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

471–480 of 806 posts

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

#471

Post by Scaled »

fyredge wrote: post #453

I simply do not understand the optaphobia of the tech literate. Social media already tracks it's users with or without laws. The general populace simply will not wish to anonymize themselves on the internet. So ID Laws only serves as a benefit by restricting children. Regarding pornography, the demand will always be there. Adding ID tracking will just shift the business model to be more covert, which is also a net be…

One of the lobbyist organizations is backed by the data broker industry (AVPA). And it's well known several privacy rapist corporations (Meta) are also backing these bills. So yes, it absolutely affects us, and that should be obvious.

I'm convinced the pro comments are astroturfing. They've been caught doing it already on Twitter for these bills.

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

#472

Post by sophrosyne42 »

fyredge wrote: post #453

I simply do not understand the optaphobia of the tech literate. Social media already tracks it's users with or without laws. The general populace simply will not wish to anonymize themselves on the internet. So ID Laws only serves as a benefit by restricting children. Regarding pornography, the demand will always be there. Adding ID tracking will just shift the business model to be more covert, which is also a net be…

Similarly, I do not understand the willful ignorance and bootlicking attitude of those who want to support coercing others into sharing orivate information.

The reasons are mentioned every single time these laws are brought up, I can only assume you're willfully ignoring the concerns people have:

It's a security black hole, increasing our attack surface astronomically.

It causes undue compliance costs for websites to meet basic security standards.

It does not reliably prevent the determined teenager from bypassing these restrictions, e.g. with a vpn, but imposes enormous costs on allegedly a nontarget demograpgic (e.g. everyone else). Small benefit with a large cost is a bad policy.

The problem is entirely manufactured by bureaucrats, the public is concerned with gas prices and making ends meet. The parents that are concerned about their child's internet access can and do take the appropriate precautions because child controls already exist.

Whatever justification is given, the end result is mass surveillance, with the expected consequences in reduction of personal and social liberties. This is nothing to scoff at.

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

#473

Post by segfaltnh »

chr15m wrote: post #254

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.

Every time I see this take I remember the time my step father picked me up by my throat and body slammed me on the floor. I was 12. I've had tinnitus ever since. Children really do need protection from some parents. I'm glad you had a good upbringing, be well.

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

#474

Post by gadders »

stuaxo wrote: post #372

If you're going to take an aspect of UK law it would be better to take some aspects of the police training: how long they are trained, how to do de escalation, the idea of policing by consent. (I realise UK police are far from perfect).

Where "policing by consent" means "only policing people who won't react violently when we try and prosecute them for breaking the law".

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

#475

Post by tim333 »

pipes wrote: post #467
tim333 wrote: post #438

I'd dispute there is a UK war on anonymity just because they've tried to stop showing kids porn and the like. The UK has always been kind of pro anonymity - there was ID during WW2 but it was scrapped after. There have been revolts against ID cards, you don't have to carry a driving license to drive and things like that. We've always had child protection though - film certificates, over 18 to buy porn mags etc. The n…

You are measuring only the inconvenience you have directly experienced. Not the impact on wider society. Whistle blowers, journalists, religious apostates, people unsure about their sexuality all rely on annonimity on the internet. I can't find the Times article but government officials have clearly stated that this isn't about protecting children, it's about controlling political discourse online. They are now float…

>Whistle blowers... all rely on anonymity

Sure - open an email not in your name, write to papers not in your name, whistle blow away. It still works. I've got various anon accounts - no problems so far.

Not sure about the trusted source bit although the likes of x and youtube seem to do that anyway a bit - give more prominence to medical experts than antivax cranks for example.

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

#476

Post by GlacierFox »

segfaltnh wrote: post #473
chr15m wrote: post #254

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.

Every time I see this take I remember the time my step father picked me up by my throat and body slammed me on the floor. I was 12. I've had tinnitus ever since. Children really do need protection from some parents. I'm glad you had a good upbringing, be well.

The meat of the subject isn't about protection from physical violence here though is it? I mean, yeah, have governmental protection for kids against abusive parents - obviously. But in regards to the breadth of the Internet and tech, I think it needs to be focused on the endpoint - the actual parents.

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

#477

Post by GoblinSlayer »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #398
chr15m wrote: post #254

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.

Said parents and guardians cannot protect their kids all the time - they have their own responsibilities like work. Most kids go to school during the day. The few that aren't grow up in homeschooling systems or cult-like environments, which are their own problem. I frequently see this rhetoric (parents should look after their kids) from naive people on the internet that clearly don't have kids of their own (or don't…

All people were kids and know first hand what it means to be a kid, no need for vetted authority on that.

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

#478

Post by sophrosyne42 »

ytoawwhra92 wrote: post #284
chr15m wrote: post #254

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.

No ID checks at clubs, bars, or other adults-only venues. No school zone speed limits, or protected crossings on streets near schools. No requirements for railings on public balconies, fencing around public pools, protective covers over drains or other holes in the ground. Parents/guardians can just supervise. Sounds great!

Ok, take it the other way.

You want to marry someone? Make sure the government approves for your safety.

Want to make dinner? First you have to send the recipe to your local overseer with proof of your safe cooking credentials or you will have to pay heafty fines for noncompliance.

Want to make love, read a book, speak your mind, make a contract with someone, work the job you want? Sorry, you can't decide that yourself, first the politburo must approve it.

Sounds great!

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

#479

Post by GoblinSlayer »

inigyou wrote: post #447
GoblinSlayer wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) venue is in meatspace, 2) age can be eyeballed, 3) they don't routinely hoard data, 4) they don't routinely leak hoarded data, 5) they aren't monopoly with billions of users routinely extorted for PII, 6) they don't routinely leak all that hoarded data, 7) they don't have bots, 8) they aren't connected to PRISM for routine surveillance, 9) they don't routinely leak all the hoarded data, 10) they don't sell hoarded…

> 1) venue is in meatspace, 2) age can be eyeballed, 3) they don't routinely hoard data, 4) they don't routinely leak hoarded data, 5) they aren't monopoly with billions of users routinely extorted for PII, 6) they don't routinely leak all that hoarded data, 7) they don't have bots, 8) they aren't connected to PRISM for routine surveillance, 9) they don't routinely leak all the hoarded data, 10) they don't sell hoard…

They are possible, not necessary.

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

#480

Post by codedokode »

Here's my idea how "safe mode" might be implemented without selfie, passport and without every app or website owner having to spend money on compliance.

The mobile and desktop OS should have a checkbox "child mode" in the onboarding stage. Switching device to "child mode" allows only installing white-listed apps from the government list and opening white-listed websites from the government list. Parents may edit the white lists but not required to do anything other than checking a box and setting a password, or registering a fingerprint, or a paired device.

The white-listed apps and websites (who volunteered to be included into the white list) must implement measures to ensure safety. Another option for a website to opt-in is to add a HTTP-header claiming safety. White-listed sites may be subject to additional regulations.

Non-white listed apps and websites are not required to implement anything, including checking age, asking for selfies etc. If the parents add a website to the white list, it becomes their responsibility to ensure that it does not contain any harmful content. For example, if parents allow their child to use Telegram, Telegram is not obliged to do any age checks and content restrictions.

My proposal achieves safe environment for all ages, but at the same time:

- based on liberal principles of voluntary participation rather than on totalitarian principles like most other proposals

- doesn't require any age checks, selfies or passports

- doesn't require adult websites to do anything and spend money for compliance, unlike most other proposals which assume that every business must spend money on moderation and compliance

- only those sites and apps that want to be in the white list, have to spend resources

- doesn't require banning VPNs as VPNs will not be approved for inclusion into a white list

Post reply on HN