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

The 'papers, please' era of the internet will decimate your privacy

expression.fire.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 655 posts

Re: The 'papers, please' era of the internet will decimate your privacy

#291

Post by frollogaston »

tqi wrote: post #58

> You’re not happy about it, but you hand over a photo of your passport and hope it doesn’t come back to haunt you. I think for this argument to carry weight with voters, privacy advocates need to be much more specific about what "coming back to haunt you" looks like. They do a little bit of it later on[1], but I think most people do a rough cost benefit in their head and decide that the small benefit outweighs the s…

Most likely there's some huge breach where all the IDs are stolen and resold, which would maybe fix this problem while creating a bunch of others.

Re: The 'papers, please' era of the internet will decimate your privacy

#292

Post by intended »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #269
iamnothere wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would love to have this be the argument. Parents would typically agree that giving your kids heroin, for instance, should result in prison time. Yet I doubt they would argue the same for social media! Perhaps there should be discussions about what neglect looks like with regards to internet access and whether or not we need societal boundaries around this, enforced via punishing parents, rather than punishing every…

Giving children access to social media should have the same parental neglect charges as giving them heroin. The current strategy of yelling "parent's should parent" does nothing to influence any sort of result. It's simply ineffective and makes people who say it look like slogan slingers rather than cooperating in any meaningful change.

> Giving children access to social media should have the same parental neglect charges as giving them heroin.

This is probably the most interesting angle of discussion I’ve seen in the past few days on this topic.

Re: The 'papers, please' era of the internet will decimate your privacy

#293

Post by intended »

Geezus_42 wrote: post #229
madrox wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like a great idea, but I think we should also try to solve human trafficking online.

Creating a surveillance state isn't going to solve human trafficing.

As the parent poster pointed out, doing nothing and pretending this doesn’t happen doesn’t fly anymore.

I guess, welcome to the middle age of tech? The part where you have to pick up the pieces and clean up the mess that you see around you.

Re: The 'papers, please' era of the internet will decimate your privacy

#294

Post by intended »

bigbuppo wrote: post #166
madrox wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the lie is to look at the problems we have that the internet has enabled and say "things are ok as they are don't try to do anything to solve it."

If the problem is "social media bad for kids" then any parent that allows their children to access social media is as guilty of abuse or neglect as a parent that lets them play in traffic. Throw the parents in prison and put the kids in foster care. Problem solved.

That is a bold statement to make, and I wonder how many more people would be willing to make the same statement whenever these conversations come up on HN.

Re: The 'papers, please' era of the internet will decimate your privacy

#295

Post by drawfloat »

jolmg wrote: post #221
drooby wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should it also be their decision that they can gamble? Smoke cigarettes? Get a job? Have sex? We draw the line somewhere because these things that "are the parents' decision" have consequences on broader society. They have consequences that impact you and me. And we also have a say. You can make the argument that it's just the parents' decision. But you have to say why.

> Should it also be their decision that they can gamble? Smoke cigarettes? Get a job? Have sex? Not on the first 2 because they're illegal for minors. Yes on the last 2. A parent can e.g. forbid their minor from being employed if it's hindering their studies. They also have a say on their romantic partner and how they interact. If rules are not followed, they can e.g. be grounded.

...yes on the last? Might be in a minority on that one.

Re: The 'papers, please' era of the internet will decimate your privacy

#296

Post by UberFly »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #170
kklisura wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> privacy advocates need to be much more specific I'm starting to think we need to lean on conspiracy theories in order to get broader population on train with this - and I'm saying this in utmost regret. That's a borrowing game from a right wing/extremist playbook. Start with this: requiring IDs online is a first step in micro-chipping the population. ...or how about this: marxists/atifa/nazis/zionists/islamist/whoe…

> I'm starting to think we need to lean on conspiracy theories in order to get broader population on train with this - and I'm saying this in utmost regret. That's a borrowing game from a right wing/extremist playbook. How about "if you want to buy a dildo on aliexpress, you have to do a full scan of your face and send it to israelis"? I mean.. au10tix does age verification for aliexpress, it is an israeli firm, and…

It always gets back to the evil Jews with some people and ideologies. Sheesh.

Re: The 'papers, please' era of the internet will decimate your privacy

#297

Post by rockskon »

lovich wrote: post #247
rockskon wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first amendment doesn't have a clause that exempts Americans from anonymous speech if it's possible a foreigner could inadvertently take advantage of the freedom too. You may as well advocate for no one to be allowed to drive cars because of the possibility of someone getting into a car accident. Or (in case you're a fan of the second amendment) - advocate for guns not being allowed to be sold to law-abiding citi…

> The first amendment doesn't have a clause that exempts Americans from anonymous speech if it's possible a foreigner could inadvertently take advantage of the freedom too. Cool, ignore my point about technology changing the situation. I assume you’ll ignore Jefferson talking about how the constitution should be changed every 19-20 years because the world changed. > You may as well advocate for no one to be allowed t…

> Cool, ignore my point about technology changing the situation. I assume you’ll ignore Jefferson talking about how the constitution should be changed every 19-20 years because the world changed.

The Constitution doesn't have a "except when technology gets advanced enough" clause either. I checked.

You wanting the Constitution to change is something else entirely - and that's not what you're advocating for.

> That’s the literal reality with mandated car insurance. If you don’t have car insurance you can be banned from driving. What was your point here?

I fail to see what car insurance analogizes to here.

>Yea, the freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose. Freedom of speech to explicitly lie like Steve Bannon organized and many others using the “flood the zone” strategy seems to the be at the end of my nose. If you are actively lying to manipulate me or others knowledge of reality, that is not feee speech, that’s Machiavellian manipulation.

Speech is not violence. Comparing it to violence diminishes the suffefing and harm faced by people who have been a victim of violence.

You have the freedom to pay attention to whatever you want to - as do media outlets and political consultants.

Why should the entire country suffer because the media frequented by political-news-saturated people is so easily disatractable? They have the option to just...not...cover irrelevant nonsense.

It's not the option they choose to take though. See: The reflecting pool news cycle.

Re: The 'papers, please' era of the internet will decimate your privacy

#298

Post by debesyla »

monssooon wrote: post #277

Do you think that this will lead to a new version of a alternative "internet" where people try to avoid the government control? And is that even possible? Or will we all just comply?

Only if it can be turned into gray market business: additional layers of proxies and VPNs, and whatever new is invented.

As simple "I care about privacy" need is not a reason to bother with setup for a regular person. So it could work only if it's as easy, as current internet. And for profit businesses provide it.

As for another protocol all together: there are some experiments already, but again, why use those?

Re: The 'papers, please' era of the internet will decimate your privacy

#299

Post by laughing_man »

intended wrote: post #283
laughing_man wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There's two strong incentives - deanonymization for law enforcement is pretty useful so that's one. When you say it like that it sounds less scary than "deanoymization so the government can track down people saying things it doesn't like." Let's not forget the UK has more people in jail for things they said on the internet than Russia and China put together.

God, that sentence didn’t pass the sniff test, so I checked: https://pa.media/blogs/fact-check/fact-check-international-d... Don’t think that the claim stands up to scrutiny, since its comparing unlike things.

Reading your link, "comparing unlike things" looks like spin to me. "It's different when we do it."

Re: The 'papers, please' era of the internet will decimate your privacy

#300

Post by prmoustache »

wolvoleo wrote: post #211
hacker_homie wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought a solution to this would be to use a physical smartcard to store the certificate(perhaps on your government ID). if the protocol is a challenge/response and the private key never leaves the card it would make proxying without the physical card more difficult.

Yeah great idea, having to get out your government ID every time you want to use a website.

A certificate could be anonymous and the website would only need to verify it against the born_before_2008_root_cert in 2026. You could issue has many certs as you want and all would have a validity of 1 year so that websites only have to install at the maximum 2 root certs.
Post reply on HN