Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

wanted cross-context recognition #109

Open
jbradleychen opened this issue Jan 23, 2022 · 1 comment
Open

wanted cross-context recognition #109

jbradleychen opened this issue Jan 23, 2022 · 1 comment
Assignees

Comments

@jbradleychen
Copy link

<p><span class="practicelab" id="principle-prevent-cross-partition-recognition">[=User agents=]

What allowances should be made for wanted/desirable cross-context recognition? Regrettably, as siloed defense of large platforms has improved, cross-platform threat models have become common. Specific situations where cross-context recognition is relevant for safety:

  • cross-platform threat models.
    -- Example: an adult impersonating a minor solicits a minor on a large public platform, then vectors the discussion to an E2EE platform where criminal activity can occur in secret.
    -- Example: analogous scenarios for fraud, malware.
    -- Example: bypassing content moderation on platform A by exploiting inbound traffic from platform B.
  • legitimate law enforcement referrals.
  • intra-platform defenses stymied by the annihilation of signals potentially useful for cross-platform correlation.

When do nuisance advertising and the other harms of imperfect privacy justify disrupting the ability of safety efforts to deal with fraud, disinformation, malware, exploitation? How do we comprehend balance?

A basic problem with the line of thinking in this section is that it fails to differentiate the growth and revenue generating parts of online services from legitimate public safety efforts. I think we may need to develop a strategy that properly limits the data available for growth, while giving public safety work access to a larger set of data. Consider this IETF PEARG draft and the notion of replacement signals for counterabuse.

@dmarti
Copy link
Collaborator

dmarti commented Jan 24, 2022

I agree that it is important to leave out any mentions of nuisance advertising or similar annoyances. Annoying UX is not necessarily a privacy issue (although it can be, when dealing with it requires a person to do additional privacy labour.)

Legitimate public safety efforts are important, and in many cases those efforts will require improved privacy for service members and other key people. See Microtargeting as Information Warfare by Dr. Jessica Dawson.

@darobin darobin added the agenda+ Add to the next call's agenda. label Jun 27, 2022
@darobin darobin removed their assignment Oct 19, 2022
@torgo torgo added backburner and removed agenda+ Add to the next call's agenda. labels Jan 11, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants