h a l f b a k e r yI CAN HAZ CROISSANTZ?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
As governments learn how new systems are defrauded
they need to bolt on security to existing processes and
digital systems to cause them to be immune to hackers
and fraud and access to public funds.
Technologists invented TLS to protect web traffic from
malicious observers and OAuth 2 provides
authentication
to computers. Why can't we invent some thing that allows
new services to be rapidly created while preventing bad
people's abuse of them?
Surely society has collective wisdom of what bad people
shall do when given the opportunity. We invented locks to
prevent people from accessing our things or property.
Why not a society wide government protective lock?
In the UK the government was defrauded by people
applying for covid loans. Welfare benefit fraud and
attitudes towards the poor has caused the general public's
perspective to be punitive and adding barriers to poor
people in receipt of benefits to get them back to work.
I am proposing a framework partially digital that allows the
onboarding of new and old governance structures to be
handled by a single architecture that is secure against
badness of people.
How does it work?
We describe a process or procedure using a set of
primitives that are secure independently and compose
them into a combination that is secure against the badness
of people when combined together.
Typical services that any government service needs is -
Address verification, identity verification, case verification,
data sharing between departments, public funds received.
UK government is trying to modernise all its services and
use technology to solve the hassle of administration. This
is the Government Digital Service (GDS)
But each system is separately built! There's a common
checklist that each service must satisfy. Each service has
to independently implement scaling, web security and all
the protections against fraud and bad people.
Let's use our collective wisdom of how to prevent not
genuine fraudulent requests from bad people from being
fulfilled. There is a number of protections that must be
generatable.
High end Security should be a service.
21 Quest's Welfare reform compromise
Welfare_20Reform_20Compromise_20_2321
Interesting debate of poor people [chronological, Apr 20 2022]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
8th described people as "humans are nasty, greedy,
selfish and venal, and immediate start to try and work
out how to beat the system." |
|
| |
Let's identify what is exploitable and lock against
them |
|
| |
Are you one of the bad people? |
|
| |
//We describe a process or procedure // |
|
| |
Not very well you don't. All I saw is "unify identity verification". |
|
| |
Fraud is a cost of doing business. You can build a system
which removes all fraud, but no-one will use it. The trick
(well, one trick) for the design of any system or technology
is to strike the balance between usability and prevention of
fraud. In the case of Covid loans, the general consensus at
among the lawyers the time was (a) "wahey here comes
loads of fraud and default" and (b) that fraud and default
is the cost of making sure the whole, enormously fragile
and interconnected UK service economy doesn't collapse.
In the case of, for example, benefits fraud, the relatively
low levels and values of the fraudulent claims are (to my
mind) an acceptable cost of being able to ensure that
people don't die of starvation of hypothermia. |
|
| |
Calum, when I look at publicly provided services such
as hospitals and libraries I compare them to private
equivalents and compare the goodness of them there
is always more money in the private equivalents.
They are simply more good. |
|
| |
So bad people are why we cannot have nice good
things. If we solve the bad people problem we can
have good things available to those that need them. |
|
| |
I don't see an idea here, just a poorly articulated wish list
with no real indication of how any of it that we don't do
already anyway would be done, as
it is this looks like WIBNI & Magic to me. |
|
| |
Sorry about that,
maybe I'm just not reading it right or something, but that is
what this looks
like to me. |
|
| |
I agree with Skewed on this.
Additionally, there is an assumption in this idea that people in 'government' are 'good' & people outside of government are 'bad'. I think it's at least as likely to be the other way around. |
|
| |
//If we solve the bad people problem [...]// |
|
| |
{ Gazes nervously across post- apocalyptic wasteland.
Wonders whether any of the blow-flies, rats or cockroaches
might also be bad. Realises it's too late to worry about that.
Who's that self- righteous arse, parking his ark on that
hilltop?
} |
|
| |
"Well what way have you been going about finding
them?" |
|
| |
"Well, we ask people 'Are you the enemy?' and if they
say 'yes' then we shoot them." |
|
| |