Jess👾 / is on Nostr

Queer 🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️
Cybersecurity
Nerd
Neurodiverse
I am a woman, but I'm CERTAINLY not a lady.
I don't actually have zero followers, they're just intentionally hidden.

Last Notes

2024-11-10 18:34:36

I wonder if folks recognize that Google Maps is a giant ad platform. And it's not just the obvious promoted businesses - each larger zoom level that you want your business to appear in costs money. If you don't pay them, it doesn't show up until you're in the very smallest zoom level. It doesn't appear when you search for restaurants. Basically unless someone specifically searches for it, or zooms into the smallest zoom level, it doesn't exist.

2024-10-21 17:56:40

- reply

Did I say anything about your race, age, gender, or weight? No, no I did not. I've seen this same sentiment come from many people of every group of humans who haven't thought through the implications of "doing something" about scams and fraud without thinking through all of the follow on impacts to marginalized people. Yes, even marginalized people can find it hard to see this sort of stuff if you're not used to seeing the problem with trying to trade privacy for security. Hence why I said what I said to start with. You're the only one who has turned this into some dogpile on your identity.
@npub1cch…f8nu
@npub1hsy…nudu

2024-10-21 14:27:53

- reply

Since you're blasting this many people, I'll do the same.
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.
@npub1cch…f8nu
@npub1uwp…un93 @npub18kj…kx9q @npub1gqv…vymw @npub1yw6…6aua @npub1tk9…hkyk @npub185w…w7qw @npub1fax…vlle @npub17rr…sp5x @npub1v7e…5nr7 @npub18sc…w4dc @npub1xe4…svsy @npub1pjg…n79j @npub1ryy…p39j @npub18zu…e8cp @npub1j7n…0m9n @npub1zfl…fmg7 @npub1yyy…t5n2 @npub154x…zeun @npub1asp…rlwx @npub1c8g…qvh2 @npub196e…nv2e @npub1ykf…s7kg @npub15hp…28u0 @npub1hkg…0gm4 @npub1jvn…a44k @npub1c27…sg9k @npub1v0y…mpd7 @npub1q0d…4mq6 @npub1paj…knre @npub1rhh…c37p @npub1y8f…c6nw @npub1xzs…a3lt @npub13uh…n7hf @npub13ap…mj45 @npub17gj…pu92 @npub1nny…6ult @npub1ak5…em3j @npub1hsy…nudu @npub1c63…em5r @npub1cfy…xn93 @npub1m7w…yn3m @npub17c2…grs5 @npub12md…qtfe @npub1v3u…3nf0

2024-10-21 13:55:16

- reply

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.
@npub1cch…f8nu
@npub1hsy…nudu

2024-10-21 13:55:16

- reply

2024-10-21 00:14:28

- reply

Demanding reliable proof of authenticity like full name is FAR more risky for some people than others.
For women, it opens us up to stalkers.
For queer people, it can get them outed, harassed, SWATed, their workplace harassed and review bombed unless they fire them.
For minorities, it can get them exposed to harassment.
Stripping pseudonymity from us doesn't make the internet a safer place for us, it makes it inherently unsafe, and means that we can no longer participate in public spaces without risking our personal safety.
@npub1cch…f8nu
@npub1v3u…3nf0