I read the article and read the post you wrote. I've seen these discussions many many times before.
1. Some news article gets made about someone getting scammed. Yes. A tragedy. A crime. Someone was wronged.
2. Well intentioned people say "We Should Do Something" to stop people from being scammed in this particular way by demanding people Prove Authenticity.
3. The only feasible path to "Do Something" at scale tends to be an extremely privacy stripping policy like "You must prove you are who you say you are to use this service" by providing legal ID, using full name, or other similar means of making the user of the service prove they are who they want to say they are. Even if it's to some sort of "trusted third party", which leaves said third party with a wealth of PII, a prime target for data breach, and that 3rd party could be subpoenaed by a government to unmask a user.
4. The impact of this well intentioned "Do Something" policies lays unevenly across different demographics and levels of privilege as I said in my original post. Those who don't want to prove their authenticity for any personal or professional safety reasons are excluded. They become targets for harassment by bullies. They get accused of being bots simply for wanting to maintain pseudonymity. They're forced to be down ranked in algorithms. Meanwhile actual scammers find it trivial to spoof authenticity checks, because it's literally their jobs to figure out ways of defeating said checks, and now their scams are given an additional level of trust because they "proved" they are who they say they are.
The summary of the points you made is "it's okay to demand someone lose their privacy in order to prevent scams." But privacy is a human right. I may have nothing to hide, but that doesn't mean I'm going to give up my privacy online just because "some people get scammed".
So yes, I took the vibes of your post and skipped to the end, because I've seen these discussions and debates happen online, in company policies, in legislatures, by cops, etc. And every time they're implemented, it hurts marginalized people the worst.
npub1cch64exjvxqm26wqz92835l53krvw2k9mu3s804m5m0rnhmzfxpsjwf8nu (npub1cch…f8nu)
npub1hsyq0syf0yj0c2qnn2d3daptusleeh46yqkwwky5us9lxq6cge0sltnudu (npub1hsy…nudu)
Jess👾 /
npub1us…4x96z
2024-10-21 13:55:16
in reply to nevent1q…fr7t
Author Public Key
npub1usf5xguhkqwqecdxg6flvmrqh8vcvvwgwulcyykqlf4ac22nwlfs24x96zSeen on
wss://nostr.sprovoost.nlPublished at
2024-10-21 13:55:16Event JSON
{
"id": "ad040193ed6c0df50e5f6bc354c38420e66383059f116604a2be61fbf5a88a13",
"pubkey": "e413432397b01c0ce1a64693f66c60b9d98631c8773f8212c0fa6bdc295377d3",
"created_at": 1729518916,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"p",
"c62faae4d26181b569c0115478d3f48d86c72ac5df2303bebba6de39df624983",
"wss://nostr.sprovoost.nl"
],
[
"p",
"bc0807c0897924fc28139a9b16f42be43f9cdeba202ce75894e40bf30358465f",
"wss://nostr.sprovoost.nl"
],
[
"p",
"20930bb37c402b36d6577333ebddc01318bf20a854617e8c544d1cd623541954",
"wss://nostr.sprovoost.nl"
],
[
"p",
"7810445d6445d015d1b7823136f4444872993ee207d60bec678e97982e4743a5",
"wss://nostr.sprovoost.nl"
],
[
"e",
"f7db06999976b0ecd160520804c1a6ec635a286424a8589f9f914fa396b9a10f",
"wss://nostr.sprovoost.nl",
"reply"
],
[
"proxy",
"https://infosec.exchange/users/JessTheUnstill/statuses/113345751698200031",
"activitypub"
]
],
"content": "I read the article and read the post you wrote. I've seen these discussions many many times before.\n\n1. Some news article gets made about someone getting scammed. Yes. A tragedy. A crime. Someone was wronged.\n2. Well intentioned people say \"We Should Do Something\" to stop people from being scammed in this particular way by demanding people Prove Authenticity.\n3. The only feasible path to \"Do Something\" at scale tends to be an extremely privacy stripping policy like \"You must prove you are who you say you are to use this service\" by providing legal ID, using full name, or other similar means of making the user of the service prove they are who they want to say they are. Even if it's to some sort of \"trusted third party\", which leaves said third party with a wealth of PII, a prime target for data breach, and that 3rd party could be subpoenaed by a government to unmask a user.\n4. The impact of this well intentioned \"Do Something\" policies lays unevenly across different demographics and levels of privilege as I said in my original post. Those who don't want to prove their authenticity for any personal or professional safety reasons are excluded. They become targets for harassment by bullies. They get accused of being bots simply for wanting to maintain pseudonymity. They're forced to be down ranked in algorithms. Meanwhile actual scammers find it trivial to spoof authenticity checks, because it's literally their jobs to figure out ways of defeating said checks, and now their scams are given an additional level of trust because they \"proved\" they are who they say they are.\n\nThe summary of the points you made is \"it's okay to demand someone lose their privacy in order to prevent scams.\" But privacy is a human right. I may have nothing to hide, but that doesn't mean I'm going to give up my privacy online just because \"some people get scammed\". \n\nSo yes, I took the vibes of your post and skipped to the end, because I've seen these discussions and debates happen online, in company policies, in legislatures, by cops, etc. And every time they're implemented, it hurts marginalized people the worst.\n\nnostr:npub1cch64exjvxqm26wqz92835l53krvw2k9mu3s804m5m0rnhmzfxpsjwf8nu\nnostr:npub1hsyq0syf0yj0c2qnn2d3daptusleeh46yqkwwky5us9lxq6cge0sltnudu",
"sig": "fa6ad8ef390fdd2533a879181e3f557a9dda49de4c5691b376a76d47736f2c3f4f328a1a2305ee20c752fae0dda88a2cf09e0bb24354b1075f56df34ff1190b5"
}