Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fury at Facebook as login requests “Government ID”

thedrum.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 233 posts

Re: Fury at Facebook as login requests “Government ID”

#201

Post by ZoFreX »

alextingle wrote: post #130
ZoFreX wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can refuse to let you into my house if you won't show me your passport. If you don't have a passport, then I can just refuse to let you in no matter what. How does that change if I'm running a business? Or a web-site? Well, you would presumably be keeping some kind of record of my ID. Perhaps you write down my name, date of birth, and passport number. As a business, in the UK you would have to (amongst other obli…

I'm not sure the DPA needs to come into it. If a nightclub bouncer checks your ID, then he's free to forget all about it once he lets you inside. If all FB do is set an "ID checked" flag (and discard data collected as part of the checking process) then I think they'd be in a similar position - I'm not sure whether you could successfully argue that an "ID checked" flag could count as additional personal data. (Then ag…

I agree 100%, a simple "ID checked" flag would be OK. Where I think the DPA fits into it is that without the DPA, a lot more people would store those details just because. With the DPA in place I'm a lot more comfortable sharing information like that, knowing that either they just store a flag, or if they store more than that I am protected.

Re: Fury at Facebook as login requests “Government ID”

#202

Post by fennecfoxen »

pirateking wrote: post #185
fennecfoxen wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Texting while driving" has a simple, safe, more-or-less equivalent substitute: texting while not driving. Facebook, insofar as it is a widely-adopted and community-preferred communications tool, does not: network effects and all that.

Actually it does. The more or less equivalent substitute to "communicating on the internet with Facebook" is "communicating on the internet without Facebook". Facebook is a subset of Internet communication just as driving is a subset of texting scenarios.

The difference is that you can reach the exact same people paying the exact same amount of attention to the exact same channels by choosing texting-at-rest over while-driving.

Re: Fury at Facebook as login requests “Government ID”

#203

Post by zymhan »

falcolas wrote: post #189
mhurron wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to take issue with just one statement here because I'm short on time - > special kind of oppressor to tell you ... who you are allowed to love and allow into your family. They don't. You can have a polygamous marriage all you want, you can have an open marriage, you can be as gay as you want. However, husband, wife, father, mother, son, daughter and what not also have legal ramifications, and that is where…

> You can have a polygamous marriage all you want No, you can't. It's illegal in most states (see how the "Big Love" family had to move due to pending prosecution in Utah). > you can be as gay as you want. Not if you're male - sodomy is illegal in many states (despite a Supreme Court ruling that pretty much shuts them down) in the US, and many other countries entirely [1]. > [The law] has nothing to do with any moral…

> Not if you're male - sodomy is illegal in many states (despite a Supreme Court ruling that pretty much shuts them down) in the US, and many other countries entirely [1].

Even if the law is on the books in some states, it cannot be enforced due to the ruling in Lawrence v. Texas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas). Also, sodomy is not limited to gay men (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy).

> Laws are derived from the morality of their times. The laws against murder, and exceptions thereof, are based on what society believes is wrong and right.

Certainly there are laws based on morality, but it's absurd to claim that all laws are. Laws regarding the legal status of married people also help standardize common relationships. Can you imagine having to precisely define your non-married long-term relationship every time you fill out a form at the doctor's office or bank? The legal concept of marriage exists largely to codify the shared responsibility of each spouse when it comes to contracts, financial obligations, child care, etc.

Re: Fury at Facebook as login requests “Government ID”

#204

Post by CamperBob2 »

mhurron wrote: post #181
sneak wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These legal ramifications should be either abolished or applied to everyone who applies those titles equally. Anything else is state-sponsored discrimination and harassment, which is our current sad state of affairs.

Your wife can mandate health care when you are otherwise incapable. You have 7 wives. Who has final say. You get a divorce from one wife. What does she get? These are just two things off the top of my head that throw a monkey wrench in things making the 'just abolish it' not quite as simple. As for 'state-sponsored discrimination and harassment' just no. That is people and their attitudes, legality has nothing to do…

Your wife can mandate health care when you are otherwise incapable. You have 7 wives. Who has final say.

I do. In the contract.

You get a divorce from one wife. What does she get?

Whatever the contract says.

Any other questions?

Re: Fury at Facebook as login requests “Government ID”

#205

Post by Xeoncross »

falcolas wrote: post #189
mhurron wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to take issue with just one statement here because I'm short on time - > special kind of oppressor to tell you ... who you are allowed to love and allow into your family. They don't. You can have a polygamous marriage all you want, you can have an open marriage, you can be as gay as you want. However, husband, wife, father, mother, son, daughter and what not also have legal ramifications, and that is where…

> You can have a polygamous marriage all you want No, you can't. It's illegal in most states (see how the "Big Love" family had to move due to pending prosecution in Utah). > you can be as gay as you want. Not if you're male - sodomy is illegal in many states (despite a Supreme Court ruling that pretty much shuts them down) in the US, and many other countries entirely [1]. > [The law] has nothing to do with any moral…

> Laws are derived from the morality of their times.

Yes and no. Some laws are universal wrong - like murder. However, government laws like banning drugs are based on the feelings and opinions of the people at the time.

Both of these are evident from the history of civilizations. Murder has always been wrong - drugs not so.

Re: Fury at Facebook as login requests “Government ID”

#206

Post by zymhan »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #204
mhurron wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your wife can mandate health care when you are otherwise incapable. You have 7 wives. Who has final say. You get a divorce from one wife. What does she get? These are just two things off the top of my head that throw a monkey wrench in things making the 'just abolish it' not quite as simple. As for 'state-sponsored discrimination and harassment' just no. That is people and their attitudes, legality has nothing to do…

Your wife can mandate health care when you are otherwise incapable. You have 7 wives. Who has final say. I do. In the contract. You get a divorce from one wife. What does she get? Whatever the contract says. Any other questions?

What contract? Are we going to have a standard contract specifying what you want to happen in every conceivable situation? Just imagine a some medical issues that could come up: kidney failure, liver failure, vegetative state, amputation, DNR, transplants, organ donation, etc.

Any number of unimaginable situations could come up, which wouldn't be covered by a contract, and which a human being has to make a decision that directly affects your life.

How do you handle loans? If I have 30k in debt, and I marry into a polygamous marriage, do the other spouses carry my debt? What if I die, then who owes the money? Not all tricky legal issues can be covered with a "well let's just make a contract."

Re: Fury at Facebook as login requests “Government ID”

#207

Post by zymhan »

john_b wrote: post #184
judk wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are welcome to live in the wilderness and call yourself whatever you want. If you want to live in a society you have to abide by rules to facilitate living together. Never has a legal name been an only name. Chinese names ,nicknames, Jewish names all exist.

The same argument applies equally to authoritarian regimes. Maybe sneak doesn't want to live in a society that enforces these rules, but simply has no other alternatives. Telling someone who criticizes their society to either take it or leave it is immature, and if such an attitude is widely adopted by the society as a whole it will simply cease to improve.

When you live in a society of hundreds of millions of people, all with their own view of how society should be run, you have to accept a certain amount of "take it or leave it," otherwise it will quickly devolve into paralysis or anarchy.

Re: Fury at Facebook as login requests “Government ID”

#208

Post by jrochkind1 »

Amadou wrote: post #90

How does Facebook intend to validate these government IDs? I'm pretty sure they can't. They want you to send a scan of some photo-id - that means that all the anti-tamper / anti-forgery tech that might be on the actual ID will be non-existent. If you are lying about who you are, it will take about 10 minutes in photoshop to come up with something that will pass their test. Are there any countries that even provide va…

You may be committing a crime of fraud to give them a doctored ID. Something you can be prosecuted for.

Doesn't mean you can't do it and maybe get away with it, but now if you are caught, the state can press charges and put you in jail. Which is quite probably good enough for facebook, they wouldn't neccesarily get any additional value from actually validating you with the government somehow.

Re: Fury at Facebook as login requests “Government ID”

#209

Post by BHSPitMonkey »

gliese1337 wrote: post #198
_xeah wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A person holding to this position will have no problem with a woman wanting to cut off a finger or remove a toe, but as soon as you consider the unborn to be a person that has a body, every right given to someone with a body would be extended to the body in the womb. Not trying to start any debate (I promise), but I would say it does solve the issue with abortion, because there is a human body in the womb, and would…

It does not, because the whole point of the abortion debate is that many people don't think that there is a human body with rights in the womb. The only thing that would 'solve' the abortion debate is clarifying the legal status of unborn fetuses as rights-bearing humans; clarifying the rights of humans without specifying who counts as human is pointless for this purpose.

> The only thing that would 'solve' the abortion debate is clarifying the legal status of unborn fetuses as rights-bearing humans

That is the debate. Your statement is tautological.

Re: Fury at Facebook as login requests “Government ID”

#210

Post by darkarmani »

_xeah wrote: post #186
ChikkaChiChi wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't solve the abortion debate. I used to say the same thing until someone explained to me that they are fighting for the same rights of the unborn children. I'm not saying that position is right or wrong; I'm just saying that said position exists.

A person holding to this position will have no problem with a woman wanting to cut off a finger or remove a toe, but as soon as you consider the unborn to be a person that has a body, every right given to someone with a body would be extended to the body in the womb. Not trying to start any debate (I promise), but I would say it does solve the issue with abortion, because there is a human body in the womb, and would…

> and would therefore have rights protecting it from being killed.

So what about the rights of the mother to suicide? Don't those rights conflict?

Post reply on HN