Medijski sadržaj
- Tweetovi
- Tweetovi i odgovori
- Medijski sadržaj, trenutna stranica.
-
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 curatorpic.twitter.com/3cVEFl9cM1
-
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 onespic.twitter.com/SaoydMPZBU
-
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.pic.twitter.com/C7hzSBRg8K
-
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)pic.twitter.com/bemqnnOiVk
Prikaži ovu nit -
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/)pic.twitter.com/cWtMJ8Dmb9
Prikaži ovu nit -
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/)pic.twitter.com/bbfxgvkADR
Prikaži ovu nit -
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/)pic.twitter.com/1ehzsFJwTx
Prikaži ovu nit -
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/)pic.twitter.com/fvRsNeTLQD
Prikaži ovu nit -
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" https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/10/29/facebook-shouldnt-become-truth-gatekeeper-political-ads-editorials-debates/2499680001/ …pic.twitter.com/ofw9U3nvRP
-
This is a dark pattern that even tech companies haven't adopted. Requiring you to read the mail? Diabolicalpic.twitter.com/j8rLqkKXJe
Prikaži ovu nit -
Tech companies have found the same thing https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-happened-when-2-2-million-people-were-automatically-registered-to-vote/ …pic.twitter.com/qze8ZSTiI6
Prikaži ovu nit -
This epic burn is protected by the First Amendment https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/free-speech-cliches-media-should-stop-using/596506/ …pic.twitter.com/4uq2D0QTcX
-
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 https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/458227-in-debate-over-internet-speech-law-pay-attention-to-whose-voices-are …pic.twitter.com/3TYV6cqZGL
Prikaži ovu nit -
Hey Facebook Dating, you should use secure multi-party comput… on second thought, that will never happen, so nevermind.pic.twitter.com/ZOgPKKpT7a
-
-
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 https://www.zdnet.com/article/encryption-has-created-an-uncrackable-puzzle-for-the-real-world/ …pic.twitter.com/qsAfurXqrX
-
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 directlypic.twitter.com/tgy9RXMUlZ
-
The EFF's stance that technology companies should refrain from addressing public safety issues is maddeningly consistent https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-shooting-tech/after-shootings-tech-companies-pressured-to-pull-plug-on-8chan-idUSKCN1UW060 …pic.twitter.com/ZHFCo4BkYp
-
Excellent article about the pros and cons of decentralization https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/10/opinion/internet-democracy.html …pic.twitter.com/bZzb5OuG2h
-
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 https://slate.com/technology/2018/04/why-arent-privacy-groups-fighting-to-regulate-facebook.html …pic.twitter.com/ENKj4oCdB2
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.