Many might’ve seen the Australian ban of social media for <16 y.o with no idea of how to implement it. There have been mentions of “double blind age verification”, but I can’t find any information on it.

Out of curiosity, how would you implement this with privacy in mind if you really had to?

  • demesisx@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    edit-2
    20 days ago

    I find it intimidating for sure. They say “never roll your own crypto” and I take those words to heart. Still, it would suck to have to hire someone and just trust their work. That person could be another Sam Bankman Fried or Do Kwan and you’d be party to their scam and you’d have no idea.

    • leisesprecher@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      20 days ago

      I’m not sure what these things have to do with each other. How exactly would cryptography have prevented SBF, you know, a crypto bro.

      • demesisx@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        20 days ago

        It wouldn’t have. You totally misunderstood my comment. Reread it.

        To paraphrase: when you hire a cryptographer to work on your project you have to hope that they are not a scammer because they could easily lie to you about the soundness of their cryptography and you’d have no idea. You see, SBF and Do Kwan were liars. If they had been cryptographers (they aren’t and weren’t) their employer would have to believe them since they would be an expert in something nearly impossible for a layman to understand.

        Do you get it yet?

        • leisesprecher@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          20 days ago

          I get what you’re trying to say, but I’m not sure it makes sense.

          I mean, that’s literally every field you’re not an expert in. And most of us are experts in less than one field.

          You don’t know about medicine, car engines, electricity or tax laws, you have your guys for that. Even in our field, we have guys for databases, OSes, networking, because quite frankly nobody understands those really.

          So I’m not sure what the point of your comment is. That having experts is good? Yeah, I guess? Did we need to have that reinforced?

          • demesisx@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            20 days ago

            If a doctor or mechanic was wrong, at least you’d have an inkling that things were wrong and you’d be able to sue them. Whereas with cryptography, no one has ANY IDEA WHATSOEVER if there are back doors until they are used to rob people blind. In all of the cases you mentioned, victims of those abuses have recourse whereas in cryptography, if things are wrong, they often CANNOT be patched and it’s even exceptionally hard for an expert to prove what went wrong.