Global Privacy Control (GPC) is a browser or extension setting that signals a user's intent to opt out of the sale of their personal information, as defined by various privacy laws like CCPA and GDPR. Websites and businesses that respect GPC should interpret it as a "Do Not Sell" request and suppress the sale of user data. While not legally mandated everywhere, adopting GPC provides a standardized way for users to express their privacy preferences across the web, offering greater control over their data. Widespread adoption by browsers and websites could simplify privacy management for both users and businesses and contribute to a more privacy-respecting internet ecosystem.
EFF warns that age verification laws, ostensibly designed to restrict access to adult content, pose a serious threat to online privacy. While initially targeting pornography sites, these laws are expanding to encompass broader online activities, such as accessing skincare products, potentially requiring users to upload government IDs to third-party verification services. This creates a massive database of sensitive personal information vulnerable to breaches, government surveillance, and misuse by private companies, effectively turning age verification into a backdoor for widespread online monitoring. The EFF argues that these laws are overbroad, ineffective at their stated goals, and disproportionately harm marginalized communities.
HN commenters express concerns about the slippery slope of age verification laws, starting with porn and potentially expanding to other online content and even everyday purchases. They argue that these laws normalize widespread surveillance and data collection, creating honeypots for hackers and potentially enabling government abuse. Several highlight the ineffectiveness of age gates, pointing to easy bypass methods and the likelihood of children accessing restricted content through other means. The chilling effect on free speech and the potential for discriminatory enforcement are also raised, with some commenters drawing parallels to authoritarian regimes. Some suggest focusing on better education and parental controls rather than restrictive legislation. The technical feasibility and privacy implications of various verification methods are debated, with skepticism towards relying on government IDs or private companies.
The UK's National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC), along with GCHQ, quietly removed official advice recommending the use of Apple's device encryption for protecting sensitive information. While no official explanation was given, the change coincides with the UK government's ongoing push for legislation enabling access to encrypted communications, suggesting a conflict between promoting security best practices and pursuing surveillance capabilities. This removal raises concerns about the government's commitment to strong encryption and the potential chilling effect on individuals and organizations relying on such advice for data protection.
HN commenters discuss the UK government's removal of advice recommending Apple's encryption, speculating on the reasons. Some suggest it's due to Apple's upcoming changes to client-side scanning (now abandoned), fearing it weakens end-to-end encryption. Others point to the Online Safety Bill, which could mandate scanning of encrypted messages, making previous recommendations untenable. A few posit the change is related to legal challenges or simply outdated advice, with Apple no longer being the sole provider of strong encryption. The overall sentiment expresses concern and distrust towards the government's motives, with many suspecting a push towards weakening encryption for surveillance purposes. Some also criticize the lack of transparency surrounding the change.
Apple has removed its iCloud Advanced Data Protection feature, which offers end-to-end encryption for almost all iCloud data, from its beta software in the UK. This follows reported concerns from the UK's National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) that the enhanced security measures would hinder law enforcement's ability to access data for investigations. Apple maintains that the feature will be available to UK users eventually, but hasn't provided a clear timeline for its reintroduction. While the feature remains available in other countries, this move raises questions about the balance between privacy and government access to data.
HN commenters largely agree that Apple's decision to pull its child safety features, specifically the client-side scanning of photos, is a positive outcome. Some believe Apple was pressured by the UK government's proposed changes to the Investigatory Powers Act, which would compel companies to disable security features if deemed a national security risk. Others suggest Apple abandoned the plan due to widespread criticism and technical challenges. A few express disappointment, feeling the feature had potential if implemented carefully, and worry about the implications for future child safety initiatives. The prevalence of false positives and the potential for governments to abuse the system were cited as major concerns. Some skepticism towards the UK government's motivations is also evident.
Bipartisan U.S. lawmakers are expressing concern over a proposed U.K. surveillance law that would compel tech companies like Apple to compromise the security of their encrypted messaging systems. They argue that creating a "back door" for U.K. law enforcement would weaken security globally, putting Americans' data at risk and setting a dangerous precedent for other countries to demand similar access. This, they claim, would ultimately undermine encryption, a crucial tool for protecting sensitive information from criminals and hostile governments, and empower authoritarian regimes.
HN commenters are skeptical of the "threat to Americans" angle, pointing out that the UK and US already share significant intelligence data, and that a UK backdoor would likely be accessible to the US as well. Some suggest the real issue is Apple resisting government access to data, and that the article frames this as a UK vs. US issue to garner more attention. Others question the technical feasibility and security implications of such a backdoor, arguing it would create a significant vulnerability exploitable by malicious actors. Several highlight the hypocrisy of US lawmakers complaining about a UK backdoor while simultaneously pushing for similar capabilities themselves. Finally, some commenters express broader concerns about the erosion of privacy and the increasing surveillance powers of governments.
The UK government is pushing for a new law, the Investigatory Powers Act, that would compel tech companies like Apple to remove security features, including end-to-end encryption, if deemed necessary for national security investigations. This would effectively create a backdoor, allowing government access to user data without their knowledge or consent. Apple argues that this undermines user privacy and security, making everyone more vulnerable to hackers and authoritarian regimes. The law faces strong opposition from privacy advocates and tech experts who warn of its potential for abuse and chilling effects on free speech.
HN commenters express skepticism about the UK government's claims regarding the necessity of this order for national security, with several pointing out the hypocrisy of demanding backdoors while simultaneously promoting end-to-end encryption for their own communications. Some suggest this move is a dangerous precedent that could embolden other authoritarian regimes. Technical feasibility is also questioned, with some arguing that creating such a backdoor is impossible without compromising security for everyone. Others discuss the potential legal challenges Apple might pursue and the broader implications for user privacy globally. A few commenters raise concerns about the chilling effect this could have on whistleblowers and journalists.
This guide emphasizes minimizing digital traces for protesters through practical smartphone security advice. It recommends using a secondary, "burner" phone dedicated to protests, ideally a basic model without internet connectivity. If using a primary smartphone, strong passcodes/biometrics, full-disk encryption, and up-to-date software are crucial. Minimizing data collection involves disabling location services, microphone access for unnecessary apps, and using privacy-respecting alternatives to default apps like Signal for messaging and a privacy-focused browser. During protests, enabling airplane mode or using Faraday bags is advised. The guide also covers digital threat models, stressing the importance of awareness and preparedness for potential surveillance and data breaches.
Hacker News users discussed the practicality and necessity of the guide's recommendations for protesters. Some questioned the threat model, arguing that most protesters wouldn't be targeted by sophisticated adversaries. Others pointed out that basic digital hygiene practices are beneficial for everyone, regardless of protest involvement. Several commenters offered additional tips, like using a burner phone or focusing on physical security. The effectiveness of GrapheneOS was debated, with some praising its security while others questioned its usability for average users. A few comments highlighted the importance of compartmentalization and using separate devices for different activities.
The blog post "Let's talk about AI and end-to-end encryption" explores the perceived conflict between the benefits of end-to-end encryption (E2EE) and the potential of AI. While some argue that E2EE hinders AI's ability to analyze data for valuable insights or detect harmful content, the author contends this is a false dichotomy. They highlight that AI can still operate on encrypted data using techniques like homomorphic encryption, federated learning, and secure multi-party computation, albeit with performance trade-offs. The core argument is that preserving E2EE is crucial for privacy and security, and perceived limitations in AI functionality shouldn't compromise this fundamental protection. Instead of weakening encryption, the focus should be on developing privacy-preserving AI techniques that work with E2EE, ensuring both security and the responsible advancement of AI.
Hacker News users discussed the feasibility and implications of client-side scanning for CSAM in end-to-end encrypted systems. Some commenters expressed skepticism about the technical challenges and potential for false positives, highlighting the difficulty of distinguishing between illegal content and legitimate material like educational resources or artwork. Others debated the privacy implications and potential for abuse by governments or malicious actors. The "slippery slope" argument was raised, with concerns that seemingly narrow use cases for client-side scanning could expand to encompass other types of content. The discussion also touched on the limitations of hashing as a detection method and the possibility of adversarial attacks designed to circumvent these systems. Several commenters expressed strong opposition to client-side scanning, arguing that it fundamentally undermines the purpose of end-to-end encryption.
Summary of Comments ( 15 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43377867
HN commenters discuss the effectiveness and future of Global Privacy Control (GPC). Some express skepticism about its impact, noting that many websites simply ignore it, while others believe it's a valuable tool, particularly when combined with legal pressure and browser enforcement. The potential for legal action based on ignoring GPC signals is debated, with some arguing that it provides strong grounds for enforcement, while others highlight the difficulty of proving damages. The lack of clear legal precedents is mentioned as a significant hurdle. Commenters also discuss the technicalities of GPC implementation, including the different ways websites can interpret and respond to the signal, and the potential for false positives. The broader question of how to balance privacy with personalized advertising is also raised.
The Hacker News post "Implications of Global Privacy Control" generated a moderate amount of discussion with a variety of viewpoints on the effectiveness and future of the GPC standard.
Several commenters expressed skepticism about GPC's real-world impact. Some doubted that websites, especially those outside of the EU, would respect the signal, pointing to the history of companies ignoring similar initiatives like Do Not Track. One commenter argued that the lack of a clear enforcement mechanism renders GPC largely symbolic. This sentiment was echoed by others who felt that GPC would be easily circumvented by websites requiring users to disable it in exchange for access. The complexity of online advertising and data collection was also highlighted, with some suggesting that GPC only addresses a small part of a much larger problem.
Conversely, some commenters were more optimistic about GPC's potential. They viewed it as a positive step towards giving users more control over their data and believed that even partial adoption by websites could have a significant impact. One user emphasized the value of GPC as a clear signal of user preference, arguing that it puts pressure on companies to comply, especially in jurisdictions with strong privacy regulations like California. The importance of user awareness and adoption of tools that enable GPC was also highlighted.
A few commenters discussed the technical aspects of GPC implementation and its interaction with existing privacy regulations like GDPR and CCPA. One pointed out the need for clearer guidelines on how websites should interpret and respond to the GPC signal, while another noted the potential for conflict between GPC and legitimate data collection practices, such as those required for security purposes.
Some comments also touched upon the broader implications of GPC for the online advertising ecosystem. One commenter speculated that widespread adoption of GPC could lead to a shift towards alternative advertising models, such as contextual advertising. Another raised concerns about the potential for further consolidation of power among large tech companies who are better equipped to navigate the complexities of privacy regulations.
Finally, a few commenters shared their personal experiences with using GPC and offered practical tips on how to enable it in different browsers.
Overall, the comments reflect a nuanced understanding of the challenges and opportunities presented by GPC. While skepticism about its effectiveness is prevalent, there is also a sense of hope that GPC can contribute to a more privacy-respecting online environment.