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

341–350 of 797 posts

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

#341

Post by speedstyle »

dyauspitr wrote: post #316
speedstyle wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could make it easy to ban on children's devices, rather than having websites do it. At the moment you either have a small set of allowed applications, which is fine for younger kids, or domain-list filtering which is unreliable, hard for parents to set up (and not that hard for kids to get around). There are many ways to improve the situation – I think websites should have to attach metadata about the content bei…

There’s no such thing as children’s devices. Everyone uses the same smartphones. Optional on device restrictions don’t matter as long as your peer group is on the platform, kids will not stop using it. People are not asking for biometric scanning, but I believe the vast majority would be OK with some sort of ID based authentication system. Now there are ways we can do that in a decentralized way where neither of the…

Are you saying parents would choose not to block it, or children would get around it? Like you say people want to block it, but currently it's very hard while allowing access to Google and other resources, or it's easy to get around. Why does this require server verification?

For example, all devices could require your ZKP ID attestation to be usable unfiltered. Then the relevant apps/sites would be equally inaccessible to children. And then you remove the ZKP ID attestation because the device owner (parent, school, etc) already knows when the user is a child.

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

#342

Post by tzs »

speedstyle wrote: post #287
Aurornis wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I dunno if you can legislate “better parental control ux”, If we must have something, I’m in favor of the OS-level flag where a parent can set the device as belonging to a minor and the apps and browser can receive the flag. Lock it behind the most basic parental controls that can be protected and remotely monitored. There are some loopholes with kids downloading apps that allow custom web requests without the flag…

It doesn't have to be sent anywhere, websites should send a flag when serving various types of content, so parental controls has the information it needs for filtering. Websites could still infer what's being filtered of course, but doing the decision on the client allows for much more granular/extensible categories of content, as well as allowlisting, time limits, etc. Some sites/proxies won't be marked properly, bu…

Filtering on the app side is more flexible. A game that has some levels not suitable for children could when on a child's device still let them play most of the game.

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

#343

Post by ElProlactin »

spwa4 wrote: post #336
ElProlactin wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And yet, compared to every military in the past, compared to the fact that war was seen as a normal thing in the past, compared to how it used to be standard to rape and pillage in the past, and that was just expected and fine and normal, current modern militaries of the West are exceptionally disciplined, and their use by politicians doubly so. Are you serious? During the Vietnam War era, the US dropped over 7.5 m…

I understand the Vietnam war is a sore point in America due to recruitment. But your comment is so incredibly one-sided that it's not a serious argument anymore. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viet_Cong_and_People%27s_Army_... The opposing party in the Vietnam war was far worse than the US on a moral level, before, during and after the war. And it wasn't a small difference. We're talking about democracy and democratic…

> the large majority of the population in Vietnam, including in the North, wanted the US to defeat the Vietcong and the Soviets.

The 1954 Geneva Accords, which ended the French war, called for nationwide reunification elections by July 1956. Those elections never happened. Ngo Dinh Diem, the US-backed first president of South Vietnam who was a brutal authoritarian, refused to hold them. The US backed his refusal and kept backing him afterward.

In Eisenhower's 1963 memoir, he wrote that everyone knowledgeable he'd spoken to believed Ho Chi Minh would have taken around 80% percent of the vote if elections had happened.

The Vietnamese didn't really care about the Soviets. They are a fiercely independent and proud people with a long history of defending themselves against foreign interlopers and aggressors.

So let me restate your asinine and totally inaccurate conclusion:

The large majority of the population in Vietnam, in both the North and the South, didn't want a foreign power controlling their country and determining their fate. They wanted to run their own country, and have peace.

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

#344

Post by b112 »

ElProlactin wrote: post #326
b112 wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet, compared to every military in the past, compared to the fact that war was seen as a normal thing in the past, compared to how it used to be standard to rape and pillage in the past, and that was just expected and fine and normal, current modern militaries of the West are exceptionally disciplined, and their use by politicians doubly so. Of course, that doesn't mean we can't do better and shouldn't. But we do…

> And yet, compared to every military in the past, compared to the fact that war was seen as a normal thing in the past, compared to how it used to be standard to rape and pillage in the past, and that was just expected and fine and normal, current modern militaries of the West are exceptionally disciplined, and their use by politicians doubly so. Are you serious? During the Vietnam War era, the US dropped over 7.5 m…

OK. Now compare the entire world's militaries, over the last 50 years, worst-for-worst act. Or since you mentioned WWII, what's the worst done by armies during that time? Hmm?

After all, you're trying to find and hold up the worst the US has done, right? So to compare, you need to find the worst in modern militaries. In militaries of all time. That was what I discussed, after all.

I was quite clear. Compare to all of history. Compare to all militaries today.

Instead you grab at part of an action, and hold it up, without making that comparison. Still.

As a Canadian who has had your current ridiculous president state that we should be the 51st state, and belittled us by calling our Prime Ministers "Governors"? Who has talked about unilaterally redrawing borders? As a Canadian who has considered how I may have to one day slaughter Americans crossing our border? How I may have to look my brothers in the eye, and kill them? I still say that the US military has been a shining light for freedom around the world. If I can remain impartial, then surely you can.

I also say that about police officers in the West, including the US.

Are there bad actions taken by police departments? By individual officers? By groups of officers, over the last decades? YES! Yes, most assuredly.

Now compare the overall score with police in totalitarian regimes.

Comparison is vital, important, key, and any finger pointing has to be in context.

And also note, I said "yes we must do better".

But if you think the US military is evil, then you have never seen evil. Ever.

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

#345

Post by b112 »

ElProlactin wrote: post #343
spwa4 wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand the Vietnam war is a sore point in America due to recruitment. But your comment is so incredibly one-sided that it's not a serious argument anymore. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viet_Cong_and_People%27s_Army_... The opposing party in the Vietnam war was far worse than the US on a moral level, before, during and after the war. And it wasn't a small difference. We're talking about democracy and democratic…

> the large majority of the population in Vietnam, including in the North, wanted the US to defeat the Vietcong and the Soviets. The 1954 Geneva Accords, which ended the French war, called for nationwide reunification elections by July 1956. Those elections never happened. Ngo Dinh Diem, the US-backed first president of South Vietnam who was a brutal authoritarian, refused to hold them. The US backed his refusal and…

The large majority of the population in Vietnam, in both the North and the South, didn't want a foreign power controlling their country and determining their fate. They wanted to run their own country, and have peace.

And yet, the poster you're replying to said no such thing. Not even close. They merely said they wanted help repelling an enemy. You're also using hindsight to frame this conflict, something entirely unfair to the people involved at the time.

The US repeatedly tried to get out of that war. Multiple times. They just kept getting pulled back in.

edit

--

Re your response. Were they ordered to rape and pillage by their full chain of command?

Or were they acting illegally, regardless of the outcome?

Would a military in a dictatorship have deemed that "illegal"? What about 200 years ago? 1000?

You seem to be ignoring the concept of comparables. And taking acts that the military itself teaches its own soldiers, was wrong.

It's good to have principles. And good to defend them. But if you ignore what others are saying, and the context of their words, you start to slide into zealoty.

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

#346

Post by Llamamoe »

areoform wrote: post #88

For the first time in human history, the cost of surveillance has dropped below the cost of privacy. It is more expensive today to maintain your privacy and anonymity than it is to surveil you. The collective surveillance grid makes it possible to track people's movements, whereabouts, their predilections, political views, personal images and more for a few cents every day. It's a bargain. And in this new world, the…

The question I would really like the "people" pushing so hard for surveillance to ask themselves is:

How would the Nazi Germany and Hitler gone if they had this system in place, telling them who and where every single Jewish, gay, gypsy, disabled, or just ideologically opposed to them person was, 24/7?

What about other insane rulers? What do you think they would - or rather, will - do with these systems?

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

#347

Post by intended »

dmitrygr wrote: post #184
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.

> parents genuinely do worry a lot about their kids As they should. Perhaps they can put their efforts into parenting and not into limiting our freedoms?

This is coming up again and again because The current status quo does. Not. Work.

There is direct evidence from trials, in which Meta researchers told executives that features like infinite scroll and others “ are inherently at odds with well-being”

There is no effective fight for freedom if there is no effective understanding of the politics and social forces driving change.

The freedom of the internet in the 90s was in itself a social revolution, not just a technological one.

Fighting for a status quo that didn’t work for children and even for many adults is a losing fight.

Fighting for privacy and against ad tech, and against addictive design features for all users is a far stronger fight.

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

#348

Post by Llamamoe »

dionidium wrote: post #111
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.

> 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.

Oh, I'm sure a lot of those people have been convinced to back these laws out of sincere desire to protect children.

The problem is that those laws are NOT designed to protect children, and the people who convince politicians and the public to support them are NOT doing so out of genuine concern to protect children.

The real, underlying reason why they are being pushed for so hard is to destroy privacy and control people which is going to make everyone but the elite less safe, children included.

Especially if and when we get another Nazi Germany type regime and realize that - oh shit, they have 24/7 overview of where every single person in the world is, what they do, what they think, what their worldviews and identities are.

It's impossible for any of this to end well.

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

#349

Post by intended »

somenameforme wrote: post #320
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.

You're straw manning most people by trying to insist upon this, as most Americans support a ban on social media for children. [1] That turns into the overwhelming majority if you consider only Americans with children. And the percent of Americans that oppose things like age verification for the usage of social media sites is in the single digits. So it will most likely happen especially because you are certainly righ…

Conversations on age verification tend to split into 2 streams.

Conversations where the root submission talks about failures at social media firms and the evidence of harms, or evidence from trials.

Conversations on the attacks against freedom and privacy.

I see very little hope that an actual rebuttal or alternative to the desire to muzzle tech will be forged, because the two conversation streams seem to rarely intersect.

We are not in the 90s anymore. Tech as most people experience it is not the new new thing, and most parents are tired of tech. A more recent pew survey showed that nearly half of teens think that social media is bad for teens. We know that Meta went ahead with features even after their own internal research told them it was bad for teen mental health.

How in hell, is there any effective response created, if the social pressure parents and children are driving, is being dismissed as a conspiracy?

This should be the time that the business models and incentives that allow loot boxes and addicting design mechanisms should be discussed.

There needs to be an actual solution that addresses the issues users are facing, or else they are simply going to choose to sacrifice freedoms for the hope of gaining some control.

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

#350

Post by ElProlactin »

b112 wrote: post #345
ElProlactin wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the large majority of the population in Vietnam, including in the North, wanted the US to defeat the Vietcong and the Soviets. The 1954 Geneva Accords, which ended the French war, called for nationwide reunification elections by July 1956. Those elections never happened. Ngo Dinh Diem, the US-backed first president of South Vietnam who was a brutal authoritarian, refused to hold them. The US backed his refusal and…

The large majority of the population in Vietnam, in both the North and the South, didn't want a foreign power controlling their country and determining their fate. They wanted to run their own country, and have peace. And yet, the poster you're replying to said no such thing . Not even close. They merely said they wanted help repelling an enemy. You're also using hindsight to frame this conflict, something entirely u…

> You're also using hindsight to frame this conflict, something entirely unfair to the people involved at the time.

Millions upon millions of people around the world protested the Vietnam War, including millions of people in the US.

On one day alone, an estimated 2+ million Americans participated in anti-war protests. Over 500,000 men were officially categorized as draft dodgers, more than 200,000 charged with violating the Selective Service Act and millions more found a way not to go to Vietnam through deferments and exemptions.

It's both amusing and sad that there are some people (like you) who 50 years later can't see what was apparent to so many people at the time.

> The US repeatedly tried to get out of that war. Multiple times. They just kept getting pulled back in.

That's right. Those pesky Vietnamese villagers just wouldn't let American GIs stop torching their villages, gang-raping their women and children, and executing them. The American military was trying to leave but spreading democracy demanded sacrifice.

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

Post reply on HN