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 "In Memoriam" post honors Ian McDonald, a key figure in the UK's push for the Online Safety Bill. A passionate advocate for protecting children online, McDonald tirelessly campaigned for legislation to hold tech companies accountable for harmful content. He tragically passed away before seeing the bill become law, but his dedication and expertise were instrumental in shaping it. The post highlights his significant contributions, emphasizing his deep understanding of the online world and his commitment to making it a safer place, particularly for vulnerable users. His work leaves a lasting legacy, and the Online Safety Bill stands as a testament to his unwavering efforts.
HN users discuss the UK's Online Safety Bill, expressing concerns about its impact on end-to-end encryption. Many see it as a significant threat to privacy and free speech, potentially leading to backdoors in messaging services and increased surveillance. Some commenters argue that the bill's aims, while ostensibly noble, are technically infeasible and will ultimately harm online safety rather than improve it. There's skepticism about the government's ability to effectively moderate online content and a belief that the bill will disproportionately affect smaller platforms. Several users highlight the chilling effect the bill could have on innovation and the potential for abuse by authoritarian regimes. Some also question the timing of the bill's implementation, suggesting it's a power grab.
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.
Widespread loneliness, exacerbated by social media and the pandemic, creates a vulnerability exploited by malicious actors. Lonely individuals are more susceptible to romance scams, disinformation, and extremist ideologies, posing a significant security risk. These scams not only cause financial and emotional devastation for victims but also provide funding for criminal organizations, some of which engage in activities that threaten national security. The article argues that addressing loneliness through social connection initiatives is crucial not just for individual well-being, but also for collective security, as it strengthens societal resilience against manipulation and exploitation.
Hacker News commenters largely agreed with the article's premise that loneliness increases vulnerability to scams. Several pointed out the manipulative tactics used by scammers prey on the desire for connection, highlighting how seemingly harmless initial interactions can escalate into significant financial and emotional losses. Some commenters shared personal anecdotes of loved ones falling victim to such scams, emphasizing the devastating impact. Others discussed the broader societal factors contributing to loneliness, including social media's role in creating superficial connections and the decline of traditional community structures. A few suggested potential solutions, such as promoting genuine social interaction and educating vulnerable populations about common scam tactics. The role of technology in both exacerbating loneliness and potentially mitigating it through platforms that foster authentic connection was also debated.
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.
A phishing attack leveraged Google's URL shortener, g.co, to mask malicious links. The attacker sent emails appearing to be from a legitimate source, containing a g.co shortened link. This short link redirected to a fake Google login page designed to steal user credentials. Because the initial link displayed g.co, it bypassed suspicion and instilled a false sense of security, making the phishing attempt more effective. The post highlights the danger of trusting shortened URLs, even those from seemingly reputable services, and emphasizes the importance of carefully inspecting links before clicking.
HN users discuss a sophisticated phishing attack using g.co shortened URLs. Several express concern about Google's seeming inaction on the issue, despite reports. Some suggest solutions like automatically blocking known malicious short URLs or requiring explicit user confirmation before redirecting. Others question the practicality of such solutions given the vast scale of Google's services. The vulnerability of URL shorteners in general is highlighted, with some suggesting they should be avoided entirely due to the inherent security risks. The discussion also touches upon the user's role in security, advocating for caution and skepticism when encountering shortened URLs. Some users mention being successfully targeted by this attack, and the frustration of banks accepting screenshots of g.co links as proof of payment. The conversation emphasizes the ongoing tension between user convenience and security, and the difficulty of completely mitigating phishing risks.
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.