[ninjagoo]

It has been clear for a while that certain providers and services need to be regulated as utilities - Microsoft, Google, Apple, Visa, Mastercard, and soon Openai and Anthropic.

It should be illegal for these companies, just like utilities, to deny service to anyone or any entity in good standing for dues.

There is little hope for getting this through in the US where most politicians of any stripe hate the public, and the ones that don't have hardly any power. But it might be possible to do this in the EU.

Then, we non-EU folks need to apply for Estonian e-residency [1] which may get us EU regulatory coverage.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Residency_of_Estonia

[nostrademons]

It would not surprise me if these actions are coming at the requests of governments. Strong encryption is one of the few things that challenges their monopoly on information; they have a very strong incentive to apply political pressure to the maintainers of these projects to, well, stop maintaining the projects. We've seen this in overt actions that the EU takes; in more covert actions that the U.S. government is suspected of taking; and in the news headlines about third-world dictatorships that just shut off the Internet. Tech companies are perhaps the most convenient leverage point for these actions.

More regulation won't help here, because the regulation-maker is itself the hostile party.

What would help is full control over the supply chain. Hardware that you own, free and open-source operating systems where no single person is the bottleneck to distribution, and free software that again has no single person who is a failure point and no way to control its distribution.

[francosimon]

VLayer (my project) scans healthcare codebases for HIPAA compliance issues before they reach production. One thing I learned building it: developers rarely think about encryption until it's too late. Tools like VeraCrypt solve the "data at rest" problem, but the bigger issue in healthcare software is unencrypted data in logs and API responses — stuff that's much harder to audit manually.

[andai]

So like, TSMC, but syndicalist?

[aeternum]

>More regulation won't help here, because the regulation-maker is itself the hostile party.

It's easy to paint the big gov as bad, but this is a case where unfortunately the populace seems to be in agreement with the big bad gov. While most US citizens support encryption, 76% or so, the vast majority 63% also favor government "backdoor" access for national security reasons.

I guess either we believe in democracy or we don't. It could be said that if Veracrypt isn't/can't be backdoor'd, perhaps the gov is simply implementing the will of the people :( via Microsoft.

[koliber]

Tyranny of majority is a thing. It's something mature democracies are aware of and have the ability to defend against.

We're in an interesting spot here and the tension is tangible.

[account42]

Does the majority of the population even have a self-formed opinion on this or are they just parroting what the media tells them (which in many "democratic" countries is directly or indirectly controlled by the government, i.e. propaganda).

[jasomill]

American People Shrug, Line Up For Fingerprinting

WASHINGTON, DC—Assuming that there must be a good reason for the order, U.S. citizens lined up at elementary schools and community centers across the nation Monday for government-mandated fingerprinting. “I’m not exactly sure what this is all about,” said Ft. Smith, AR, resident Meredith Lovell while waiting in line. “But given all the crazy stuff that’s going on these days, I’m sure the government has a very good reason.” Said Amos Hawkins, a Rockford, IL, delivery driver: “I guess this is another thing they have to do to ensure our freedom.”

(source: The Onion, October 9, 2002[1])

[1] https://theonion.com/american-people-shrug-line-up-for-finge...

[joepie91_]

I'd be very wary about such specific surveys, because they're often very much not conducted in a scientifically responsible manner, and based on actual studies across the spectrum of political issues there's basically no alignment between public opinion/preferences and actual policymaking in the US.

Could this be the one exceptional case where people agree with the direction of policymaking? Sure. Is that likely? No, not really.

[phatfish]

What does democracy have to do with electronic encryption? Democracy existed before computers.

There are legitimate reasons for governments to intercept information, with the correct oversight -- enforced legally in an "checks and balances" manner. The fact that there is a breakdown of trust between government and people won't be solved with more encryption.

[aeternum]

A core tenet of Truecrypt + Veracrypt (developer guarantee) has always been no backdoors, even if requested by government.

If in a democratic society, the majority agrees that government should have backdoors (with the correct oversight). Then it follows that Veracrypt should be illegal as its use is not in alignment with the will of the majority.

I personally don't agree with the majority here but can you fault the logic?

[nostrademons]

Most forms of democracy do not have a direct correspondence between "the will of the people" and the actual policies enacted. As another poster mentioned, tyranny of the majority is a thing, and robust democracies have evolved institutions to deal with it. Otherwise there's nothing stopping the majority from periodically voting the minority off the island, Survivor style, until only a single dictator remains.

In the U.S. in particular, there's strong respect for individual rights enshrined in the Constitution, and a key role of the judicial branch is ensuring that those rights are respected regardless of what the majority thinks. The majority cannot enslave the minority, for example, regardless of what the legislature votes. Nor can it deprive it of speech or free assembly, or guns, or a right to trial by jury.

[cacophony1977]

It's pretty hilarious to me that you think the Constitution is anything more than a piece of paper. Or that the judicial branch cannot be co-opted. It's not magic champ. It's maintained by consensus.

[aeternum]

Ah so the iron law of oligarchy becomes our salvation

if only it were so simple

[MegagramEnjoyer]

That's why specialized agencies exist within the government body: FCC, FDA, etc.

aka leave it to the experts because the majority isn't qualified to make such decisions.

[bigfishrunning]

> vast majority 63% also favor government "backdoor" access for national security reasons.

Don't do math that way! That math is illegal! Good boys and girls don't keep secrets!

These people sound ridiculous

[prox]

We need a law that a human representative can be spoken to within 24 hours or directly when something critical happens.

Also “there is no appeal possible” should be plain illegal.

[apple4ever]

> Also “there is no appeal possible” should be plain illegal.

This. There should always be an appeal, to a real human you can talk too (not just a form letter or email).

[burnt-resistor]

Technofeudalism is what happens when grossly under-regulated anarcho-capitalism dominates rather than sustainable, more ordinary capitalism where government regulation is the supreme, minimized biased arbiter that keeps things fairer and sensible for the benefit of the many rather than the benefit of the few.

[gzread]

In the EU, under GDPR, it is legally required to explain automated profiling.

[ceejayoz]

We have a EU dev we tried to have submit a GDPR request for human review on something on Facebook.

There’s no apparent mechanism to do so. Support was clueless. The privacy email address responded weeks later with “not out department”.

[gzread]

As expected. However, since it's the law, there's some way to enforce it.

[estimator7292]

That's because the correct department is legal. GDPR is a legal mechanism, not a support and privacy thing.

"I'm doing it wrong and it doesn't work" means you're doing it wrong, not that it doesn't work.

[ceejayoz]

Even Facebook calls them "privacy rights".

And https://www.facebook.com/help/contact/178402648024363 doesn't work either. Black hole, as far as I can determine.

Their chatbot, when asked, sends you to https://help.meta.com/support/privacy/ and says:

> To submit a GDPR objection request on Facebook, you can use the Privacy Rights Request channel.

> Select Facebook as the product you want to submit an objection about.

> Choose the option "How can I object to the use of my information" and follow the instructions.

But that option doesn't exist.

[emsixteen]

How's that work? Got a link handy to explain to a dummy?

[buzer]

Article 13(2)(f)

"In addition to the information referred to in paragraph 1, the controller shall, at the time when personal data are obtained, provide the data subject with the following further information necessary to ensure fair and transparent processing: the existence of automated decision-making, including profiling, referred to in Article 22(1) and (4) and, at least in those cases, meaningful information about the logic involved, as well as the significance and the envisaged consequences of such processing for the data subject."

EDPB Guidelines on automated decision making: https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/article29/items/612053 especially page 25 is relevant

C‑634/21 is also somewhat relevant to understand how courts have applied ADM in general context of credit reporting https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A... though it didn't specify what information actually needs to provided for 13(2)(f).

[beng-nl]

I understand the sentiment, but.. do you realize how much more expensive that would make all these services?

I don’t know the number. But personally I think using the services and ‘simply’ only use them if the disappearance isn’t catastrophic and have the price be low or free while it works isn’t too bad a trade-off.

Admittedly that’s a big ‘if.’

[alemanek]

That is the wrong way to look at it.

If this requirement was in place they would be a bit more careful about terminating accounts because the cost equation would incentivize it. Maybe they would be more careful in their automation or require more than one level of human review before cutting off access.

These companies are gatekeepers for their platform. It isn’t crazy to require them to act more responsibly.

[prox]

These are usually multi billion dollar companies, they’ll be fine, stop worrying about them.

Start worrying about the erosion of your rights as a consumer.

[prmoustache]

I agree in that case but be wary with these kind of assessments. There are tons of regulations that are meant for big players but can also affect much smaller negatively.

For instance I don't think to this day it is possible to operate a Mastodon server and be compliant with GPDR and the UK online safety Act. There was the famous case of LFGSS forum about to shut down due to the former, the forum was kind of saved by a group of individuals willing to take the risk but the founder stepped down from fear of legal risks.

There hasn't been home raided and servers and personal computers seized yet but that doesn't mean it can't happen and technically any EU or UK volunteer hosting some forums or open source based social media that isn't GPDR or online safety act compliant could be at risk. For most I believe it is not that they don't want to be compliant but they aren't aware of that and/or don't have the technical means without further development on the software they are using and despite them not abiding to their own user rights, most of their users would be more sad to see them shutdown than the current status of not obeying the law.

[HackerThemAll]

Look how much profit Microsoft made last year.

"Financially, it was a year of record performance. Revenue was $281.7 billion, up 15 percent. Operating income grew 17 percent to $128.5 billion." https://www.microsoft.com/investor/reports/ar25/index.html

So don't be so naive to tell us that 1-2 additional people to handle the appeal process is anything but rounding error in their balance sheet.

[rangerelf]

If it's impossible for a service provider to even talk to its customers, why is it in operation at all?

[_imnothere]

They sure do earn enough money to afford whatever number that is on your mind.

[zelphirkalt]

Even if they somehow were so expensive, that it would no longer scale to their size, that is still not our problem and if anything, a sign that either they need to improve their systems, or simply cannot be as big as they are. Shit happens, scale down, I won't cry for them.

[harel]

Honestly, it's not our problem. Once a service becomes so vital it cannot be terminated without any meaningful process. My meta developer account is suspended and none of my appeals are responded to . Who can I talk to? Nobody. It's wrong.

[stevenicr]

Have a similar problem. Ran meta ads for about a week, account shutdown. asked to verify ID. Jumped through the hoops. Got a notice perma ban, decisions final.

I still don't know why. I've talked to their chat bots many times. I can't run facebook or instagram ads ever again is seems. (also can't boost posts and some other things mentioned)

Considering they are doing some big push for small business success with meta / facebook / instagram, and our AI helps small business do amazing things...

That just seems like fraud to me considering the experience I have gone through.

Part of me thinks if I had a business that made most of it's money from advertising that I would help people make ads that align with their policies - I got so many generic - follow our terms, community guidelines - nothing explains what they heck is wrong. No way to fix it. No way to keep running ads.

This is your business, this is your AI, this is your policy, and you are trying to promote a welcoming space for small business and a dependence on your AI?

[chromacity]

> I understand the sentiment, but.. do you realize how much more expensive that would make all these services?

It wouldn't. For example, before Gmail, email was often free or nearly free (bundled with your internet service), but in most cases, you could talk to a human if you had issues with the service.

What we couldn't do is turn these business models into planetary-scale behemoths that rake in hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue. In essence, you couldn't have Google or Facebook with good customer support. I'm not here to argue that Google or Facebook are a net negative, but the trade-offs here are different from what you describe.

[alpaca128]

MS could literally double their global employee count with a fraction of what they spend on AI annually.

[amluto]

These services are designed such that security sort of depends on reviewing the programs that are allowed to run. Microsoft, Google and Apple all do this. It adds expense, annoyance, limitations, and really very little security.

The contrasting approach, where one designs a platform that remains secure even if the owner is allowed to run whatever software they like, may be more complex but is overall much better. There aren’t many personal-use systems like this, but systems like AWS take this approach and generally do quite well with it.

[ethbr1]

> The contrasting approach, where one designs a platform that remains secure even if the owner is allowed to run whatever software they like

There's a lot that one can gripe about Amazon as a company about, but credit where credit is due -- their inversion of responsibility is game-changing.

You see this around the company, back to their "Accept returns without question" days of mail order.

Most critically, this inversion turns customer experience problems (it's the customer's problem) into Amazon problems.

Which turns fixing them into Amazon's responsibility.

Want return rates to go down because the blanket approval is costing the company too much money? Amazon should fix that problem.

Too often companies (coughGoogleMicrosoftMetacough) set up feedback loops where the company is insulated from customer pain... and then everyone is surprised when the company doesn't allocate resources to fix the underlying issue.

If false positive account bans were required to be remediated manually by the same team who owned automated banning, we'd likely see different corporate response.

[thefounder]

I don't think they would be so much more expensive but they would be less profitable for sure and perhaps less "innovative" as a big chunk of the profit will go into regulation stuff.

[BrenBarn]

They should probably be regulated as utilities and broken up into smaller companies, so that it's easier for people to migrate to alternatives when one company does something bad.

[x0x0]

I've gotten business verification for Microsoft before. The kind you need in order to get certain oauth scopes for their O365 platform.

Do not discount complete, total, utter, profound fucking incompetence as the driving reason behind this.

Getting the business verification was an astounding shitshow. With a registered C corp and everything, massively unclear instructions, UI nestled in a partner site with tons of dead ends. And then even after all the docs, it took another week because -- in an action that nobody could possibly have ever foreseen -- we had two different microsoft accounts due to a cofounder buying ONE LICENSE of O365 for excel and doing domain verification because it suggested it.

[miohtama]

If it is regulated as a utility, the government will want to ban these hacking tools.

[zelphirkalt]

I think the GP is relating to MS services and accounts as utilities that should not be possible to be taken away easily, not about Wireguard.

[JoshTriplett]

Agreed. Be careful what you wish for.

[zelphirkalt]

I have a feeling, that the resolve to do something about it is waning in the EU, because of the plans to soften up the GDPR.

[NewsaHackO]

It always weird to see how dichotomy of some people saying AI will never be profitable and are doomed to fail and others saying that they are such a essential public service that they are a utility and should be subject to government regulation. Hopefully they are not the same group of people, but I suspect there is a greater overlap that one would expect.

[jonathanstrange]

I'm not one of those people but want to point out that there isn't much of a contradiction there. I don't know if hospitals, universities, train tracks, roads, and libraries technically speaking count as utilities but they overall don't seem to be profitable and at the same time are extremely desirable for a society and an economy to have. AI could turn out to be of the same sort.