this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2024
763 points (99.0% liked)
Technology
59378 readers
2952 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Right. But Facebook shouldn't have that number.
As far as I understand, BankID actually abstracts away those numbers. FB have to use an API, and more or less receive a true or false on their query.
They recently opened up for using BankID to prove your age at bars and such, and I think they only get to know if person is old enough or not. Not even a number, just old enough.
If truly masked, it might be fine. But the site has to gather that data in order to append it to the API call and it, therefore, mean that they could keep it (even of they actually may not). There are ways around it, such as with session tokens passed between the social media's page and the bank's official API page. But, knowing fb, they won't use the latter.
Obviously not, it's like Google authentication , you log into a site, doesn't mean the site can see your Gmail.
It depends how it's implemented. If they implement correctly, then you're right. But not all do. That's a fact that bit me in the arse once, and I no longer use those features for lack of trust.
This is the right way to protect privacy. Auditable government departments have your data anyways. They don't provide the data to companies, but they answer questions like "old enough to drink?" With yes no answers.
The government can keep a log of what sites asked for such a proof though, and better assume they do.
That's true, but the government is auditable by citizens though. We can legislate them to not keep logs and most importantly we can see if they're sharing data with advertisers.
I wouldn't be as trusting of them. They have all the power to lie to people and just do the thing in their interest. Or someone there may just be bribed.
This is in comparison to private corporations who have a profit incentive to monetize your data in every disgusting abusive way possible. Companies with a fiduciary duty to exploit every possible potential for profit or they can be sued by shareholders? Companies that aren't publicly auditable so you'll never know who they're sharing your data with? Like the recent trend of cars selling your location data to your insurance company who then uses it to hike your rates?
You're comparing a government who has to be bribed or break a law in order to share your data at all with corporations who have a duty to sell it to the highest bidder. And in this comparison your conclusion is it's the government that you can't trust?
Sorry, I have to say I'm completely baffled by your statements right now.
I am not saying that companies are trusted - they're equally as bad. They collect and hoard your data for profit, government hoards it for control, that's all the difference. And both can exchange data with each other. The trust level is about the same.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-knowledge_proof