alt Hacker News> Unless you're using the "Two or more people get together to plan something" definition of the word "conspiracy" -which happens to neatly cover planning to go to lunch-, I don't consider this to be a conspiracy.
Yes that's the entire point of this whole thread, congrats for getting there in the end.
You don't consider this a conspiracy.
People like the article author do, and in doing so they miss the mark on having any effect on the wider conversation because they aren't willing to even acknowledge the existence of the problem. You are actually engaging with the topic and putting forwards ideas and engaging with solutions. You have thoughts about how something might be made to work. You are not who I1 am complaining about.
(As an aside, why not actually try reading the link about anonymous credentials? It's very informative and it shows you what's possible even if you're too cynical to believe anyone would ever implement it)
> Yes that's the entire point of this whole thread...
Lolno.
1) > An equally important skill is recognizing when those concerns are not genuinely held. Anyone who should know about "Parental Controls" and chooses "Papers Please!" or "Age Please!" is evil. Lawmakers and regulators pushing for this stuff are in this bucket. Anyone who -once introduced to the concept- claims to see no world in which "Parental Controls" can be beefed up and also claims that "Age Please!" or "Papers Please!" is the only viable option is -at minimum- unrecoverably stupid, and is probably also evil.
2) It's right and correct to both publicly call those people out as stupid and/or evil, and to call out those who are not acting with honest intent. As I mentioned earlier, one is under no obligation to be all niceys to people who are interested in tearing yet another chunk out of the vital organs of civic life.
> ...it shows you what's possible even if you're too cynical to believe anyone would ever implement it)
One could implement it. I've never disputed that. It will "accidentally" [0] be put into a system in a way that leaks the information it claims to protect by implementers that fundamentally disagree that the feature needs to exist. One only needs to look at the myriad and varied ways Internet advertising companies (and the users of their platforms) extract sensitive information on users to see that no amount of tech will protect information you enter into a system a company controls if that company gives zero shits about your privacy. The only way to prevent this information from leaking is for the systems involved to never have possessed it in the first place.
[0] ...or perhaps -because of incompetence- actually accidentally...