So for RSA without padding, a threat actor could request lots of tokens (without getting rate-limited?), and use that as information to more precisely focus efforts to brute-force the key, and thereby reducing the number of operations required to do so? Or am I misunderstanding it?
If you leave them to choose between WhatsApp and Signal, they’ll pick what they already have and what they’re familiar with. I deleted WhatsApp after they introduced MetaAI, and told people close to me, that they could only message me using Signal going forward. Just make sure you support people that have difficulty installing and using the app. When removing malware from my grandma’s smartphone, I also made sure to install Signal, and she now comfortably contacts me through it for minor things. It’s not like you’re inconveniencing them much: it’s just an app installation and basic setup, while the workflow is nearly identical; especially if you allow them to find you through your phone number (which I have disabled).
And how exactly do you plan on curbing addressing through cryptographic hashes, instead of IP addresses directly, where client and server are separated through intermediary nodes? If the site exists on an anonymizing network (like I2P or TOR), it becomes a lot harder to identify the IP address of centralized services, and impossible where decentralized. Well, unless you go fully authoritarian, and only allow weakened encryption standards: exploited by authorities, and others aware of ways to exploit the weaknesses.
But I suppose this further disincentivizes ordinary, less tech-savvy, would-be “pirates”, that need the clear-web for torrent links… Which we should make our responsibility, to enrich the knowledge of said persons, so that they can bypass regulations of governments, that fundamentally act against their best interests. It’s time for people to rediscover torrenting, like many households did in the 2000’s, instead of giving away their freedoms to subscriptions, purely for the sake of short-term convenience.
I’ve found documents, which alongside all the flowery language of protecting the children, states in section 2.3 that providers are obliged to perform age verification upon account creation, relying on “the age verification tool” (which I assume is the EU Digital Identity Wallet).
So if these hypocrites could just pause patting themselves on the back, and for once, explain that the default experience, for at least large online platforms, is one that is also considered “appropriate” for children of all ages; and therefore extremely limiting for adults. Well, unless you just integrate your government issued ID into a wallet, that (at least locally) creates links between it and your accounts (you might want to keep anonymous).
There’s also a lot of decent points that are being made, but which could easily be viewed separate from the identity-gating of the “open” internet. An age-bracket, based on a local, self-reported, password-protected ‘date of birth’ field, would be more than sufficient, but instead the EU chooses to fundamentally distrusts its citizens, while asking for unreasonable levels of trust in return. And similar to Google’s reCAPTCHA, I don’t even have, nor have desires to have, an iOS or Android smartphone that supports the application.
At least for WhatsApp and Signal, it appears the user is required to open the messenger app, navigate to the linking setting, authenticate themselves, and scan the QR code on the device that is to be linked (or one that corresponds to it, but hiding in a malicious e-mail). I can’t find any flow that allows for a QR code to link directly to the authentication mechanism, and provide the authentication code to it, while bypassing user authentication.
So again by linking accounts to a device operated by police or customs in this case. Which for SMS confirmations, I understand can be intercepted and confirmed by authorities, but the QR exploit seems farther fetched (because who in their right mind would open a messenger and scan a random QR?); and of course if you have access to a target’s unlocked device, it becomes trivial.
Once again… Because Chinese models keep forcing US AI companies to prematurely release their backstock of “future” iterations, meant to sustain the hype train: leading to plateauing, decreases in investor confidence, and ultimately the demise of the AI bubble. And are we referring to Sam Altman as “OpenAI boss” now? Because people might otherwise stop reading after: “Sam Altman says…”
I really can’t stand the “Not now”, where “services” (including Google’s backup service) prey on the user accidentally agreeing one day.
I’m not familiar with UK legislation in particular, but considering approaches taken by other legislative bodies, their works effectively require online services to serve “age-appropriate experiences” based on age signals; which includes websites, applications and application stores. So unless an adult is content with just experiences deemed “appropriate” for all users (even children under 10), the user is extremely limited in their access. So I don’t think “bricked” is necessarily an overstatement.
Maybe because now it’s Google Gemini under the hood?
It’s Apple buying goodwill, for both itself and the Trump administration, while only marginally benefiting the average US citizen, if at all.
I’m not saying it isn’t pathetic, but Apple has a track record of gobbling Trump’s marbles for business, so it should be expected they aren’t risking anything over the name of a lake in their mapping service.
What did you expect from a Trillion dollar corporation, that gifted Trump a 24k gold and glass statue, made a $100B commitment to US manufacturing, and being among the “donors” of the White House ballroom? But changing the name of a lake? Too far…
The parallels with the EU’s Digital Services Act are just remarkable, both in terms of timing and substance (down to the phrasing). But on the bright side, when Facebook prompted my mom to choose between a subscription, and her being the product, it first-handedly confronted her with the platform’s policies. And knowing that she believed a selfie video to be disproportionate, even in context of changing a banking app setting, she will be even more reluctant to submit it to a social media platform; especially since her joy in using the platform has also decreased over time. So perhaps this might be yet another friction point, that could lead users to stop using the platform altogether. But the sad reality is that this won’t be restricted to Facebook, but also extend to platforms that are a net-positive to society.
There’s too frequently a mismatch between the speed communicated by road design, versus that dictated by a sign. Mechanisms like this overwrite the driver’s intuition, which can only lead to more frustration. Sure, there are incompetent drivers on the road, but that doesn’t mean you have to micromanage the fleet in its entirety. There’s plenty that have a functional brain and are more than competent enough to assess a given situation, irrespective of what a fixed speed limit might indicate. And if drivers used to speed to catch green, that indicates to me the waiting cycles must not have been optimized; and doing so possibly yielding the same result.
Come on guys, have a little faith in the Union… If we would all just give up on privacy, and blindly trust an international intelligence apparatus with our most intimate data, perhaps then they’d finally have enough privileges; at least for another year. We shouldn’t take steps to protect ourselves, instead the Union will act in our best interest and do it for us!
Citizens must not be forced to identify themselves to access lawful online content or services unless strictly necessary, proportionate and provided by law.
Are you not aware of the Digital Services Act? This piece of legislation alone, provides all the incentives for service providers to do exactly that; unless they change their business-model, which is rather unlikely. By default, users should be treated as adults and therefore unrestricted in their access; rather than children unless proven otherwise.
If the EU would simply mandate operating systems sold within the jurisdiction, to allow specification of an optional ‘date of birth’ field, which is local and purely on a trust-basis (no external verification required); this should be more than sufficient for signaling an age-bracket to a service, which may then serve an “age-appropriate experience”.
A digital identity wallet should be strictly reserved for matters that already required personal identification. Using such heavy-handed measures for controlling access to adult content, or even social media, is complete and utter overkill. I’m not interested in more empty, technical, server-side “trust me, bro” promises, for something that is fundamentally disproportional.
“This matches my experience exactly.”
Did you really get raped, or did the roofie I put in your drink do its job?
Western governments should look in the mirror, instead of solely putting the blame at information-campaigns from foreign actors. The whole reason why these theories seem plausible to your own citizens, is because they have no faith in you; because you have a track record of acting against their best interests. An increasing number of people are sick of hearing one-sided, fearmongering, and escalating narratives, where anything that challenges that, be it truthful or not, may resonate with this group. And good luck discerning disinformation from misinformation, where the only difference is intent; which will be challenging to substantiate.