this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2023
121 points (88.1% liked)
Asklemmy
43966 readers
1297 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Nope, it doesn't. Did you read what I wrote or did you just have a knee-jerk reaction?
Please explain it to me like I'm five. How can the authentication service not know what your authenticating against? How can it provide you a token that you can't use over and over again, or past other people?
OAuth specifically wants to know what you're using your tokens for.
In principle if you insert a middleman into a transaction the middleman knows about the transaction. Thus it's violates privacy
What good is it for the system to know, if the system disregards that information right after auth? Effectively it's like no one ever knew.
You're confusing intents and capabilities. When we're talking about security and privacy we have to talk about capabilities. Not intents.
Somebody could have the best intentions, but you don't want to give them the capability to hurt you. If it's not necessary. So does a daycare need a volunteer militia to hang out all day cleaning their weapons? Probably not, the capability even if well intended is antithetical to the security and welfare of the children.
Even if the intention is good today, putting the framework and capability in just invites future corruption.
Hence why such a system would need to be open source and publicly audited.
If the system exists it will be abused. Therefore the government should not create the system to start with
It is a basic tautological fact that you cannot verify an identity while keeping that identity private from the verifier.
Then you don't know much about IT. Sure, the verifier must know your identity at the point of identification. Doesn't mean it has to store any information about what you did. Unless of course you're worried that the PC itself will magically come to life and do something with the information. In that case you need an entirely different kind of help. Source for my claims: Designing system architecture is literally my job.