• asbestos@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 month ago

    This paper is extremely technical (and rightfully so), but I wish there was a ELI5 or a decent explanation for us layman folks.

  • tekato@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 month ago

    How is this better than just mapping GPS data to a hexagon and sending that to the third-party?

    • dragbone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      Imagine you want use Google Home to manage your home (questionable decision, but bare with me for a moment). Whenever you get near your house it should turn on your lights and starts up the heating so it’s nice and toasty when you get home. In order to do this you need to constantly send your GPS data to Google so they can track when you get near your home. Even if your location data is slightly obfuscated (e.g. by rounding to nearest mile or some hexagonal grid) they still get a rough estimate of your location. What this paper uses is a “thing” called SNARK. You can think of it (for this example) like a function that computes if you are near your house or not. You then execute that SNARK on your local device with your current exact GPS coordinates. The result of that operation is a signed result that is the proof if you are near your house or not, without actually telling where exactly you are. This proof can then be sent to Google without much fear of giving them any data they don’t need. The privacy aspect is especially interesting whenever you are not nearby: it will just tell Google that you are not at home, they have absolutely no idea if you are at work, or in Australia, or on the Moon or wherever else. I think the main thing they did in this paper is to define some operations on SNARKs that lets you compute proximity efficiently.

      • noughtnaut@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Wait, that’s a dumb design. On a (way) older phone I had some automation running and all that location triggering was done on the phone and only connected to my home when I was in fact near it. Google (or any role party) shouldn’t need to receive live geo location updates.

      • tekato@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        30 days ago

        You then execute that SNARK on your local device with your current exact GPS coordinates

        No, that’s what I’m suggesting. The proposed method in the paper makes no use of GPS, instead it’s some peer-to-peer network.

    • _NoName_@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      I think it is spoof-resistant from the sound of it? You giving a valid proof-of-region via one of their circuit designs provides proof of your region but does not give your exact location, from the sounds of it.

      I’ll get back to you after I’ve read through it.

      • tekato@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        30 days ago

        Yes, looks like the actual advantage (or disadvantage , depending on who you are) is ensuring that you don’t send a false location to a third party.

  • WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    28 days ago

    here’s my newest invention, zero knowledge location privacy without snarks.

    app on phone periodically checks location. if home is near, it triggers home related actions instead of uploading the location to anywhere.

    now, where is the nearest patent office? /s