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.
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 A few posit the change is related to legal challenges or simply outdated advice, with Apple no longer being the sole provider of strong encryption.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.
Kagi Search has integrated Privacy Pass, a privacy-preserving technology, to reduce CAPTCHA frequency for paid users. This allows Kagi to verify a user's legitimacy without revealing their identity or tracking their browsing habits. By issuing anonymized tokens via the Privacy Pass browser extension, users can bypass CAPTCHAs, improving their search experience while maintaining their online privacy. This added layer of privacy is exclusive to paying Kagi subscribers as part of their commitment to a user-friendly and secure search environment.
HN commenters generally expressed skepticism about Kagi's Privacy Pass implementation. Several questioned the actual privacy benefits, pointing out that Kagi still knows the user's IP address and search queries, even with the pass. Others doubted the practicality of the system, citing the potential for abuse and the added complexity for users. Some suggested alternative privacy-enhancing technologies like onion routing or decentralized search. The effectiveness of Privacy Pass in preventing fingerprinting was also debated, with some arguing it offered minimal protection. A few commenters expressed interest in the technology and its potential, but the overall sentiment leaned towards cautious skepticism.
A security vulnerability, dubbed "0-click," allowed remote attackers to deanonymize users of various communication platforms, including Signal, Discord, and others, by simply sending them a message. Exploiting flaws in how these applications handled media files, specifically embedded video previews, the attacker could execute arbitrary code on the target's device without any interaction from the user. This code could then access sensitive information like the user's IP address, potentially revealing their identity. While the vulnerability affected the Electron framework underlying these apps, rather than the platforms themselves, the impact was significant as it bypassed typical security measures and allowed complete deanonymization with no user interaction. This vulnerability has since been patched.
Hacker News commenters discuss the practicality and impact of the described 0-click deanonymization attack. Several express skepticism about its real-world applicability, noting the attacker needs to be on the same local network, which significantly limits its usefulness compared to other attack vectors. Some highlight the importance of the disclosure despite these limitations, as it raises awareness of potential vulnerabilities. The discussion also touches on the technical details of the exploit, with some questioning the "0-click" designation given the requirement for the target to join a group call. Others point out the responsibility of Electron, the framework used by the affected apps, for not sandboxing UDP sockets effectively, and debate the trade-offs between security and performance. A few commenters discuss potential mitigations and the broader implications for user privacy in online communication platforms.
Summary of Comments ( 220 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43292820
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 Hacker News post "Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance," linking to an EFF article about age verification requirements for online pornography and even skin cream, sparked a lively discussion with numerous comments. Several key themes and compelling arguments emerged.
A significant number of commenters expressed deep concerns about the privacy implications of age verification systems. They argued that requiring users to submit identification to access certain websites creates a massive database of sensitive personal information vulnerable to breaches, abuse by government agencies, and exploitation by malicious actors. Some highlighted the potential for this data to be used for blackmail, harassment, or even persecution based on browsing history. The chilling effect on free speech and access to information was also mentioned, as users might self-censor their online activities knowing they are being tracked.
Several commenters drew parallels to other forms of online surveillance and censorship, arguing that age verification requirements are just another step towards a more controlled and monitored internet. Some saw this as a slippery slope, fearing that these requirements could eventually expand to encompass a wider range of online content and services.
There was debate about the effectiveness of age verification in actually protecting children. Some commenters were skeptical that these measures would be successful in preventing minors from accessing restricted content, suggesting that tech-savvy children would find ways to circumvent the restrictions. They argued that the focus should be on education and parental controls rather than blanket surveillance.
The technical aspects of age verification systems were also discussed. Commenters raised concerns about the security and reliability of these systems, questioning the ability of companies to properly store and protect user data. The potential for false positives and the difficulties faced by individuals who lack government-issued identification were also highlighted.
A few commenters offered alternative solutions, such as utilizing privacy-preserving technologies like zero-knowledge proofs or decentralized identity systems. Others suggested focusing on content filtering and empowering users with more control over their online experience.
Finally, some comments touched upon the potential legal challenges to age verification laws, with some expressing hope that these measures would be challenged on constitutional grounds.
Overall, the comments on Hacker News reflected a widespread apprehension about the potential consequences of age verification laws, with many expressing concerns about privacy, security, and the erosion of online freedoms. The discussion highlighted the complex trade-offs involved in balancing the protection of children with the preservation of individual privacy and freedom of expression.