zlacker

[parent] [thread] 12 comments
1. torgin+(OP)[view] [source] 2025-08-11 11:41:03
EU is like:

We will protect your sensitive personal documents so that only trusted government institutions and ones held to the highest standards of privacy (such as banks) may have access to it. This is to prevent abuse and identity theft.

Also please upload them to BigBootyXXX.com if you want to have a wank

replies(4): >>sillys+bd >>notToo+xp >>Lasokk+wB >>raxxor+yV5
2. sillys+bd[view] [source] 2025-08-11 13:36:39
>>torgin+(OP)
At the end of the day, "think of the children" has been an ancient rallying cry that’s used to justify all kinds of bad behavior. Often ironic, as you say.

Also banks were one of the most vulnerable. I’ve often wondered why. My first reaction is "because their code comes from coders who only want to work at a bank," but I don’t want to be unfair. Perhaps it’s "from people comfortable with lots of bureaucracy". Either way, when I was a pentester, banks were one of our main types of clients, and their code was often bad. So it’s doubly ironic to claim banks are exemplars of how to do privacy.

replies(1): >>freedo+8o
◧◩
3. freedo+8o[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-11 14:36:35
>>sillys+bd
I consulted with several big banks, and while there are some great developers there, on the whole, the devs were largely passionless and were just there for the job. Many of them actively dislike coding, and it really felt like they were just there for the high pay. I think that type of developer really thrives in a move slow, heavy bureuacracy environment where velocity is not something people care about. The high security can be annoying, but everywhere I went they had enough processes and out-sourcing of security to experts and tools that the average dev didn't really have to think about it. On many teams there would be one person or so who (mostly) understood the area they were responsible for and could deliver quickly, but not every team had somebody like that. One thing that I did think was a positive is that (perhaps because of all these things) is that it was a very low-ego environment, and people were generally open-minded about learning new stuff and/or better ways to do things. Overall I really enjoyed working with the people at banks, despite everything taking longer than you would think it should :-)
replies(2): >>sillys+yh1 >>huijze+Vb3
4. notToo+xp[view] [source] 2025-08-11 14:42:41
>>torgin+(OP)
This is not an argument when ZKPs are actively being worked on and hopefully soon integrated.

There is age verification that preserves privacy.

replies(1): >>red-ir+gf1
5. Lasokk+wB[view] [source] 2025-08-11 15:40:21
>>torgin+(OP)
https://ageverification.dev/

"The European Commission is developing a harmonized, EU-wide approach to age verification, accompanied by a comprehensive age verification blueprint that is intended to facilitate practical adoption across all Member States and can be customised to the national context. Built upon the robust European Digital Identity Wallet framework, this user-friendly and privacy-preserving age verification solution enables individuals to demonstrate their eligibility for age-restricted online services, such as those restricted to adults, without disclosing more personal information than absolutely necessary"

So basically, the intention is to provide a solution where users do not need an account or to provide their passports to BigBootyXXX.com. The site just asks if this session or user is of legal age and the age verification system will respond with a TRUE/FALSE

replies(3): >>moi238+JU2 >>jama21+vtg >>mrkeen+N3i
◧◩
6. red-ir+gf1[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-11 18:46:15
>>notToo+xp
but lets be real, it's way more profitable to NOT preserve privacy, and there is no way to verify that they will actually implement these controls.
◧◩◪
7. sillys+yh1[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-11 18:57:03
>>freedo+8o
Just wanted to say, thanks for the very interesting comment. I consulted at Thompson Reuters, and while they aren’t a bank, your story brought up all kinds of memories. The passionless part really resonated with me, since it was all too obvious whenever the one good developer (who I was thankfully paired with) and I had meetings with the rest of them. There was one guy in charge of the database, which in practice meant any time you wanted to interface with the database you had to ask this guy to do it instead of write any code yourself that even interacts with the database in any way, including just getting data. It meant hours of delays, routinely. During most meetings it would devolve into random tangents about cars. (The good dev was also a car enthusiast, so everyone came to him with all their car issues, much to his annoyance.) And yes, to be fair, it was a little fun and I enjoyed working with most of them. Very low ego, as you say.
◧◩
8. moi238+JU2[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-12 09:53:48
>>Lasokk+wB
Have you ever played 20 questions?
replies(1): >>jama21+Dtg
◧◩◪
9. huijze+Vb3[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-12 12:26:55
>>freedo+8o
What I dislike about these large bureaucracies is that it's not only impersonal to the developers who have to work on it, but also for the customers. Even though software is difficult, I think it's a net positive for society to have 10 to 100 banks with poorer software than a few big banks with great software. I think we often overestimate the benefits of economies of scale. A small bank in a town run by a few locals could handle the town's finances perfectly well without much software if there wouldn't be a whole morass of regulations.
10. raxxor+yV5[view] [source] 2025-08-13 08:26:04
>>torgin+(OP)
Also, public officials like to be exempt because of professional requirements. They delivered the argument for it to be declared illegal violating a few constitutions.

Also because it is an undemocratic technocracy (warranted polemic) and the average citizen cannot sue before the EU judiciary, the national courts have to kill it. Of course such a process will take years...

◧◩
11. jama21+vtg[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-16 19:53:38
>>Lasokk+wB
Thank you for this context.
◧◩◪
12. jama21+Dtg[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-16 19:54:37
>>moi238+JU2
No OP, but I sense this question is leading somewhere in bad faith
◧◩
13. mrkeen+N3i[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-17 15:59:14
>>Lasokk+wB
> Built upon the robust European Digital Identity Wallet framework

Doesn't exist. Everything written about it is in the future tense.

[go to top]