Doesn't really matter, as those things move the Overton window.
Tomorrow, when the US, China, and EU adopt similar laws, there wont be any "foreign services" to use.
And yet the US has all kinds of surveillance apparatus to de-anonymize internet users...
Even if you take the parallel construction angle, no politician except maybe a dinosaur that is super-secure in their position (on the federal level that would be people like Pelosi, Fienstien, etc.) is going to tolerate that because if the other side can prove you knew then you're not going to have a job after the next election.
Obviously we need to remain vigilant but there are existing feedback mechanisms that generally prevent wide spread abuse.
Politically, I don't know how it's possible to look at the current climate and think it will work against mass surveillance. Politicians will just shy away from directly confronting the issue. Whenever any spotlight gets close, the agencies will continue categorize it as national security / tough on crime / etc. The best political ally is seemingly the judiciary, and that itself will only slow things down.
This is codifying forced attribution for everyone into law.
The US philosophy is to do passive surveillance and assemble the pieces after the fact, rather than mandating ahead of time requirements. Which means that US-based services will continue to be unhindered by such requirements, appearing "anonymous" to the rest of the world.
As more people globally are turned off by ID requirements, if they're able to flee to US services, then they're actually walking into a more sophisticated passive surveillance flytrap. USG will have ever more surveillance over other countries, without even having to clandestinely place taps.
Close allies will be given access through FVEY and the like, making that relationship even more lopsided. But allies' domestic law enforcement won't be, so they'll still be clamoring for more simplistic mandates requiring ID, further driving the process.
So, it wouldn't surprise me, if the current administration would at least attempt such ideas.
More importantly, it's purely a private business asking for your ID in this case, and only as an age check. In the vast majority of cases they don't record or really care about anything except your date of birth. No bar I've ever been to kept any kind of record that would have enabled them to tell the government that I had visited the establishment.
Either way, I routinely get comments about where I live, how my hair looks now, my birthday (coincides with a major date in the US). It’s very low level invasion of privacy, but most of the time I don’t want to small talk at the grocery store, I want to finish what I need to and go. N=1 and all that, but I get the point. At least no one under 21 ever drinks here.
Not that the UK and USA don't have some problems in that area
To clarify, anonymous speech is protected by the First Amendment.
With certain limitations. If someone anonymously offers drugs on the 'dark web', that is not protected, of course.
Anybody got an ideas, on what we are supposed to do when that happens
It would be hard and would likely attract only technically-minded individuals to use.
... and police forces: a nice feature of leaving a few gaps that motivated users can use is that the police can focus its limited resources on the those interesting targets.
That way, participation by servers and clients would be plausibly compulsory. Both because it would evade protection, and because sympathetic admins and users could "accidentally" let it install. And that would provide plausible deniability.
A plausibly deniable user interface would be the hardest part. It'd probably need to self install, and then securely delete itself after use.
only few things you can do (in that order depending on how bad it escalates), 0) start to learn about prepping and live a more unplugged live 1) flee and take refuge in a place that others call "backward" 2) take up arms and defend yourself
#2 will get you labeled a terrorist (though so was Count Stauffenberg)
If you're worried about someone taking your guns be worried about the state police.
Move to the next of the four boxes, though ideally before it happens. We need to advocate for important civil liberties and reasonable limits on the power of the state, but we do also need to then act according to that advocacy ourselves, for example by voting for people who take these issues seriously or funding legal actions to challenge excesses. A lack of public awareness of these issues and the potential implications for normal people's everyday lives is a big part of the problem, and as coldtea suggested above, shifting the Overton window is going to be crucial to improving the situation. It just needs to shift the other way from where a lot of the authoritarians in power today are trying to push it...
I actually would really welcome online activities no longer being anonymous.
I feel like a large part of why people on the internet are so terrible to one another is that there's really no accountability because of the anonymity.
This is true in many areas including hate speech or posting illegal/inappropriate material.
I suppose I don't know if I think it should be LAW that requires everyone be deanonymized, but I do wish people on the internet would treat each other closer to the way they do in real life.
Sounds plausible until you consider that many of the worst comments are written by real people logged in using their real Facebook accounts -
... and some of the best forums online don't demand anything but a username and password like here.
IMO real name policies are way less effective than some people want you to think, and they'll effectively prevent certain minorities from participating in online debates.
But in the meantime --Your ISP has informed that a foreign social media provider has connected to your account, identify yourself and provide your alias used on said social platform, or [insert consequences here]