The UK's war on anonymity has come to America • Hacker News Board

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

#751

Post by GoblinSlayer » Tue, Aug 11, 2026, 10:58 PM UTC

kerkeslager wrote: post #715

TZubiri wrote: post #680

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pointing out a law you don't like in another country as justification to ignore local laws, or to critique internation relations policy, is a terrible argument. Some country has laws that some other country dislikes, therefore they should be able to ignore them? I think comes down to what influence you think you have. I'm a backend developer and sys admin, when it comes to international law, I think of it in relation…

> Some country has laws that some other country dislikes, therefore they should be able to ignore them? I don't know your political beliefs, but I'll say that conservatives make this nonsense argument all the time. Focus: the person you're responding to is talking about people going to jail for criticizing a leader or being gay or trans. These are violations of human rights. I can't speak for noir_lord, but for me, h…

[flagged]

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

#752

Post by txrx0000 » Tue, Aug 11, 2026, 11:05 PM UTC

lern_too_spel wrote: post #730

txrx0000 wrote: post #720

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do not mandate what x is, but they do mandate that you must say a specific age in any Internet-capable OS, and that age must be communicated to any software asking for it. Either comply with the law and utter an age, or you're breaking the law if you communicate online without such an utterance. It is using compelled speech to threaten your right to all digital speech. There are cases where compelled speech is c…

> Either comply with the law and utter an age, or you're breaking the law if you communicate online without such an utterance. Not you. The OS distributor breaks the law if they don't give you this ability. > And contrary to your claim, COPPA does not legally require service providers to ask every user how old they are, nor are users obligated to reply It requires service providers to ask if you are under 13 if they…

I disagree with your understanding of COPPA, but I'm not going to repeatedly argue over the precise boundries of COPPA because that's not the point. COPPA is not a First Amendment violation as I understood it, nor is California's AB 1043. The latter is still very bad, just not to the point of being unconstitutional (but it's close). AB 1043 would violate the First Amendment just like the Illinois one if it didn't add a last-minute open-source OS exemption.

> Not you. The OS distributor breaks the law if they don't give you this ability.

Ok, but that's a technicality and it doesn't change the fact that your entire ability to see/hear/say anything online is being gatekept by a legally-compelled utterance.

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

#753

Post by TZubiri » Tue, Aug 11, 2026, 11:43 PM UTC

kerkeslager wrote: post #715

TZubiri wrote: post #680

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pointing out a law you don't like in another country as justification to ignore local laws, or to critique internation relations policy, is a terrible argument. Some country has laws that some other country dislikes, therefore they should be able to ignore them? I think comes down to what influence you think you have. I'm a backend developer and sys admin, when it comes to international law, I think of it in relation…

> Some country has laws that some other country dislikes, therefore they should be able to ignore them? I don't know your political beliefs, but I'll say that conservatives make this nonsense argument all the time. Focus: the person you're responding to is talking about people going to jail for criticizing a leader or being gay or trans. These are violations of human rights. I can't speak for noir_lord, but for me, h…

> if any country has laws that violate [what I think are] human rights, then it is our ethical obligation to ignore those laws.

> I [..] help Russians criticize Putin

I'm not so much trying to get you not to do this at this point, just suggesting you don't do this, at least don't say that you do publicly, with your given name. Hopefully you are just larping, but if you are not, I think you'd be a public enemy of every country, not some high ranking Amnesty member.

On that note, I would recommend getting in touch with Amnesty International and getting to know the limits of what you can or cannot do (as a member of their organization). I still wouldn't want to be associated with Amnesty, but at least they do what they do without fucking shit up and getting incarcerated(except when they do).

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

#754

Post by antonvs » Wed, Aug 12, 2026, 12:10 AM UTC

Forgeties79 wrote: post #653

antonvs wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I can’t roll my eyes hard enough at you.

You're using "controversial" as a euphemism for "I'm basically MAGA now".

"Rolling eyes" doesn't come close to expressing what disdain I have for your position.

Educate yourself even minimally on this subject, or keep your opinions to yourself because no-one gives a shit about your right-wing conservatism.

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

#755

Post by kerkeslager » Wed, Aug 12, 2026, 12:31 AM UTC

TZubiri wrote: post #753

kerkeslager wrote: post #715

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Some country has laws that some other country dislikes, therefore they should be able to ignore them? I don't know your political beliefs, but I'll say that conservatives make this nonsense argument all the time. Focus: the person you're responding to is talking about people going to jail for criticizing a leader or being gay or trans. These are violations of human rights. I can't speak for noir_lord, but for me, h…

> if any country has laws that violate [what I think are] human rights, then it is our ethical obligation to ignore those laws. > I [..] help Russians criticize Putin I'm not so much trying to get you not to do this at this point, just suggesting you don't do this, at least don't say that you do publicly, with your given name. Hopefully you are just larping, but if you are not, I think you'd be a public enemy of ever…

Quoting "It's no inconvenience to you if I help Saudi Arabian gays hide their sexual orientation or help Russians criticize Putin." as "I [..] help Russians criticize Putin" is one of the most bizarre responses I've ever received here. I think I'm pretty safe saying what I actually said given Russian intelligence is probably capable of reading English.

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

#756

Post by kerkeslager » Wed, Aug 12, 2026, 12:34 AM UTC

ipaddr wrote: post #739

kerkeslager wrote: post #715

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Some country has laws that some other country dislikes, therefore they should be able to ignore them? I don't know your political beliefs, but I'll say that conservatives make this nonsense argument all the time. Focus: the person you're responding to is talking about people going to jail for criticizing a leader or being gay or trans. These are violations of human rights. I can't speak for noir_lord, but for me, h…

Humans rights change over time and are different in different places. Currently its not a human right to be able to marry an ai personality or a machine but it will be. 100 years ago it wasn't human right to marry same sex. Human rights are not fixed in time. We may see privacy rights becoming a human right soon or not depending on how things play out. Should having a dark sky at night be a human right currently we d…

There's a fundamental disconnect going on here.

You're talking about what humans believe are human rights. I'm talking about what human rights are.

The right to privacy is a human right, even if no government on the planet actually respects or formally recognizes it.

The right to privacy was always a human right, it's just that formal protections of that right have become more necessary as technology and society have advanced, resulting in more and more violations of that right. In 1791 the prohibition of unwarranted government search and/or seizure was close to adequate to protect the right to privacy, but with recording devices in our pockets, pervasive public surveillance, metadata tracking, and corporate involvement in surveillance, the 4th amendment no longer adequately protects the right to privacy.

This doesn't mean the right to privacy is new--the right to privacy has existed as long as humans have had a psychological need for privacy. It just means that new attacks on the right to privacy require new legal and technical protections against those attacks.

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

#757

Post by fyredge » Wed, Aug 12, 2026, 12:40 AM UTC

bothers wrote: post #736

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…

> And on the day the government decides to ban social media for adults, I say good riddance to it too. The government's response to Facebook intentionally being toxic and preying on children was to strip rights from its citizens. Banning social media is not on the table.

Do we say the same for age restrictions of tobacco sales? There must be a better way than "we can't".

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

#758

Post by pickleRick243 » Wed, Aug 12, 2026, 12:42 AM UTC

lonelyasacloud wrote: post #686

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.

> The right people to protect children are those responsible for them - their parents and guardians. How does the ability to successfully reproduce confer expertise in protecting children from perils of the 21st century, specifically internet porn, hate speech, cyber bullying, addictive platform design, etc? > If there is a problem with children not being sufficiently protected, that is > the level at which to solve…

Society is made up of families, i.e. children and parents. So yes of course it's up to society to solve these problems, tautologically. But that's not what you meant. Everywhere you wrote "society", you really meant "government". Might as well be honest about it.

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

#759

Post by mannyv » Wed, Aug 12, 2026, 12:50 AM UTC

That the internet is anonymity-preserving is an artifact of where it was invented.

In most other countries the state is mother and father.

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

#760

Post by ytoawwhra92 » Wed, Aug 12, 2026, 12:57 AM UTC

LeBit wrote: post #458

jfengel wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really don't believe that they are. Historically, communities raised children, and leaving everything up to parents is an anomaly.

You are talking about leaving "everything" to the parents. Those are extreme positions. There are things where you want the government to intervene. There are things where you don’t want the government to intervene. What I do in my bedroom should not be monitored by the government. Me speeding on the road should be monitored by the government. Conversations I am having online should not be monitored by the government…

> You are talking about leaving "everything" to the parents.

> Those are extreme positions.

It's a very extreme position, and yet on every HN thread about digital ID there are multiple, upvoted, top-level comments suggesting that responsibility for children's safety lies solely with parents.

Well, if that's the case, why do these commenters accept ID checks at bars and the other things I mentioned?

Move the goalposts all you want, but I replied directly to a comment which said:

> 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.

That is the context with which my comments should be read. I'm trying to point out how absurd that position is when you extend it to anything in the physical world.