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

The UK's war on anonymity has come to America

effort.news

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 793 posts

Re: The UK's war on anonymity has come to America

#251

Post by slopinthebag »

switchbak wrote: post #136
walrus01 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or guarantee that even if you provide such data to a nice, friendly, democratically run and ethically managed administration, that some future regime change to a completely different group of people won't result in catastrophic misuse.

This is the issue I have with most of my well meaning but somewhat politically uninformed friends. The idea of “wouldn’t it be good if …” (idealized scenario), is never followed up with a “yes, but …” (realistic evaluation of how politics actually works). Yes it might actually work out ok if a mythical benevolent dictator could manage things with infinite precision and unlimited compassion. I would imagine that has n…

Let’s keep the “gain as much power and grow as big as possible with whatever means necessary” machine as small as possible.

Re: The UK's war on anonymity has come to America

#252

Post by ColdStream »

soueuls wrote: post #236
6r17 wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

War is coming to Europe. At this point I'm even thinking about moving to China - at least they don't accept Zuckerberg checks. Tbf in my case I'm also a tech holder - so i'm just getting robbed.

I lived in China for a while a decade ago, studied at Tsinghua and did some research as well. IMHO you have more freedom in China than in Europe. Can you walk on the street and say "Fuck Xi Jinping" like you would in France with Macron? Probably not. But it's a completely useless freedom to have. At least in China you get relative safety when you walk on the street at night. And when the government decides to restric…

I will update an old Yakov Smirnoff joke.

You see, China and the US aren't that different you know. In the US, I can go up to Donald Trump and say "I don't like Donald Trump. The policies of the republican government are rubbish!"

In China, I can go up to Xi Jinping and say "I don't like Donald Trump! The policies of the republican government are rubbish!"

Re: The UK's war on anonymity has come to America

#253

Post by spawarotti »

slopinthebag wrote: post #248
spawarotti wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> is never followed up with a “yes, but …” (realistic evaluation of how politics actually works). OK, but following this logic, shouldn't we disband the government altogether and have mafias rule us all? When is it acceptable to hope that something is actually going to work well enough when handed over to the government?

Following this logic, shouldn’t we all just do nothing and parish in the same spot we’re standing in? Or perhaps you’re not actually following the logic but rather an oversimplified characterization of it?

I am still curious: when is it acceptable to hope that something is actually going to work well enough when handed over to the government?

Re: The UK's war on anonymity has come to America

#254

Post by chr15m »

The right people to protect children are those responsible for them - their parents and guardians.

If there is a problem with children not being sufficiently protected, that is the level at which to solve it. Give families tools and information to do so.

Re: The UK's war on anonymity has come to America

#255

Post by romanhounds »

zmgsabst wrote: post #233
slg wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>When a politician is worried about your kids, you should be worried about your rights and freedoms. Not only for your own sake but for your kids too! What rights and freedoms should I worry about when a politician wants to make sure my child is fed by supporting food stamp programs or free hot lunches at school? The idea that any attempt to help a child is inherently suspect honestly says something distrubing about…

In the case of food stamps, that was the leverage by which social engineers destroyed the black family via incentives for single mothers — collapsing from 75% married (circa 1950s) to 25% married (modern). The “Welfare State” is nothing but modern share cropping from the party of Jim Crow.

[dead]

Re: The UK's war on anonymity has come to America

#256

Post by adrianN »

cobbzilla wrote: post #117
dionidium wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Whatever argument they make should be simply ignored and dismissed. This makes very little sense. People sometimes appeal to the safety of children cynically, but it's very often sincere, since parents genuinely do worry a lot about their kids . You can tell people to ignore these appeals, but it won't work, and you'll be leaving better arguments on the table.

Yes it’s normal to worry about your kids. It’s normal for family and friends to worry about your kids. When a politician is worried about your kids, you should be worried about your rights and freedoms. Not only for your own sake but for your kids too!

There are many scenarios in which politicians can be legitimately worried about the kids. For example if they want to install crosswalks and enforce speed limits around a school, or if they want to increase funding for social services.

I do believe we should allow for a lot more nuance in our political opinions and avoid most statements that can be made in the constraints of a short comment on social media.

Re: The UK's war on anonymity has come to America

#257

Post by chr15m »

drivebyhooting wrote: post #34

Like it or not, there is a large constituency who wants to “protect the children”. By demonizing them and failing to engage with the worries over social media and pornography We have brought it on ourselves. Is it to be wondered at that many people are angry when tech companies have polluted the commons with their effluvium?

The only constituency who matters is their parents and guardians. If parenting and guardianship is failing, then help them be better.

Re: The UK's war on anonymity has come to America

#258

Post by ColdStream »

iamnothere wrote: post #203
ColdStream wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is imbalance of power at play. They can keep floating this stuff and we have to put in a thousand times as much energy to shoot it down. We get worn down quicker than they can. It only has to work once for them, we have to keep pushing back. My very pessimistic take is one out of Taoism. If you wish for them to fail, let them grow. Eventually the weight of the whole system collapses itself, the question is just on…

You don’t even have to “let them” grow, they will do it regardless, as they hold the seats of power. But that doesn’t mean that silent acquiescence is the right path, either. Speaking up attracts like-minded allies. It’s also a good idea to maintain your own private means of communication, as there will be some hard times ahead.

Pretty much. It is a narrow path between, pushing back and ensuring safety. It can be done but you have to be careful.

Re: The UK's war on anonymity has come to America

#259

Post by TacticalCoder »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #3

> These NGOs have converged upon a unified strategy: use the rhetoric of ‘child safety’ to advocate for digital ID laws that would prevent adults from using the internet anonymously. Of course. Anyone who brings up kids is trying to manipulate you into giving up your freedom for security. Whatever argument they make should be simply ignored and dismissed.

> These NGOs have converged upon a unified strategy ...

Not just for the war on anonymity. NGOs, often funded by government money (so missing two third of their name), have unified on other topics.

One example that comes to mind is teaming up to organize the biggest influx of migrants into the EU following the arab spring movements: there have been hidden camera recording NGO employees explaining how to dodge controls, how to answer questions (by lying), and they've been actively helping sneaking people illegally in the EU.

A good question one could ask itself before downvoting me is this: if it's a fact that NGOs are teaming up, worldwide, to lie using the rethoric of "child safety" [1]... On which other topics did NGOs lie?

Or are we to believe all NGOs are good and well-meaning, except those working to end anonymity?

And before I forget: in Africa for example it's fully well known that NGO typical means "DGSE":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directorate_General_for_Extern...

There are french "doctors" in some of those NGOs who know less about medicine than what I know about medicine by having ex-girlfriends that were doctors.

By squinting one's eye just a little it look like NGO is not that far from a synonym of "shady undercover gov op".

And btw why should any of my taxpayers dollars go to even a single NGO if it's non-governmental?

And another big one: while some of those NGOs have been hard at work passing legislation which as a a result gets people arrested for "hate speech" (or even just for saying "christian prayers in their heads") in the UK, other NGOs are even harder at work making sure that the absolute most horrible of all hate speech cannot ever be criticized "because it's religious".

The double standards are literally insane.

If I was in the UK, I'd GTFO. And not to the EU.

[1] speaking of which, btw, there are serious allegations about NGOs participating in child trafficking, for example in the Haiti SNAFU

Re: The UK's war on anonymity has come to America

#260

Post by speedstyle »

judge2020 wrote: post #218
Aurornis wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s weird to see that locking down devices even further is being proposed as a solution to anything. The unspoken part of this requirement is that websites would have to block users who aren’t connecting via one of these attested, verified, locked down devices. There is the obvious loophole that using a VPN to a country without these requirements would circumvent it. That’s how kids are already circumventing age res…

Locked down devices are kind of the only solution that both (A) preserves privacy and (B) solves the problem. However, it indeed strips a user of the freedom to use their device in the way that they want; although, safe to say that the US doesn't have all that much problem with that, given Apple's continued market dominance. The alternative is what we're getting right now: laws that require verifying ID documents, of…

Client-side filtering solves the problem, because children's clients are owned by their parents. We should mandate that websites and apps send metadata about the content being served (eg extending the Rating: RTA header from 20 years ago) and mandate that OSs/browsers allow filtering to be easily configured at setup. This is a more private but also much more granular/useful solution, it's only difficult today because of a lack of coordination
Post reply on HN