Mayank Varia

@mvaria

Cryptographer

Vrijeme pridruživanja: lipanj 2012.

Medijski sadržaj

  1. 10. sij
    Odgovor korisniku/ci

    As usual, there's a great line in Rogaway's moral character paper that makes precisely this point. Note that large tech companies have adopted DP much more than MPC/FHE, perhaps in part because (non-local) DP encourages the existence of a trusted central curator

  2. 2. stu 2019.
    Odgovor korisniku/ci

    Sorry if it seems as those we are talking past each other. In some sense, we are. I agree with your main points. Instead, I was arguing against an EFF article that (a) wasn't limited to DOJ's current fascination and (b) claimed to offer technical critiques rather than policy ones

  3. 2. stu 2019.
    Odgovor korisnicima

    Sure, scanning images using PhotoDNA is tricky. But the EFF blog post is clearly *not* limited to image scanning. Their thesis is much more fundamental: client-side pre- or post-processing is incompatible with encryption. And that is just fundamentally wrong.

  4. 2. stu 2019.

    Finally, this "encryption nihilism" argument is incompatible with prior experience. Any crypto engineer will tell you that default choices are adopted at significantly higher rates. So the idea that *now* default choices will be circumvented en masse is incredulous. (8/8)

    Prikaži ovu nit
  5. 2. stu 2019.

    And while I admit that this part is nitpicky: ORAM's "impractical" cost isn't due to its "provably high" bounds, but rather to the large constants that render linear/square root time algorithms faster at moderate scale. A logarithmic overhead can be fine, in principle. (7/)

    Prikaži ovu nit
  6. 2. stu 2019.

    The setup here seems reasonable: any blacklisted content is likely to be stored on the server. But the next paragraph is factually wrong: a generic ORAM is neither necessary (only need simple data structures) nor sufficient (must support multiple clients) to protect privacy. (6/)

    Prikaži ovu nit
  7. 2. stu 2019.

    This assumption is crucial toward their circular argument: if the response to illegal content is to inform others, then it's impossible to send illegal content without informing someone others. They ignore alternative responses like dropping packets or warning the recipient. (5/)

    Prikaži ovu nit
  8. 2. stu 2019.

    This paragraph sets up a false premise: the only way to audit the operation of another computer is to observe its entire state. Nope. Cryptographically verifiable computing exists, and in any event, a simple digital signature from NCMEC would resolve this particular concern. (4/)

    Prikaži ovu nit
  9. 30. lis 2019.

    Bold argument by Facebook's public policy directors, basically conceding that FB itself is bad. Ergo, the question of whether FB censors political ads is not very relevant, since it would merely move them from "almost the worst" to "actually the worst"

  10. 10. lis 2019.

    This is a dark pattern that even tech companies haven't adopted. Requiring you to read the mail? Diabolical

    Prikaži ovu nit
  11. 10. lis 2019.
    Prikaži ovu nit
  12. 7. ruj 2019.
  13. 7. ruj 2019.

    The EFF's "common sense principle" about CDA Section 230 misses a core question: whether sites should be responsible for their own speech/code that actively decides which content they promote and amplify

    Prikaži ovu nit
  14. 5. ruj 2019.

    Hey Facebook Dating, you should use secure multi-party comput… on second thought, that will never happen, so nevermind.

  15. 19. kol 2019.

    Yes. That was the idea.

  16. 18. kol 2019.

    Nice ZDnet article on encryption and surveillance. Remember: encryption only protects us against surveillance by third parties; the recipient of your data is happy to tout E2E encryption as an anti-surveillance tool even while they track you

  17. 9. kol 2019.

    In a related story: my website's privacy policy states that undercover police officers are required to tell me that they're cops if I ask them directly

  18. 6. kol 2019.

    The EFF's stance that technology companies should refrain from addressing public safety issues is maddeningly consistent

  19. 17. srp 2019.
  20. 1. ožu 2019.

    Excellent article on digital privacy. You cannot rein in government surveillance without also curtailing corporate surveillance, and hence the focus of tech advocacy groups on Constitutional harms is myopic

Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.

Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.

    Možda bi vam se svidjelo i ovo:

    ·