• 0 Posts
  • 170 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 10th, 2023

help-circle
  • I’ve been thinking of possible ways that you could prove you’re of legal age to access a site through a government service without the government being able to know who the user is, and I can’t really come up with a clean solution.

    The best idea that came to my mind was that you could e.g. have a challenge system where the government service challenges the user to return an encrypted randomly generated value. Each user has e.g. an AES key assigned to them that corresponds to the year they were born in, e.g. everyone born in the year 2000 has the same encryption key in ther ID card, and they just use that to return an answer to the challenge. The government website can know all of the secret keys and just check if it can unencrypt the result with the correct one. This means that the government service won’t know anything about the user other than their year of birth, but can confirm their age.

    Now two main problems are that, as everyone with the same year of birth has the same key, it could be possible to somehow leak one key and make it so that anyone can pretend to be born at that age, but considering this is for kids, exploiting that sort of problem is probably enough of a barrier to use. Another problem is that this would require you to scan your ID card with every use. Maybe you could accomplish this with a mobile app but idk if that’s possible to do in the same way.

















  • It may not make sense to those of us more familiar with tech, but that’s not the point.

    I mean, a bigger screen is objectively better for consuming content, plus the speakers are often more powerful. As a person with bigger hands I much prefer larger phones. I have the S21 Ultra and I really like the size.

    They also typically have a larger battery and are able to fit in more features (like the S pen which I love, but they had to remove in this generation)


  • Yes but my entire point is that it just isn’t comparable because of the insane scales we’re talking about. For example, WhatsApp has 2 billion monthly active users. Let’s say Signal had the same number and let’s say it costs them 0.5$ per user per year (probably an underestimate). That’s 1 billion dollars in yearly expenses. Wikipedia, which is one of the most successful donation based companies to my knowledge, has a yearly income of only 180 million $. I just don’t see there being enough donation capacity in the general population to sustain that high of a figure.

    GrapheneOS might be fine even with 2 bilion users with the same amount of funding as they have now, because their costs aren’t tied to their userbase. But scaling Signal to the size we’re talking about is an entirely different beast.


  • Redex@lemmy.worldtoTechnology@lemmy.worldWhatsApp is officially getting ads
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    19 days ago

    No, they don’t have recurring costs that scale with their size. The whole original point of my argument was that Signal is fine now because its userbase is above averagely passionate about it and willing to donate, but if it were to become mainstream that would mean the percent of its users donating would go down whilst its cost would go up, in other words its costs would outscale its revenue. This doesn’t apply to GaprheneOS as their costs don’t scale with the number of users.