to mind.
Does that really still apply when the people in question make six or seven figures for it? At some point we should expect some kind of individual responsibility.
That's precisely what the phrase means. People are capable of evil acts just to earn more money or advance their career. There is no real malice involved, just wilful ignorance. Though that raises the question whether there even is a meaningful difference between the two.
I often also wonders if ideological zealots ever thinks of this passage while pushing their agenda for control:
I don’t think 1st century Rome had much in the way of digital surveillance.
Or even surveillance, for that matter.
Plenty of hubris, mind.
Rome had the "frumentarii", which was essentially a proto intelligence agency to do spywork for emperors.
The implementation might change, but the pattern of absolute control is old as time.
"Implementation details are left as exercise for the reader.
When in doubt refer to the public API as specified in Revelations 13:15-17"
Won't they have monitored their slaves quite closely?
Those who would think of such a passage (or any biblical passage) and those who push for a total-control agenda are disjoint sets.
Communism and fascism were both fueled by atheism (either explicit or functional), not a Judeo-Christian worldview.
"Ohne Gott und Sonnenschein bringen wir die Ernte ein." (Without God and without sun, we will get the harvest done.) - the slogan of East Germany in 1975 when people were hungry and it kept raining during harvest.
Christian fascism exists. In the US it's how fascism came to the country. Christofascism doesn't seem to have any problem with the absence of atheism.
that's not Christian though (in the sense that their beliefs are not scriptural and not subjected to scriptural review)... it's something else, and it's really ugly.
No true Scotsman
not exactly - I'm referring to scripture as the arbiter
The existence and polularity of Christian socialist movements in Europe contradicts this thesis strongly.
We also had Christian fascist governments, like my home country Spain. One of the official doctrines of Franco's government was deemed "National Catholicism" :/
They (developers) did what they did for money. Just like everyone else. And they would do it all again.
At a corporate level, no one cares about lots of freedoms, except if it is a selling point.
If 'keeping freedoms' is a selling point then the ideal position is to gain the kudos of appearing to support this whilst also getting the benefits of the loss of freedoms. Why not get both?
That's the Android way.
Its the Apple way too. Its the corporate way.
I always think of the lumberjack tasked with cutting down the last redwood giant. He hesitated a bit and was somewhat reluctant to start. Several of his coworkers understood that it was slightly emotional and said they would do it if he couldn't.
Did they think that the trillion-dollar companies would become some sort of Che Guevara style insurgents...
Arguably this plan is mostly working for Apple.
Why do people vote for large, strong governments that are able to take the power you suggest Tech is enabling them to take?
It's starting to feel like ethno-nationalism is the answer.
See: the PRC. Support for surveillance is allegedly high. Anecdotally, talking to PRC citizens in circumstances where they don't need to worry about said surveillance (e.g., when they're vacationing in Japan and I want to pester someone and practice my mandarin), they generally like it. Makes them feel safe.
The CPC has sold them on a vision of them as members of the state-race "Chinese" (which is not really an ethnicity any more than "American" is) and the surveillance as a thing that keeps them and their "Chinese" lifestyle safe from non-Chinese. Uighurs have to be extra surveilled until they're also Chinese, which, many are now according to the CPC.
So PRC citizens feel safe and cozy among in the country for "their people," not realizing this whole ethnonationalist concept is at best 100 years old, maybe even younger. During the Qing dynasty, there's a whole hell of a lot of people that think of themselves as "Chinese" that definitely weren't by the dynastic government.
I smell similar happening in Russia, the USA, and Israel, with State support. It looks like right wing groups are trying to pull it off in the UK and Germany as well.
>Anecdotally, talking to PRC citizens in circumstances where they don't need to worry about said surveillance (e.g., when they're vacationing in Japan and I want to pester someone and practice my mandarin)
I'm not sure you are aware that China has monitoring operations for its citizens outside China.
> I'm not sure you are aware that China has monitoring operations for its citizens outside China.
Sure, you and I know that, but most PRC people don't really believe in that or are aware. At least nobody I've met.
have successfully pulled* it off in the UK and Germany
Politicians always had that power, because it was always technically possible. To think we could have done anything to stop it once there was a will to do it is naive. If you doubt it, just look at Palantir. People like us built that - Thiel and his minions only paid their salaries.
And they got filthy rich. If I built Palantir instead, I'd be filthy rich. It's a pretty rational choice to build Palantir. Sadly.
The sequence of this is reversed. First Thiel got filthy rich, and THEN he used that money to hire people who didn't whistle-blow to build Palantir.
If EVERYONE that got hired to build the enshittification of humanity would just speak up about what they were asked to build there is no 'next guy' - ar at least we all know that the 'next guy' is wilfully complicit in the evil done at the company and you can disinvite him to family reunions and refuse him membership in the golf club for humanitarian violations.
I.E. What good is a mortgage payment when the next guy cant hire a plumber because the whole town knows he's a vile POS?
But the line of people doing the work, and keeping their mouths shut about it is nearly an unbroken chain from start to end. And here we are because no one wants to be the only one speaking out against evil, when we all should be.
You could work at Palantir and leak details, and I don't think thats what this discussion is about. If you wanted to destroy a company from the inside by whatever means, you'd have to get hired there.
Right, the discussion isn't about one employee trying to take down a known evil operations, rather I was positing a situation whereby these evils never got off the ground, where all of the employees tasked with building Palantir, or the like, en masse simply refused to do nefarious projects and refused the work. If they ALL or MOST then disclosed that "super rich dude wants to build a thing to erode/destroy the freedom of all but the super rich dude club" then the common knowledge would be that the full group of "next hires" is both aware of this going into the job interviews and when the nefarious project is deployed against us all, we know they are expressly complicit in the development of evils.
That's not my view of how things are, or how they would ever actually be, just one loose idea of how we might have avoided the current outcome, if all of the developers at "Nefarious, Inc." had not been trying as hard as possible to join the ranks of some subset of "rich dude club" as a gradient above poverty in any nation.
I get the need to make a living; and I have actually gone from working profitably in IT to subsistence goat farmer who's wardrobe was entirely found at the local waste transfer station's "community exchange table" for over ten years. So I do know the cost of 'declining to participate in building tools for evil' firsthand. It's not a game; and it has serious outcomes if you aren't located in, or relocate to, a place with significant natural resources for survival. Requirements include clean and plentiful rainfall, long growing seasons, volcanic or otherwise enriched||enrichable soil, healthy wild game populations and functional local systems for ensuring the durability of the same, intact social networks of mutual support among a community of people in similar conditions with the cultural traditions for shared resources, and the willing support of your spouse, partner, and dependent family members.
The learning curve from suburban North America is not so much steep, as it is a cliff. The lessons are immeasurable; and there is so much we would/will do different the next time going from "here" to "there."
Stay tuned.
[dead]
Boiling the frog is a thing. As is laying the groundwork. Governments are much less likely to pull off multi-decade plans than they are to make use of whatever technology is already out there.
These people have names and addresses. Getting them out in the open will help a lot.
I'm not saying we should lynch them, but a good deal of public shaming is in order. Who knows, their kids might pick a different vocation.
While I'm not fundamentally opposed to the idea I'm not convinced its going to be effective. A lot of the leaders that ultimately approved these developments are already public figures and that doesn't seem to affect their motivations.
> Did they think
Pretty sure they didn't do a lot of thinking.
I guess they think "someone is going to do it anyway, so it might as well be me so I can be the one who gets paid for it". But yeah, I'm sure there is also a good chunk of tech workers who are indeed useful idiots who think they are the last link in the chain.
Meanwhile Signal Corporation keeps trying to connect to updates2.signal.org even when the app is not being used. "Automatic updates", remote code execution by default with no option to disable
Silicon Valley has its own ideas of what "privacy" and "surveillance" mean
To those folks, it does not mean privacy from Silicon Valley companies
The Signal app will keep on trying to connect to the mothership
Because to the people who work on Silicon Valley software, that is not a privacy violation
The battle is over _control_ over software not privacy or surveillance. The later is not possible without the former
Silicon Valley does not want the user to have control any more than they want the government to have control
use simplex then. Signal is what it is and it's not trying to be something it's not. E.g. use of phone numbers.
People forget how we got here. Whatever your philosophical stance, history has shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that giving most people complete control over their device has been an unmitigiated disaster.
Scams, stealing credentials, stealing money, botnets, viruses, losses of data, ransomware, etc etc etc.
What is better for most people is a locked down device like an iPad where each app has to be approved and they're incredibly sandboxed. 20 years ago we had people installing malware because a strange email promised them smiley face emojis.
When we transitioned from the single-user ODS-based Windows model (ie Win98/SE were the last of that line) to a multi-user restricted privilege model based on NT 3.0/3.5/4.0 (first as WinXP) it was meant to be better but privilege escalation was still too easy because of what users had become accustomed to doing and of what was needed to install software you downloaded.
Things like an App Store (on Mac and eventually on Windows) are actually a good thing. Signed apps are a good thing. Having to go out of your way to install unsigned apps is a good thing.
I really abhor "technical libertarians" because they never address these issues. It's all principle-based while ignoring reality, human nature and whether or not unfettered access gives users something they even need.
Also, other people pay the price. Where do you think these DDoS attacks come from? Compromised Windows PCs (primarily).
> Whatever your philosophical stance, history has shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that giving most people complete control over their device has been an unmitigiated disaster.
I'd argue that giving governments and corporations control over our devices has also been an unmitigiated disaster. You could say the same thing about any kind of freedom though couldn't you? Freedom is so dangerous after all. Look at all the problems it's caused. Giving up all of our freedoms would surely make the world better right?
People often misuse freedom. The answer to that is not to take freedom away, but to educate people on how to use their freedom, and only restrict those who have proven to be unable to handle it. Let's say your argument, that clueless users getting infected are an externality upon everyone else and thus they need to be locked down for everyone's good, is accurate (though I don't think it is). In that case, why should the majority of intelligent people be made to suffer because a minority can't handle the freedom? No, in that case the correct thing to do is to have a mechanism by which we identify people who are hurting others, and restrict them. Nobody would countenance the idea that because some people are irresponsible drivers, cars must therefore be unavailable and everyone pushed into using public transit. But that is the exact same logic people try to use to crack down on freedom of use for computers, even though they are nowhere near as dangerous as a car.
> I really abhor "technical libertarians"...
Well, I abhor those who try to take freedom away from people. So the feeling is mutual I guess.
'Misusing freedom' is a funny concept.
What if the "clueless" users are 99.99% of the users?
Why as an Apple user in the UK am I considered too dumb to use a 3rd party app store but if I were 30 miles away in France I would be considered intelligent enough to cope? Because this was never about my safety. It was about their 30% as correctly supposed above.
Why in the UK Billy is considered a civil engineer but if he were 30 miles away in France it would be considered illegal for him to sign off on a bridge design? Different places arrived at different consensuses.
Either that or Apple don't want to lose their 30% until they are forced to, one jurisdiction at a time. I guess we all need to make our own inference as to which is more likely.
There were many reasons to deploy these solutions. Much of it from the perennial reason “we can’t have nice things”. Che was a murderous psychopath so I’m not sure what he was to do with freedom other than some college kids though he was edgy in the same way Manson’s followed though he was edgy.
What defines a bad tech vs a good tech? Similar arguments can be made for most research including nuclear fusion, AI, vaccines, space, polymers, combustion engines, electric motors, semiconductors...
> What defines a bad tech vs a good tech?
Good tech empowers individuals and subverts authorities, corporations, oligarchs and governments. Bad tech subverts individuals and empowers authorities, corporations, oligarchs and governments.
[flagged]
Online is terrible for kids. Online is terrible for adults! Too many people don't have the agency or social skills to manage themselves. Conspiracy theories, anarchists and libertarians, misinformation and disinformation, weirdos and beardos and creeps of all description. People end up believing all kinds of things that just aren't real.
It'll be best for society if things are a little more regulated, a little safer. And I'm happy to help where I can. Listening to the terminally online about it would be counterproductive.
So, in this order:
1. You need a camera on your computer to allow a third party to verify your age before viewing adult content
2. It applies to social media too
3. It applies to your operating system too
4. Unless you age verify, the law demands your computer must be powerful enough to run an AI, or be internet-equipped and send your private photos to a third party, to detect and prohibit nudity. It must be capable of running in real-time, presumably, to work on Facetime calls and such.
Next step, certainly to outlaw most operating systems and older devices. Excellent news for Google, Apple, and Microsoft, bad for Linux and alternative operating systems. Remember when schools handed out Raspberry Pis?
Edit: And they are asking for this to be implemented for free in three months, because nobody knows how software engineering works. Great job
So this is ill defined.
However the original proposal was pretty much aimed at phone manufactures. It is perfectly possible for current gen phones (and previous gen) to detect nudes in camera. Infact most phones do that already in order to adjust the exposure, its just you dont see that.
The problem for the UK is that they are not legislating technically. The original proposal was tightly scoped. The problem was, because of the way government runs in the UK it was shelved. Now that its not, the original scoping has been mashed, as its been blended with an child social media ban (quite what makes them think social media is ok for elder millennials++ is also interesting)
If they actually decided to make laws like they did for building materials or cars (ie all phones must conform to EU/BS standard x/y/z) then life would be much easier for everyone. But alas we have forgotten how to govern. something must be done now
>Next step, certainly to outlaw most operating systems and older devices.
They won't have to.
Instead, they'll just make some new essentially mandatory tech which older devices cannot run – update or stop existing, societally.
----
Phones and email already seem this way (i.e. "required") – from my perspective as an internet user whom doesn't use phone/email, personally. Nobody believes me when answering "no phone, no email" – free-est man alive - their loss is disbelief.
I am very curious how you make it in current society without a phone or email. It does sound incredibly freeing, but I'm definitely having trouble comprehending how it works.
This is a common response I get. My best suggestion (for understanding) would be: just try, for an entire day day, to be phone and/or email -free. Bonus points for a typical workday replacement.
----
For the past nine years I've lived literally next door to my primary places of employement. I do bluecollar tradework, part-time (by appointment, only); I have very few clients, cultivated over years of firing bad clients. I show up, at planned times, complete jobs, go home.
I have an attorney who handles any legal contacts (my "registered agent"). Accountant handles tax BS.
My bank is adjacent to my neighborhood (since I cannot do online banking without text/email/2FA), so I just walk over for account transactions.
When a service "absolutely requires" an email (e.g. online gaming) I'll use a temporary email burner – with a corresponding online purchase (for any future account recovery needs, called-in).
In my city, most street parking is pay-by-phone. I can usually find a "free" spot, but this often takes a few extra minutes – my US city isn't huge so most stores have parking.
I do own a one-way pager; but it's been off for years. My family is essentially one other person, and is within visitable driving range.
----
Mostly I just don't like being interrupted/bothered (as much as I love socializing). Am honestly thinking about getting a landline... just to be able to "reach out" by voice, with a small whitelist.
Email is the most free, decentralized communication channel we have. It’s fully async, so you consume it at the pace you want. What makes you against emails? Just curious
My primary thoughts on exiting email came after reading Paul Graham's excellent essay on email being nothing more than a to-do list that ANYBODY can add on to [†].
SPAM-rant: I personally feel that a system needs to exist/replace email... which uses some sort of low-tx-fee crypto to "cost money" for each and every email sent. The recipients could then "refund" such fees, optionally & consentually, when they've determined that sender worthy of free-contact.
Everybody else should have to pay to call/text [Ω]. Since no such system publicly exists: I opt-out.
[†] personal anxiety is my biggest reason for hating inbox-opening
[Ω] e.g: similar to postal mailings
"everybody wins"
This isn’t just your photos. This is all content displayed on the device, all content captured by the camera - everything. Full take. GCHQ must be wetting themselves.
We all know this is the first political position. They'll walk back half of it, and what remains will appear to be a compromise, but was what was intended all along.
We all also know they know they will be absolutely ravaged in the next GE, at the scale of the Tories.
The question - why hand that to Farage and his far right? Is Keir Starmer a far right operative in Labour? His track revord would suggest so, but do we have any receipts?
Incompetence. I don’t remember when there was last a competent PM or government - not in my lifetime, certainly, and I am no spring chicken.
I don't think so, I kind of wish but he was a skilled human rights lawyer, the head of CPS, an utter moron wouldn't be able to achieve this much, he's not a lettuce.
I'm afraid it's a malicious intent here, and I also wish I could see a competent government, but until one takes on FPTP and media dictating the policy, nothing changes.
The hope is in the angry youngsters, maybe they could vote Greens+LibDems in.
Alternative interpretation: the purpose of a system is what it does, and the PMs and governments are competent at something else than what you think they should be competent at.
We should all write on our devices private nastygrams to whomever is assigned to watching our devices. The least we can do is mock them.
The fear towards adult content is so insane. I know it’s mostly a pretext, but a meaningful portion of the population will accept pretty much whatever restrictions because they are so afraid of their kids seeing naked bodies
I saw boobs as a tennager and now I'm a terrorist
If anything I'd say not seeing enough boobs as a kid has a positive correlation to terrorism...
Does the law really require third party? Because having on-device functions configurable by parents doesn’t seem terrible at all.
That's not what the UK is demanding. They want client side scanning malware that breaks DRM, circumvents encryption and VPNs, and bypasses other security features in order to scan everything visible on your screen.
I'm happy the UK government finally decided to outlaw DRM.
Given the PM's association with a certain good friend of Epstein's, it's hard not to wonder if child protection is really the point.
It absolutely doesn't. However, the argument doesn't work when it's about connecting the "is the user a kid" bit to the existing and constantly running object recognition (phone cameras already run skin detection all the time to set white balance), so people invent "third parties" and "report people to authorities".
But "Is the user a kid" is already a switch that I (a parent) switch on in the device and that the kid in question can't switch off. That bit seems like a solved problem?
Why would anything else even be needed in that space? The interest of parents and tech companies likely align here.
With just enough fascistic pressure maybe Usenet can be great again. Just have to figure out how to filter known good content from the spam which I think can be solved with OpenPGP identities. Otherwise Tor and download managers for the patient people. Static generated galleries of pictures and videos spread across thousands of small sites. Some downsides of pushing people into dark corners is that all regulation goes out the window along with some tax revenue. Loss of tax revenue may be one way to get their attention.
Signal should come out swinging. Here's a pitch.
The Government is going to put a snitch on every phone, tape every bedroom, and listen in every evening on every home. Every doctor's visit. Every therapy session. Every pub. Every street. Every store.
When the snitches phone home, what you type to your lover may get the cops sent to your home.
Artificial stasi in every desktop, laptop, tablet, camera, and phone. Around every corner. In every living room. No one will be exempt from their gaze.
Are you ready for your vacuum cleaner to phone home?
Signal the messaging app/platform? A funny thing is that Signal barely works (with VPN ofc) here in China. Sending media/images is impossible. Sometimes it’s blacked out weeks on end. Everything else seems to work fine ish (again with VPN ofc).
Signal outright lies in their privacy policy. It opens with "Signal is designed to never collect or store any sensitive information." but they collect and permanently store sensitive information in the cloud (user's name, photo, number, and contacts) and in some cases they even store the contents of messages. They've steadfastly refused to update the policy even as they introduced those features deceiving users about their risks. Signal can't really be trusted at this point.
> in some cases they even store the contents of messages
I hadn't heard this before. Doesn't that kind of defeat the entire purpose of using the app?
It's an opt-in feature. https://techcrunch.com/2025/09/08/signal-introduces-free-and...
A service that advertises itself as privacy focused refusing to update their privacy policy while adding features like this seems like a pretty big dead canary.
Did we read the same article? You're complaining about an optional back-up service. No data is being "collected," you're giving it to them (in an encrypted form) to store on your behalf. How else would a backup service work?
If you don't want to use the cloud version, there's a feature to store backups locally on-device.
Signal blog: https://signal.org/blog/introducing-secure-backups/
HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45170515
It's hardly optional, they keep nagging you to turn it on until one day you accidentally do. Protected by only a 4-digit PIN by the way.
Even if you don't set up a pin it still collects your name, photo, phone number, and your contacts and stores that information in the cloud forever.
Never seen it pop up for me
> You're complaining about an optional back-up service. No data is being "collected,"
Every app offering cloud-based backup is in fact designed to "collect and store" sensitive data. That at least is opt in. The app also collects your name, photo, phone number and worst of all a list of your contacts and permanently keeps that in the cloud and there is zero way to opt out of that data collection. No matter what excuses you want to make for them there is no getting around the fact that the device does collect and store sensitive data. Just like it can't be denied that they've added several new features none of which is reflected in their privacy policy because they've frozen it in time.
This is an app which is advertised to whistleblowers, activists, and others whose lives/freedom could depend on how well they understand the risks involved yet Signal outright lies to them about those same risks.
I’m afraid too many people would hear that and say „I don’t care“
AKA The Witness in Nick Harkaway's novel Gnomon.
Shrug. If they don't, they will lose the customers who do care about privacy and they won't lose the ones that don't .. right away. However, it will near guarantee further fragmentation and circling a new solution that will be recommended to normies by their techy friends or current batch of cool kids. We have been here before. The only way to win the game is not to play. Especially with government, the moment you start playing, you lose.
Surveillance replaces ostensible individual fringe threats with a clear dangerous pervasive and (for practical purposes) irreversible threat that monotonically aggregates increasing centralized leverage over every aspect our lives, direct and indirect.
Knowledge is power. Forced revelation of our inner lives puts each of us in a position of vulnerability.
Even when "not abused", the very real latent threat actively takes away freedoms of thought and action.
It is extreme abuse.
It undermines any sense that the state works for the people, when it operationally embodies a maximalized one-way threat over all citizens.
AI collation exponentially compounds the threat, the passive and active damage.
One of the wisest ethical/safety concepts ever: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated."
Democracy that sets up the levers of total autocracy is the greatest possible perversion and threat to democracy. Democracy only works as long as it recognizes government is the greatest threat to freedom. And that strict limitations on its power over citizens is the only defense.
The ratchet ratcheting: client side scanning, then remote attestation to ensure client side scanning works, digital identity verification, etc etc.
I'm slowly coming around to the idea that closed source software was the original sin of the modern digital surveillance state.
Due to the fact that it can't easily be modified without the source, software is uniquely able to act against the interests of its owner in a way almost no other product can. Client side scanning wouldn't be viable if people could just install a mod that disables it, and remote attestation would be a much harder sell if the availability of such mods were expected.
Maybe software copyright should require releasing the source and build tools just like patents require releasing the design...
I didn’t mind Starmer but this is finally giving me the leg up onto the anti-Starmer bandwagon.
What a dreadful legacy to leave - a sad attempt to get the biggest possible bang for the smallest possible buck. Also, 3 months? Perhaps that is as long as he expects to be pm.
Probably Palantir folks are giving him an offer he can't refuse. One last push before retirement into the sunset.
Kudos to signal for coming out on side with this, and quickly. I only hope that this stance is quickly picked up as a counterpoint to the ever-so-strong narrative that more hastily concocted sledge-hammer legislation is the best step forward.
This step forward is instead of building understanding of, and solutions for, the erosion of communities, trust and empathy for others. I feel these things might (MIGHT!) be overlooked symptoms of poor investment, policies and governance for healthy society. Crikey, perhaps I shouldn't try and call that into account, it sounds like I might be cynical about politics. Oh dear...
From https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-plans-to-stop-childre...:
> Despite [iphone age verification] children can still take, view, share and save nude images. The government therefore wants Apple and Google to block nudity across the whole device by default, so they can only be deactivated via age assurance.
We tolerate the systematic child rape and run cover for the perps, but teens sending n00dz is a bridge too far. It's time for the UK to nut up and start holding these kids accountable. This works well, too, because it's deactivated on the devices used by adults, so they can continue to view their child porn, I guess.
Is there another reading of this?
Governments have been pushing surveillance since the earliest days of the consumer Internet.
The earliest example I can remember is the Clipper Chip. That was dead three years after it was proposed.
This current idiocy - proposed by a PM who promoted a very good friend of the most notorious paedophile in recent history to ambassador, against the recommendations of the civil service - is similarly doomed. Three months to implement huge changes to every OS on the planet? Like that's even remotely likely.
Signal refuses to answer: Why won't they release/open source all of their backend infra automation scripts/tools/etc...
There's no reasonable reason why a 501(c)(3) won't put this out there to make sure there's redundancy so we could built an alternate network if they're compromised by some gag order.
Probably because its leadership seems to have been taken over by more politically and less technically inclined people (for better and/or worse) who don't understand why it matters.
The trade is we get (hopefully) people very dedicated to keeping the org developing the stuff alive and well-funded, and gaining mainstream acceptance/attention.
Signal did such things always. They delayed years to clarify licensing to allow iOS forks. And hid server source code for a year to hide MobileCoin integration.
Is Signal compromised?
Yes, but it's still better than WhatsApp if those are your options.
Signal just can't be trusted at this point. They're probably compromised. My theory is that that's why the very first line of their privacy is a lie saying that it's designed to never collect or store sensitive data when they keep a list of your contacts forever in the cloud (and in some cases now even message contents).
People really should stop conflating the technical requirements for an optional back service, with they are always collecting our data and anything is a lie.
The back up service is optional, but Signal still collects your name, photo, phone number, and worst of all, your contacts. That is not optional. There is nothing you can do to stop it. That information will be collected and stored in the cloud. It's also exactly the kind of information Signal used to brag about not being able to provide to law enforcement because they never collected it in the first place. Well, now they do collect it, but they never updated the webpages that they wrote back when they didn't to reflect the new reality, just like they never updated their privacy policy.
> Surveillance Is Not Safety
Maybe not, but as long as the average person thinks it is, it may as well be.
Does the average person think this? Perception of what other people think doesn't always line up with what they actually think.
The average person doesn't think that far ahead. They just hear "a cause I like can be furthered by implementing 1984" and so they support it.
Check out any comment section on transportation policy, environmental policy, professional licensing for trades other than software. Look at how HN, people who should know how this sausage is made, schemes about how policy and technology can be used by government to enforce it's will and preferences upon other people in ways they cannot avoid or resist. It's not a case of divide and conquer, it's a case of completely lacking principals. Nobody believes in privacy, civil rights or that the application of government (violence) should be expensive and difficult and politically fraught when it's an application that they like. Nobody is thinking far enough ahead to wonder how those systems will be used when the whims and dispositions of government and society shift.
Just this morning I was reading a comment where some jerk was scheming about how the government should (the implication being that now that AI makes it easy to automate) scrape property listings and fine people for not pulling permits when there's a diff from the prior listings and that the whole thing can be automated and anyone innocent can just have the government tour their home to prove it.
There is something to be said about true believers, who will go out of their way to not 'live and let live'. I remember getting extra antsy when one such individual was flying drones over private properties looking for signs for what they believe is an issue.
Tech.. it truly is a tool and something of a true reveal of character. It immediately shows what you do with power.
I don't respect those people unless they're willing to suffer the same tactics used upon them to enforce other issues.
>Does the average person think this?
The average person hold all kinds of conflicting views.
The average middle class parent will surveil the shit out of their children, for example.
Hence the title of the article is not completely correct. The outcome of surveillance is the intent of the entity surveilling. In the case of the parent, this is likely the safety of their offspring. In the case of a state entity, it's likely the safety of the people in power of the state. This second type of safety is very dangerous and does not include your safety.
I think you are onto something with intent here. By now, we effectively know that various power centers are getting away with things that normal people do not. If true, the concern is not that we are getting away with things, but that we might be thinking that maybe current arrangement is no longer suitable. In other words, they are literally preparing for a worst case scenario. And to me, this seems silly now. As in, I buy the fear of a peasant uprising and being on the wrong side of the scythe, but I sincerely doubt peasants will actually do anything.
> The average middle class parent will surveil the shit out of their children, for example.
Most of those parents will argue that they have the right to do that and are actively recommending other parents to do the same. It happens so much that a local celebrity actually said the following recently (paraphrased)"As long as you live in my house I(the parent) have the right to go through your room, your stuff and your phone whenever I want".
In my country this is actually illegal as kids have a right to privacy just like the parents, though it happens so much since kids don't have the resources to sue their parents therefore people think this is normal (and kids grow up thinking it is normal).
The average person does not think anything much. They receive the meme, they transmit the meme. No processing occurs.
I doubt the average person gives it much thought at all.
This certainly isn't a result of democratic overreach by a concerned group of citizens. No demographic is demanding this.
It's one of those "create the infrastructure for stasi 2.0" the epstein elite tries to periodically ram down our throats ironically using "think of the children" to manufacture consent.
The last time they did this they contracted saatchi and saatchi to run an a disturbing campaign: https://londondaily.com/revealed-uk-gov-t-plans-publicity-bl...
https://xkcd.com/610/
It's a great meme, though. Use it more.
isn't more as long as the average billionair thinks it is.
It's not like it's the average person pushing it.
If only the average person had tools and access to all such information.
The average person doesn't have any knowledge on this system.
The UK gov is just getting worse and worse at law making
Its been getting pretty bad for a long while now. On the topic of UK privacy, there's an interesting requirement that if you are a "data controller" processing "personal" data for "non-exempt" purposes, you need to register with the ICO to go on the register. Even can apply to individuals.
Sounds great until you realize anyone that does that effectively gets their residential address publicly doxxed and archived by archive.org (unless they can use a separate company address or spend money on a po box). And to make it worse, unless you have an obvious named company it's basically useless for looking up data controllers.
The UK should just be banned from modern technology until their government has evolved socially enough to respect privacy. Companies need to pull out and stay out, because that's the only way the UK government will learn a lesson.
I'm sure when this law goes through they won't stop and will shortly be lining up some even crazier surviellance tech.
I'm thinking something that automatically scans your computer for porn or other things, like ripped film mp4s and sends it to the goverment to be analysed.
Or perhaps little gps trackers that children are mandated to wear at all times.
Nothing will ever be enough for the anti-privacy fanatics pushing for this. They will always demand more.
Unfortunately most companies don’t care about privacy of their users
and civil service is blindly following orders.
You should watch Yes Minister. They certainly don't.
They do. The tenders don't write themselves. The scale of corruption is unprecedented, yet nothing - as it seems - is being reported or even questioned by civil service.
I can tell you they don't.
They do question it when they don't agree with it. Which is to say they do agree with a lot of things being done. And that is as far as I can say.
There is no evidence of that.
Yes, but this is preaching to the choir.
The counter must be as visceral is the claim. They make an emotional pitch:your children are in danger, surveillance is the solution. The counter must show the dangers in visceral, emotionally relevant way. This surveillance is actually a risk to parents and children as well - that by the accusation of an opaque, unaccountable system, you will be labelled a pedophile, and your kids taken away. That when sharing a picture of your own child with your own mother, you will have to worry about what the electronic bureaucracy will label your picture as.
Abstractions like privacy,and categorical claims, aren't going to reverse this. A properly pitched campaign could do. Sure, complain that politicians and the public are dumb. That may make you feel better but it won't change this an iota. Talking to people in the terms they care about might.
>>> That when sharing a picture of your own child with your own mother, you will have to worry about what the electronic bureaucracy will label your picture as.
I 100% agree on the need to counter emotional fire with emotional fire. And this is the right way to combat this sort of overreach
However, I do think that “the choir” need to rethink what is and is not privacy - a huge amount of the benefits of having our every waking moment monitored by the virtual world (which is going to happen) can be lost if we don’t allow epidemiology to follow our digital selves.
Detecting one’s word use is slipping might signal a trip to the doctors or a thousand other digital tells that will help us improve our lives. If we have to fight against ads and digital searches for terrorism, at least let’s get the benefits too.
That's all very well, but we just plain don't have a legal, economic, or technical system which will allow separation of the good uses from the bad uses. Once data is in someone else's possession, there's f-all way to prevent it being used to do whatever the possessor wants. Even if there is a legal agreement, it's easily abrogated, or overridden by insolvency law, or by a company having a "we can update our terms" clause. Some of this I can imagine how to address - insolvency law could be changed, for example - but in the absence of a fully robust system, promises of "we will only use your data for good" are not credible. Those who actually want to use data for good should be on the side of robust assurance of that, not just plead that they can be trusted and that no accountability is needed.
It’s hard to enforce a law so we should not have the law seems a poor argument.
Let’s say we define personal data about, generated by or inferred from the actions of a natural person as owned by the society as a whole. And misuse is liable to 5% of annual turnover. It’s more or less GDPR. That seems viable - and I am sure an army of class action lawyers will be happy to help out
(Ok I need to work on a better proposal but I think this is more doable than you are allowing for)
I don't think we necessarily disagree. I am pessimistic about laws being effective in this case, but that doesn't mean we should not try to find ones that are. I like your idea. Thinking and trials in that direction would be good.
Data using organisations often seem to prefer fig-leaf laws that aren't effective, and lobby against ones that might be effective. "My data use is a good use, therefore I should not be subject to restrictions and oversight". Instead, anyone with a use of data which is valuable to the public should not see themselves as on the same side as the advertisers and surveillance vendors. They should see themselves as on the opposite side.
Don't forget all the pedos working for government to watch all the reported images.
Characterising people who analyse reprehensible material in order to try to save children from abuse as “pedos working for government to watch all the reported images” is, quite frankly, disgusting.
Reminds me of every single Chris Hansen victim who claims they heard a child was in danger and came to save her.
How long until we find out the politicians have written in an exemption for themselves and the security apparatus? I hope my pessimism is unwarranted in this case, but it certainly isn't unfounded.
Meh, at this point it is pretty much standard clause. They are all copying each other's homework.
Surveillance is not education, and it is education that will reap long term improvement.
Education is hard but effective whilst surveillance is easy and ineffective. Guess which option politicians take?
Guess which funding is getting impacted to enable this kind of law.
...and the race to the bottom finds another pathway to acceleration.
What the UK is trying to do here is evil and authoritarian. Its the sort of thing people brushed off as conspiracy theories not long ago. It is completely and utterly unacceptable.
I recently talked to a brit who expressed their fear of... knives. It blew my mind. The UK has one of the lowest murder rates in the world, 5 times less than the US, but they're so incredibly afraid.
They are just plain embracing a culture of paranoia, cowardice and extreme surveillance. I wouldn't care because I don't live there except the dystopian tech and business models they're developing ends up crossing the seas.
There is (seriously) agitation in the UK to ban pointy kitchen knives ... first hit on DDG for example https://theconversation.com/why-stopping-knife-crime-needs-t...
To be fair, pointy knives are unnecessary. At least I haven't found a use for them, though I stab myself with them occasionally when unloading the dishwasher.
Some people will tell you that they need a pointy knife for cutting tomatoes but they should try using a serrated knife instead: it's much better.
Getting the eyes out of potatoes, working with tough meat like beef or goat, ... knives are the most popular weapon, but that just because we're not allowed guns. If you take the point from knives then we can attack with the sharp side to the throat fairly effectively. Mandate blunt knives and we'll have to beat people around the head with bricks. Ban bricks and we'll ... and so on.
Because in the UK people believe, media enhances this, they can get stabbed for little to no reason or over a small argument due to mostly due to social tensions but also poverty. In the US it seems you have a high chance of not getting stabbed/shot if you don't agitate. So I think the paranoia about knives does not correlate with the likely hood of getting stabbed but with the unpredictability of it.
I agree that this is the wrong direction to develop into.
Did you see the news from Belfast today?
From what I could tell a man was stabbed, didn't die, a minor event that happens every day in cities everywhere and always has - and then the locals decided to have a pogrom.
Ingsoc is here and it's been warmly welcomed.
100%. The public tend to get very angry when police kill innocent people. So the govt want to squash any uprising which is exactly what they've been doing by taking down any video that allows people against the status quo to coalesce and coordinate. They want people to very energetic about voting for one of a few awful options which amount to /dev/null.
"One of the most prolific criminals in all of San Francisco tells @adam22 that “crime in San Francisco is over with” because of Flock cameras + drones. He complains that he can’t even do drivebys anymore.
It’s simple: when the risk of getting caught is too high, crime plummets."
https://x.com/rahul/status/2063984276610114001
They know. That's not why they are doing it.
This is really disingenuous coming from Signal who pioneered secure compute architecture for a number of useful features [1][2]. On-device checks are no more "surveillance" than Signal's private contact discovery is, and the same slippery slope argument applies there.
It's also technically incoherent: the exact same kind of "surveillance" is already applied by every single phone, because that's how the Photos app (or whatever it's called on Android) searches for cat pictures based on the text "cat". I can't recall any Signal statements about cat recognition technology leading to "reporting people to government authorities".
The "cover-ups" link right in the beginning is a real mask-off moment though. This is not a measured statement informed by the reality of modern Britain. It's an American view informed by the twitter cesspool and divisive rhetoric of the far right. It's a real shame to see Signal falling so low.
[1]: https://signal.org/blog/private-contact-discovery/
[2]: https://signal.org/blog/secure-value-recovery/
> It's also technically incoherent: the exact same kind of "surveillance" is already applied by every single phone, because that's how the Photos app (or whatever it's called on Android) searches for cat pictures based on the text "cat". I can't recall any Signal statements about cat recognition technology leading to "reporting people to government authorities".
Are you suggesting that the automatic scanning of photos on a phone (which has led to wrongful arrests[1]) is not surveillance?
[1]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/08/googles-scans-private-...
I also can't stand the privacy violation of CSS. But
> Child safety looks like well-funded education, robust social services, and meaningful guardrails on the very AI technologies and platforms the current government is eagerly courting.
is such a weak, unrealistic, slow and idealistic solution to the real suffering of children. I was hoping this thread might offer up some better alternatives.
This is a country that has arrested people for social media posts. It’s also a crime in the UK to offend someone.
Orwell identified the genetic defect in the British genome 80 years ago.
>>This is a country that has arrested people for social media posts
And if you saw these media posts, I'm sure you'd agree with those arrests in majority of the cases.
>>It’s also a crime in the UK to offend someone.
Is that what American "news" tell you? Because it's absolutely not true.
What were the posts?
Is it possible the child nudity detection could be done on-device, fully private? This wouldn't amount to surveillance.
The statistics on global child porngraphy rings are quite shocking. The UK is a big market consumer for these images/streams.
There are three kinds of figures that come from the parties wishing you to be afraid so that you will give them full control of your life: lies, damn lies, and statistics. Don't be made a fool of by believing any of those. And don't be doubly fool by acting as if any of those are the reason for this kind of surveillance.
Detection, even if "on-device, fully private". Is meant to notify others, the person viewing the image already knows what they are viewing. I would argue that the notifying of others of what (kind of imagery/category) you are viewing, is the main violation of privacy, even if the actual imagery is withheld.
Actually withholding the image may make it harder to fight the accusation (in court) if wrongly categorized.
For now the category argued seems to be "nude children" but what safeguards are there that prevent another category "politically sensitive"?
safeguards?
Are any of us expecting that there are safeguards in today's global political environment? in tomorrow's?
Honestly, the only safeguards against abuse of surveillance are that the surveillance not happen in the first place.
Once it has happened, the only safeguards keeping the owners of the system from using it to coerce and control the masses exist in the form of pitchforks and ropes wielded by the masses, and the days when that was a real potential for repealing any such coercion and control are fully in the distant past.
These systems are made possible and installed beyond the reach of any constituent based consent - see the current condition of Ring cameras, Flock, and the many tools created by Palantir et. al and much like the boiled frog analogy the citizenry has sat in their movie theatre and restaurant seats telling each other soothing lies about how the goal was to make us even safer from ourselves and now we are steps away from the fully immersive per-person verified identity and 24-7 observation of what everything, everyone read, writes, says, and does. Exactly as the 'foil hats' have been telling them would happen if they didn't speak up sooner.
Tough cookies, we all get exactly what we deserve for letting it get this far out of hand. It's no use crying over spilt milk.
When it false triggers 10% of the time and then sends a screenshot to a human for decision making, it's the same thing.
At least we all know who western politicians are controlled by now and why they are really doing this.
Surveillance is a tool. It's neither right nor wrong, good or evil. It can be used to create safety (as it is by police forces, when authorized by judges, in compliance with democratically voted laws), or can be misused to create terror (and, as we've seen before, it never needed cellphones for that).
We should guard against the misuses and create enough legal frameworks to protect individuals' privacy (and aggressively uphold those protections). Private companies already do that - if I query a database for PII without proper approvals, or I query it outside the approval's boundaries, it'll take a couple minutes for me to receive something between a harshly worded e-mail and a visit from a couple large people who appear surgically incapable of smiling.
> Surveillance is a tool. It's neither right nor wrong, good or evil.
What is it a tool for, it is a tool for observing while no person is present therefore breaking privacy.
Any tool is (as long as it exists) always used for right or wrong, good or evil. However what might be good or evil is very subjective. Both in the moment and looking back on the use of the tool. Therefore it might be best to consider not creating the tool at all, instead of the current we'll try it and see what happens rhetoric.> What is it a tool for,
A nuclear weapon is a tool. You can use it to blast a city-killing asteroid, one you just noticed, into pieces that'd burn in the atmosphere (and miss the city). You can also use it to mass murder an entire population.
> it is a tool for observing while no person is present therefore breaking privacy.
The capacity exists, but it's not necessarily used all the time. We should create the legal frameworks to protect ourselves from the misuse of the technology.
This might make sense as some entirely abstract theoretical statement, but in real political theory it's not exactly sound to imagine a government spending a massive pile of cash to create a tool that they never use, and if it's usefulness is greater when misused it will be misused.
Then it hits reality and it takes about 5 minutes for governments to start abusing it and when caught will retroactively legalise their actions https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23769206
> The capacity exists, but it's not necessarily used all the time.
By choosing not to engage with a tool you are deciding that the tool serves you and your goals (perception of good) best by not being used. You can make it illegal to use the tool but as long as the tool exists it does not mean it won't be used.
Think of the millions devices part of a botnet or web accessible camera's that are being used illegally by malicious actors.
Isn't it worth considering if we actually need and/or want this tool to be build in the first place?
This tool is already built. This is why the focus should be on legal frameworks that help us prevent misuse and punish abuses in a way rigorous enough to prevent it.
Not all misuse will be prevented, but we need to build the tools (which aren’t more technology) to prevent the abuse.
You don't give a stranger the keys to your house but we run their code every day. This is wrong regardless of there being surveillance present. We all know where it went wrong and can't say we did not know.
Won't somebody think of the children appears to be the world's most effective method of bringing in restrictive and privacy destroying laws, yet they just don't work.
We'll see. I can't be the only voter fed up with how Labour are handling this.
I find they way that Peter Kyle and Jess Philips have dismissed privacy concerns about online surveillance particularly condescending.
Come the next general election they are going to be paid back for this.
(Oh, and I appreciate Signal speaking up and have just donated to them again for doing so).
The idea is that people who have politics like yours can be “visited” by the police and asked to “voluntarily” come down to the station for an interview about “hateful rhetoric” on social media. Doesn’t matter how you vote if actual political opposition is outlawed, which is where the UK is heading rapidly aided by digital surveillance.
Anyone can be visited by anyone and asked anything. Isn't that part of freedom?
Well yes, the great cabal of people bringing in these immense rafts of surveillance are the very people who commit, or who certainly hang out with the people who commit the most heinous acts. See the Epstein files.
Notice the same people will also talk during the daytime about morals and equality, while then conducting genocide in the evening.
I am ready to receive Apple's or Microsoft's AI buttplug with government spying software installed.
The good news, it's inserted and installed. The bad, it doesn't bring pleasure.
- does anyone have actual studies or reports or arxiv papers or something that actually concludes that surveillance is not safety?
- how do you know that it doesnt cut down crimes or deter criminals or make identifying criminals easier?
- no seriously think of me as the stupidest person on the planet and explain to me why everyone is super duper paranoid about surveillance
- what other methods do you recommend for tracking , catching criminals, terrorists and anti social elements?
Not even Saudi Arabia does the kinda draconian bullshit the UK is doing nowadays. This is what happens when your government is occupied by foreign agent traitors.
Praise
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
Being pro-surveillance is the same thing as being pro-authoritarian unless you provide an alternate solution to prevent abuse of power.
We already have warrants, judicial oversight and public audits to prevent abuse of power. Not sure what's authoritarian about standard overt surveillance.
No, not in the UK. XKEYSCORE surveillance tools are used without a warrant signed by a judge (the police grant themselves "warrants" covering unlimited uses for a period pending renewal, which I would have assumed constituted a "general warrant", something prohibited in UK constitutional law... but I am not a UK lawyer).
MI5, MI6, and NCA are immune to Freedom of Information, and you cannot sue in open court; you can take it to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, who will not even let your lawyer see the relevant information to the case.
Everything you said is true and inteligence agencies should not be above the law. But the logical response to that is to fight for strict oversight, judicial reform, and to disallow the misuse of those tools, not to abolish surveillance entirely. A broken system should be fixed, not thrown away (unless there is an alternative better system which is not plagued with these issues).
I, for one, totally believe the government will prevent the government from abusing the government's power. /s
This was so profound. Now that I think of it there is nobody to watch the watcher and we should just dismantle society and let the local warlords sort out the crime rate. /s
Common sense is not profound. What you suggested is a bit too much, but some accountability and reciprocity would be a good start.
The "alternative solution to reduce crime" is called the 2nd Amendment.
Many criminals don't seem to care if they're being watched. They do still have an instinct of self-preservation, however.
Beyond the fact that this isn't true, it's even less credible coming from a new, anonymous account. If privacy is really so dangerous and has no value, you should have no issue making comments like these under a publicly identifiable account.
Every account is new at some point.
I noticed you skipped over every other part of my comment to focus on an irrelevant one. Is that an admission that you don't actually stand by what you say?
"This isn't true" - not an argument
"Privacy is dangerous" - i never said that.
Internet pseudonymity from other strangers on a public forum is very different from being anti-surveillance. I am not sure how you could equate the two.
I would have absolutely no problem if the state contacted HN to obtain my IP access logs and other identifying information if I were to post something illegal here. Expecting privacy from random internet users is not the same thing as demanding immunity from law enforcement.
Surveillance which violates the privacy or other rights of lawful citizens is worse than crime, I argue. The criminal fears the police, but the government obeys nobody.
Security cameras in public areas, I don't have a problem. Government mandated scanning software running on my PC, yeah, I have a problem. It amounts to a warrantless search.
It's no more "warrantless search" than object recognition in your photo app. Signal deliberately misrepresents the policy, which is about connecting (already existing, local) object recognition to (already existing, local) established adulthood of the user.
No, it's much worse than you suggest. Quoting the government:
> The government therefore wants Apple and Google to block nudity across the whole device by default, so they can only be deactivated via age assurance.
All smartphones and tablets will be required to detect and block adult content on the device. You can avoid it by showing photo ID, but it's bizarre that the default state should be to assume the user is not an adult until proven otherwise.
Article 1 of the ECHR guarantees that "every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions". "Until they show government ID" isn't in there!
Perhaps I'm jumping the gun to assume this will be used as a precedent to require on-device scanning for illegal content, and further extended from smartphones to desktop PCs. However, I'm not optimistic.
How is it worse than I suggested? There's no "surveillance", for all intents and purposes it's just a hole in functionality requiring age verification to be filled. Article 1 doesn't guarantee that as a kid I can use my possessions to acquire a bottle of vodka.
You don't need to show a government ID, I never did. Also, I trust Apple-mediated age verification with a single bit output to any vendor much more than a random B2B SaaS.
More generally, the backstop on abusing system is always political. It can't be just a passive immutable barrier with any variation seen as a slippery slope (see the US government just buying commercial intel on citizens). Our political system just saw two ~new national parties spring up in additional to already established three (plus national parties) and MPs revolting at a mild inconveniences to their constituents. We're alright.
Parental Controls don't bother me. What bothers me is that they should be enabled on my own device against my wishes!
This assumes surveillance prevents crime, or even that crime is worth preventing if surveillance is the cost.
In terms of everyday threats to my life, billionaires are a bigger one than criminals.
People are less likely to commit crimes if they know the state has the tools to identify and prosecute them. Surveillance provides that capability, and reducing it makes solving and deterring crime much harder.
The cost is manageable as long as it's used for the right reasons and that the data is kept secure. The benefits of deterring violence outweigh those risks.
Billionaires may be a bigger threat but criminals are a threat nonetheless.
> as long as it's used for the right reasons and that the data is kept secure
Two things that we have yet to be able to even reasonably ensure.
[dead]
Have they never heard of "the boy who cried wolf"?
First of all, age verification is not mass surveillance, it is possible to verify your age without disclosing who you are to the site you're visiting, and without disclosing what site you visited to the government. There are even age verification services (and I do despise them fully, this should be a government provided service!) that use only facial features to determine your age (you can call it surveillance, but not "mass").
See, the thing is, no matter how good your intent is, no matter how noble your cause, if you use lies and half-truths to further your argument or resist change, it only serves to undermine it all. For example "They do not deserve surveillance," is so disingenuous, if a site is required to verify age, the only children whose age might be verified are those who might have been exposed to that harmful content otherwise anyways, they're not being selected for surveillance, no one is trying to spy on children (or could possibly benefit from doing so using this method, since it is so unreliable), but they're framing it as it is so.
This isn't like "DRM" or "the nsa is spying on everyone", and there is a big difference between Signal (how are they involved in all this? is this just opportunistic politicking?) being required to verify peer-to-peer messaging from a porn site or or a live-cam site for sex workers requiring both parties to be age verified (where children do get trafficked!!).
Don't get me wrong, I don't like the idea, i really hate it but the prevailing positions in areas of the internet like here is so irrational and unreasonable.
You can't flash your private parts at children, you can't take children to a strip club, they're required by law to check IDs (even night clubs are!!). if that same interaction happens on the internet, suddenly no age verification is needed?
Is it because this problem has been left unaddressed for so long that so many are just too used to "the old way of doing things" despite the ever increasing human suffering caused by lack of regulations and laws like this?
I hope legislators grow a pair and stand up to these tech-crusaders who will burn down the world so long as they feel their corner is safe and secure.
Shame on everyone who refuses to have a nuanced discussion on this and instead takes an all-or-nothing position against any sort of legislature that would reduce (not eliminate) the harm being done. To mean, such people are no different than catholics, teachers, administrators, and anyone else in a position to do something about harm against children but turned the other way because their little world would be too shaken otherwise. Hiding behind "mah privacy!!" doesn't absolve you of the responsibility to at least attempt to be nuanced about it, at least propose an actual solution instead of just "I don't what the solution is, but not this" or "parents are at fault, I don't care" or something lazy like that. I wish I didn't know that when it comes to their own interests, wannabe technocrats like these are ingenious in developing tech like homomorphic encryption, differential privacy and zero-knowledge-proofs; this isn't about anyone's privacy or mass surveillance, it's about preservation of the status quo, apathy and faulty slippery-slope fallacy thinking.
> it is possible to verify your age without disclosing who you are to the site you're visiting, and without disclosing what site you visited to the government.
I can't believe people are really okay with a system where you have to show your real face to access websites. Cameras on phones went from a novelty to a government mandate so you can be observed.
There are various other potential methods to verify one's age, all of which are forbidden by OFCOM. Account age, zero-knowledge proofs, key signing, some kind of OAuth thing, physical tokens that require proof of age to buy, etc. The only permitted ones require your to link your real-life identity. This is a huge boon to the intelligence services and law enforcement.
Even among the few permitted verification methods, there are obstacles. Each site usually provides only one verification method at one verification provider. You may have to trust a company you never heard of before. Sometimes the photo fails (maybe their system thinks you don't look old enough) and they ask for ID too, or the photo fails and you are locked out of verification. Some services only allow credit card verification (e.g. Steam), so if you have poor credit you aren't able to even view the store page despite being of age.
What I say is, we don't need any of this. For thirty or so years we had client-side optional Parental Controls, and it worked fine. Many adult sites voluntarily use a <meta name="rating"> tag to ensure sites are correctly identified. The ability of adults to access adult content was not impeded. Parental Controls work better than verification because 1) many sites will not deploy age verification, and 2) it's trivial to overcome photo-based ID by holding your device up to a picture of an adult on a television set.
> There are various other potential methods to verify one's age, all of which are forbidden by OFCOM. Account age, zero-knowledge proofs, key signing, some kind of OAuth thing, physical tokens that require proof of age to buy, etc. The only permitted ones require your to link your real-life identity.
This is just not true. See 4.17 here, for example [1]
[1] https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/cons...
> The only permitted ones require your to link your real-life identity. This is a huge boon to the intelligence services and law enforcement.
Then let's talk about THAT!! why is that not the discussion instead of "nah, we'll find a solution some other day, for now, let's not solve anything"??
> Even among the few permitted verification methods,
These laws are still being debated, what's permitted has not been decided, why is Signal not advocating for a privacy friendly alternative. Why are our options lose all privacy to the most horrible people ever who will do us harm versus let the children suffer!
> You may have to trust a company you never heard of before.
Why do I have to? Why can't the government itself issue something as simple as a timestamp CA certificate signature for a secret that expires every few weeks, requiring facial/ID verification directly with the government to generate a new secret? the site only needs to verify that the signature is correct. a signed token you show random sites. and this is the most naive idea i brought up for discussion without things like zkp even considered. Lawmakers aren't being told by the likes of Signal "there is a better way to do this, let's discuss" they're being told "ignore what all the scientists, research, law enforcement, social workers are telling you so we can watch porn in secret".
> For thirty or so years we had client-side optional Parental Controls, and it worked fine.
It absolutley did not work fine! the toll of human suffering is inexcusably abominable! I shudder in confusion between whose head i should rip off or why this damn planet hasn't been burned down to ashes already at the very thought of all that has been perpetrated using this technology. The internet multiplied and empowered many things, chief amongst them is human cruelty and apathy.
> For thirty or so years we had client-side optional Parental Controls, and it worked fine....
Save your breath, even amongst those who genuinely wish to do well, they have employees and user generated content they can't keep up with. There is no excuse for this. Forget about the tiny span in human history that is the past 30 years. How many people died of industrial accident at the begining of the industrial revolution, how many people died because of car accidents before all the car safety and traffic laws were in place. Take that and multiply that by like a billion and that might come close to painting a fair picture of the internet. Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. The internet isn't special, it's just a tool, a technology that connects people. Except billions are connected, and now they can abuse and harm each other across national borders , timezones and continents and maximize their profit from it.
HN and tech-world in general is like any other industry that caused massive suffering until it was regulated. I keep making the same simple comparison of a stripper IRL vs live cam porn over the internet, and no one in this thread even wants to attack that simple example that I picked because it isn't overly sensationalized and universally accepted that laws should force strip clubs to check IDs in any country on the planet. I didn't bring up pedos, human trafficking, revenge porn and so much more in between. and that's just the sexual dramatic stuff, not the seemingly harmless stuff that is easier to brush away and dismiss.
People can see your face and make decisions when they interact with you IRL, they can't over the internet. The problem is huge and the fact that the internet has been young and unregulated does not excuse looking the other way.
I can't believe I'm defending politicians' (however ill intended) agendas against HN/tech-world. but here we are. If things progress this route, I would even cheer as everyone (self included) loses any semblance of privacy or democracy because the alternative was these masses keeping looking the other way at human suffering instead of finding sensible middle grounds, especially when the tech is there. This is insane to me! things crypto-bros (both kind!) have been trying to make main stream like zkp and homomorphic encryption and so much more can actually solve a critical fault of the internet, and the choice is to just let people suffer instead of risking a potential slipper slope.
> The internet multiplied and empowered many things, chief amongst them is human cruelty and apathy.
Bare in mind we aren't banning the internet, just kids on social media.
> Take that and multiply that by like a billion and that might come close to painting a fair picture of the internet
A billion people have died from.... the internet? Youve GOT to explain this one lol how exactly?
> Bare in mind we aren't banning the internet, just kids on social media.
It's neither. it isn't social media only, there will be various sites that are age restricted, similar to IRL businesses.
> A billion people have died from.... the internet? Youve GOT to explain this one lol how exactly?
I didn't claim 'died', you assumed. I meant sum total of suffering and pain facilitated by it. The internet is just a "road", except it connected everyone. sex, violence, extortion, slavery, you name it. a decent argument could be made that in the past one or two decades alone more slaves were trafficked and traded than in the entire history of the transatlantic trade, except smartphones, wifi and 5G were used to facilitate trade and allow real-time live HD monitoring of the "merchandize" and advertisement to buyers thereof. think of it in terms of graph theory perhaps, edges and nodes and all. just in the past 30 or so years the planet's population doubled and all those "nodes" have the capability to form edges with all other nodes on demand, interact with and in engage in unregulated commerce (cryptocurrency doesn't help either).
> think of it in terms of graph theory perhaps, edges and nodes and all.
So we should ban letters as well because of all the badness they facilitated? Lots of crime has used telephones, we should also ban telephones yes? Because graph theory's etc?
again, bad faith argument.
as you said, the internet isn't being banned, so why would you stretch what i said to mean "ban letters"? sending letters to minors might require age verification if it were a real problem, you already need to verify your age to open a cell service, children can't sign up for mobile plans. you're trying to make this about something it's not so you can win an argument, I don't care who wins the argument, let's solve the problem. Your whataboutism doesn't have solutions attached to it, only winning of internet points.
> The internet is just a "road", except it connected everyone. sex, violence, extortion, slavery, you name it.
The internet doesn't cause slavery. It's facilitates it in the sense that its a communications network. To say THE INTERNET caused slavery is like saying telephones cause drug dealing because dealers use phones to contact drug users.
> sending letters to minors might require age verification if it were a real problem
Lol
>People can see your face and make decisions when they interact with you IRL, they can't over the internet
Man you're just reaching at this point... Should we ban telephones, and written correspondence also? You're hysterical
phone sex is already banned without credit card verification or if you sound like a minor for example. and you're being disingenuous as well, clearly this entire thread is not about "correspondence", i clearly said "interact", simply talking to kids IRL doesn't require ID verification either. But when you enter a bar, a night club, a sex store, buy alcohol at a convenience store, etc... or hang out at the play ground people can see your face and judge your age. You can't pretend to be another child at a playground as a grown person and fool everyone. If the actuality of people calling or mailing children to groom them like that was a reality, and tech existed to verify age over phone/mail, then absolutely, can you articulate a reason why that shouldn't be done other than you not wanting to be a tad bit inconvenienced?
Speaking of, do you know how common it was by all sorts of middle parties to listen in on POTS phone calls? or paper mail being intercepted by law enforcement? (not that I support either - just putting into context the history of surveillance and societal acceptance of it).
> phone sex is already banned without credit card verification
And so is inciting a minor for sex, internet or not.
There's no such thing as private or anonymous age verification. It doesn't exist.
zero knowledge proofs exist, don't they? also it matters "private from whom, and what". You can make what sites you visit private from the government, and your identity a secret from the site, but the inverse isn't true, the government would know the identity, and the site would obviously know someone visited it.
The problem with this whole thing is the expectation of privacy online for interactions where their IRL equivalents don't have such an expectation. Even if there was no harm being done to anyone, it isn't a rational argument if you subscribe to the ideal of equal treatment under the law.
Zero knowledge proofs exist in theory, but none of these age verification laws that are introduced use them, probably on purpose. I'm certain that every government will want to know what sites everyone visits.
but why does it have to be that way. why not have zkp age verification processes anyways, inconvenience aside, what's the harm. If they refuse to let us use them, they need to explain why. I don't disagree with the malicious intent you're talking about but we can have it so that they have no legitimate excuse to require collection of site visit data. all the emotion and fervor aside, why can't we talk about having this as a standardized process that excludes third parties.
Governments are banking on being able to purchase that site visit data anyways, bypassing their own laws that prohibit them to do surveil, we can require them by means of technology to comply with laws and for the last time resolve the "but the children" argument.
ZKP age verification doesn't verify because you can just copy someone else's token.
it works if it is time-scoped and full age/id verification is done directly with the government. if you're malicious that way, you can likewise verify your id/face and just give a minor access after verifying anyways. you can get a zkp token that can prevent the site owner and the government from colluding and revealing your activity. zkp is one of many ways to solve this as well.
You can also... ask someone else to pass selfie-age-verification during an account registration, no?
When it's not zero-knowledge they can see who registered the account and that it's not the same person who seems to be using the account.
How would they know a minor is using an adult-verified Signal or, say, Youtube account?
Face scan to sign in. Or watching cocomelon all day.
> Face scan to sign in.
This is not in any current (proposed) laws I'm aware of.
Thank you for writing this.
Of all the topics I’ve had to work with in my career, this one has caused me by far the most frustration. I like to think the hacker community is generally scientifically-minded and open to rational debate, but online discussion of this subject uniquely tends to cause people to hunker down, refuse to engage productively, and resort to name-calling. This might feel righteous, but ultimately leads to own-goals from us.
Firstly, to make one thing clear, it’s _absolutely_ possible to do age verification in a privacy-preserving manner. A technology called Privacy Pass exists that separates the roles in the age-verification question. This would make it possible to have a solution where the government can attest to your age without knowing what website you’re trying to visit (e.g. pornography, or an online casino, or just purchasing alcohol online). This is just a matter of fact. I’d recommend reading RFC 9576 for more details on the separation of roles here, it’s a really nice protocol.
There seems to be some misconception that privacy-preserving solutions for age verification aren’t permitted under various legislations. I don’t know where this comes from, but certainly Ofcom _mandates_ the minimisation of unnecessary data collection. This doesn’t mean that suboptimal technologies aren’t in use, but there’s certainly nothing precluding the use of fully privacy-preserving solutions.
We should be pushing for privacy-preserving age verification. It’s easy and convenient to say it’s the job of parents, and label anyone who doesn’t use parental controls as a bad parent, but at the end of the day, a government’s job is to look after its citizens regardless of whether they have good parents. If instead of engaging productively we stonewall the topic based on a vaguely-directed-but-intense distrust of Government, then governments will implement it anyway, and the solutions will be bad. We know this is the case, because it already happens.
I participated in a very productive workshop last year with representatives from government as well as various privacy-conscious companies, including Mozilla. I was pleasantly surprised at how productive we could be when we all worked together on this. We all walked away with a much better understanding of some of the problems, some of the nuances involved, and some possible paths forward.
Signal is on the right side here. I think it's time for us techies to fight back by developing the future. I'm trying to do my part - https://mediaden.ca
Also looking to get involved with the meshtastic project.
Looks proprietary. Need fully open source to guarantee that right long term.
I used to agree with this, but now I don't actually think I do. Apple's app privacy report can be used to guarantee network access for any iOS app - https://support.apple.com/en-us/102188
That only shows the domain eg facebook.com, not facebook.com/tracking-script. There's no reason that they can't put all the bad stuff on the same essential, first-party domain needed for the app which makes DNS blocking and viewing not effective.
That's why you can't block youtube ads with DNS, only with a browser-level adblocker because the browser adblocker is able to block the specific paths.
You can view the full encrypted traffic with something like mitmproxy, but there's ways apps can detect or prevent it.
Good to know - I hadn't considered the proxy bit.
For me, right now, I think it's conceivably a security advantage if the source isn't public. I know security by obscurity isn't a strategy alone, but with an incredibly difficult surface area to attack, I think user's using the app are very well protected, except for against nation states.
Bad guys have no problem decompiling your software with Ghidra-MCP.
Same people screaming 1984 have five authenticator apps installed on their fingerprinted tracking device and 2fa with their phone number, and have no idea what 'sensors off' does.
Palpable irony present when a chat provider whom requires personally identifiable information to use their service complains about privacy...
> Same people screaming 1984 have five authenticator apps installed
"Yet you participate in society. Curious!"
https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha/
Follow-up/P.S.: There's a Doctorow piece [0] which I think is relevant here. It's about how individual refusal (e.g. to quit your job at an employer when they require an authenticator-app) is an inferior substitute for "real" politics on both a practical and emotional level.
> It's obvious why we might prefer to substitute voting or shopping for politics: they're activities you do alone. You don't have to find anyone else to do them with you. [...] Individual consumption choices don't change the world, but if you've been convinced that the only way to change the world is by voting with your wallet then when the world stays terrible, you can only conclude that your friends and neighbors have ruined by things by voting (shopping) wrong. [... and] every political disappointment in your life is down to your friends' personal defects.
[0] https://pluralistic.net/2026/05/21/purity-culture/
What's wrong with two-factor authentication? TOTP work without any network connection and only requires synchronized clocks to work. You could even do TOTP with pend and paper if you wanted (and were fast enough), no computer needed at all.
Two-factor is one thing. They're mandating client-side scanning in every operating system. This was previously rejected for obvious privacy reasons.
There are already phones with an anti-nudity feature as a parental control option, but the key there is that it's optional. The major pivot with age verification is that all devices treat all users as a child until they identify themselves with a third party. This allows a rhetorical paradox that the controls are only for children, when they apply to adults too by default.
Personally, I only have authenticator apps because my job requires them. I don't see any contradiction in being opposed to things you're forced into.