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

State Attorneys General Want to Tie Online Access to ID

reclaimthenet.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 109 posts

Re: State Attorneys General Want to Tie Online Access to ID

#31

Post by 13415 »

ls612 wrote: post #29

I’m going to go against the pessimism here and say that this is the US not Europe or the UK and the First Amendment has teeth. There’s ample Supreme Court precedent that anonymous speech is a protected right (Talley vs CA, Macintyre vs Ohio, etc) so I’d expect efforts like this to flounder in the courts if push came to shove.

What the US Supreme Court decides is much less relevant than it used to be because the US executive can and will simply ignore the decision. If anyone in the US administration breaks the law, they can be pardoned by the US president,if the president breaks the law, he's immune against prosecution based on a previous decision of the Supreme Court, and no court can enforce anything if the executive doesn't comply with the court order.

Re: State Attorneys General Want to Tie Online Access to ID

#32

Post by halJordan »

dwedge wrote: post #2

It's tiring how legislation like this is becoming predictable and feels inevitable. This article even mentions the verification needing to be embedded in the operating system itself, spelling the death of open computing

It's already the law in California. I don't remember any outrage here when it was passed there.

Re: State Attorneys General Want to Tie Online Access to ID

#33

Post by rockskon »

mothballed wrote: post #28
rockskon wrote: post #21

If this really bothers you, talk to your state AG's office and your federal lawmaker The worst that can happen is you don't change things. The best? Maybe you'll find a receptive ear. Your lawmaker stops co-sponsoring KOSA. Your state AG stops pushing for it.

Just as a note, federal officials are retaliating against those providing respectful comment on policy.[] So the worst that can happen could be worse than nothing. [] https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/department-of-homeland-s...

Did I say to provide feedback to the Trump administration - an entity that has not made an official stance on this matter?

No.

I said your state Attorney General's office and your elected federal Senators and members of the House.

So I reiterate - the worst that can happen is you don't change where things have been going to.

The best? Your elected officials bow out of this.

Re: State Attorneys General Want to Tie Online Access to ID

#35

Post by KoolKat23 »

dynm wrote: post #30

What I find puzzling about these proposals is that it SEEMS like they could be designed to achieve 90% of the stated goals with almost 0% of the loss of privacy. The idea would be that devices could "opt in" to safety rather than opt out. Allow parents to purchase a locked-down device that always includes a "kids" flag whenever it requests online information, and simply require online services to not provide kid-unfr…

I have not once seen a proposal actually contain zero knowledge proof. This isn't something exotic or difficult. It is clear to me there is ulterior motives, and perhaps a few well meaning folks have been co-opted.

Re: State Attorneys General Want to Tie Online Access to ID

#36

Post by rockskon »

rolph wrote: post #27
rockskon wrote: post #21

If this really bothers you, talk to your state AG's office and your federal lawmaker The worst that can happen is you don't change things. The best? Maybe you'll find a receptive ear. Your lawmaker stops co-sponsoring KOSA. Your state AG stops pushing for it.

i think the worst that can happen is you could be put on a list of dissention.

Being active about KOSA won't get you put on a "list of dissenters". This is an issue being pushed by the States and your federal lawmakers, not the executive branch.

Re: State Attorneys General Want to Tie Online Access to ID

#37

Post by dynm »

KoolKat23 wrote: post #35
dynm wrote: post #30

What I find puzzling about these proposals is that it SEEMS like they could be designed to achieve 90% of the stated goals with almost 0% of the loss of privacy. The idea would be that devices could "opt in" to safety rather than opt out. Allow parents to purchase a locked-down device that always includes a "kids" flag whenever it requests online information, and simply require online services to not provide kid-unfr…

I have not once seen a proposal actually contain zero knowledge proof. This isn't something exotic or difficult. It is clear to me there is ulterior motives, and perhaps a few well meaning folks have been co-opted.

FWIW, the EU is working on zero-knowledge proofs: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/commission-mak...

But I strongly prefer my solution!

Re: State Attorneys General Want to Tie Online Access to ID

#38

Post by sublinear »

dynm wrote: post #30

What I find puzzling about these proposals is that it SEEMS like they could be designed to achieve 90% of the stated goals with almost 0% of the loss of privacy. The idea would be that devices could "opt in" to safety rather than opt out. Allow parents to purchase a locked-down device that always includes a "kids" flag whenever it requests online information, and simply require online services to not provide kid-unfr…

I completely agree. The problem is the lack of compromise on both sides of the issue.

I wouldn't say it's a lack of understanding, but that any compromise is seen as weakness by other members of their party. That needs to end.

Re: State Attorneys General Want to Tie Online Access to ID

#39

Post by tired-turtle »

mothballed wrote: post #18
sixtyj wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people have been saying for so long that you should need a license to use the internet, and now that we have it, it's a little different than we intended :(

I'd argue it's more like KYC for the internet. Something HN users have brutally and ruthlessly defended for banking every time I argue it's a 4A violation (in fact, it's one of the most fiercely defended things anytime I bring it up). Give in 20+ years and you'll be called a kook for thinking otherwise.

Can you explain the connection between KYC in banking and the Fourth Amendment? How does KYC constitute a government search/seizure?

Re: State Attorneys General Want to Tie Online Access to ID

#40

Post by mothballed »

tired-turtle wrote: post #39
mothballed wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue it's more like KYC for the internet. Something HN users have brutally and ruthlessly defended for banking every time I argue it's a 4A violation (in fact, it's one of the most fiercely defended things anytime I bring it up). Give in 20+ years and you'll be called a kook for thinking otherwise.

Can you explain the connection between KYC in banking and the Fourth Amendment? How does KYC constitute a government search/seizure?

The government requires the bank to search your identity documents to open an account, even when there is no individualized suspicion you've broken the law as to why your papers need to be searched, as part of the KYC regulations passed post 9/11. Technically it's not in the statute that they actually search your documents, but rather enforced through a byzantine series of federal regulatory frameworks that basically require them to do something that approximates "industry standard" KYC compliance which ends up being, verifying the customer through inspecting their identity and perhaps other documents. This is why i.e. when I was homeless even my passport couldn't open an account anywhere -- they wanted my passport plus some document showing an address to satisfy KYC requirements.

Maybe I will have more energy for it tomorrow, I've been through this probably a couple dozen times on HN and I don't have the energy to go through the whole rigmarole today because usually it results in 2-3 days of someone fiercely disagreeing down some long chain and in the end I provide all the evidence and by that point no one is paying attention and it just goes into this pyrrhic victory where I get drained dry just for no one to give a shit. I should probably consolidate it into a blog post or something.

Post reply on HN