Why we're "blinding" ourselves to protect users

wardblog.substack.com

1 pointbennydog2243 comments

I struggled at first with trying to translate a technical framework (blind sigs/privacy pass) into a privacy feature end users would understand.

I ended up using the “casino” analogy to describe the new feature. Same thing, different words. The security knowledge stack is so dense that it helps to embrace analogies when explaining concepts to customers.

By “blinding” ourselves, we’re signaling to users that we’re making their data invaluable for marketing, analytics, or third party sharing. Think the EU “Reject unnecessary cookies” banner but on steroids.

> we’re signaling to users that we’re making their data invaluable for marketing, analytics, or third party sharing.

I suspect that what you meant to say here is that you're making user's data not valuable for those purposes, but what you've literally said is that you're making it incredibly valuable for those purposes.

"Invaluable" means "having incalculable monetary, intellectual, or spiritual worth"

Thanks for catching! I typed this up quickly so missed during a proofread.

Yes, we’re making this data not valuable by design, since it cannot be linked back to the originating user to report browsing history, etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com