upvote

points

by egorfine14 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby londons_explore10 hours ago|
next
[-]
Whilst this is OP's point, the reality is the majority of big tech companies have been treating user data like radioactive waste for 10+ years.

Most user data is of minimal economic value, until you leak it, and then suddenly there are millions of euros of fines headed your way.

Better to not hold the data in the first place.

reply
upvoteby rpdillon8 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
> majority of big tech companies have been treating user data like radioactive waste for 10+ years.

They're collecting more than ever.

reply
upvoteby numpad03 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
PIIs and payment details are radioactive if explicitly collected as such, or just "anonymized" query parameters if not.
reply
upvoteby egorfine8 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
> suddenly there are millions of euros of fines headed your way

I'm not sure about that. As I see it, there is no business case for treating PII carefully: security costs money while leaking PII costs nothing and has no repercussions.

reply
upvoteby ceehex7 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
you must be living under a rock, mutable user data like usage habits is being collected at increasing levels
reply
upvoteby zahlman4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I think GP is about PII rather than "mutable user data".
reply
upvoteby 10 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
deleted
reply
upvoteby shevy-java10 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
But then why do they want to sniff after everyone?

Storing all that information is cheap nowadays. Any state agency may be happy to get more information about The People.

reply
upvoteby itintheory12 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Whose cause? I think the government already has our IDs, given that they issued them.
reply
upvoteby sicktriple12 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
The government isn't typically facilitating the check. In order to verify your age, you will be required to hand over your ID to a third party, who's privacy and security practices are likely: "Trust me bro."

Seeing as how these companies get hacked all the time, (https://krebsonsecurity.com/2026/09/fbi-probes-service-selli...) , I don't think it's unreasonable to resist this.

Furthermore, I think many folks have reservations about requiring an ID checkpoint to utilize a computer. Obviously it's not that bad yet, but I don't think it's hyperbolic to state that the landscape is certainly trending in that direction, and it's absolutely not unreasonable to point out that governments and institutions to have a material interest in setting up access controls on who can and can't use the internet (read: participate in society).

reply
upvoteby itintheory11 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Right, I'm not a fan of the ID check or identity/age verification. I'm just trying to understand the conspiracy theory kind of idea that "they're trying to get all our IDs!!!1!!" sentiment.
reply
upvoteby AnthonyMouse11 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
"The government already has our IDs" is missing the correlation between the ID and the service. They know your face and your name but not what you do on the internet. The website knows what you do on the internet but it isn't tied to your name. It's the tying them together which is the problem.

Which is why the people trying to do it always pull out the misdirect about ZK proofs. Those don't fix anything because a system that actually preserved privacy wouldn't be able to prove that the user is over 18, only that someone is over 18, not necessarily them. And that in turn means you're setting up a rug pull. You roll out a system which is indistinguishable from the perspective of ordinary people from the one that screws them, and then that system can't actually exclude minors so what follows is calls to change it to stop protecting privacy, at which point the people trying to collect everyone's ID will be arguing that you already have to show ID.

It also presumes you would even get a privacy-preserving implementation to begin with, which a pretty credulous assumption given how these things usually go.

reply
upvoteby LoganDark10 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
It's not possible to prove the user is anything ever. It probably never will be. Likely what will happen instead is that the person in the ID will become personally liable for accounts verified with that ID. Which is even more reason to reject ID verification.
reply
upvoteby AnthonyMouse10 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> Likely what will happen instead is that the person in the ID will become personally liable for accounts verified with that ID.

Exactly. Which in turn requires you to have some way of tying those accounts to that ID, which was supposed to be the thing to be prevented.

reply
upvoteby jonathanstrange9 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Governments don't necessarily have the connection between your ID and what you do online, though, and some governments are known to massively buy publicly available data from data brokers to circumvent existing laws. By "some governments" I mean the US government, by the way. That's not a conspiracy either, it's well-documented.
reply
upvoteby dgabriel9 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
We don't want your static ID, we want where and what you are at this moment in order to better tune the algorithm. Your ID is frozen in time, so at any given moment, big tech knows more about you than the government does. IDs are only good for minimal verification purposes.
reply
upvoteby downrightmike9 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Its actually to leak your gov't ID so data brokers can soak it up
reply
upvoteby estearum12 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
QAnon for nerds
reply