Hacker News Reader

Comment by DaltonCoffee | Hacker News Reader

Needing gov't ID to follow search links is dystopian, and antithetical to the original spirit of the Internet.

Google should flat out refuse when governments make these requests.

It looks like it is for YouTube and Play content, not search links.

If so, I don't see how it is any more dystopian than the ID requirements that have long been in place for non-internet media. I don't recall anyone calling it dystopian back in the '70s for instance when we had to show ID to rent movies from the "adult" room at the local video rental store.

When you shown ID to the local video store, no record is made. And the video stores usually were not connected to a global interconnected graph of customers data.

Worst case scenario, you had a paper card somewhere in a drawer with your name on it.

After showing ID, did the rental place record it, the video you rented, when you rented it and for how long, then store that information in a database shared with other outlets of the giant multinational conglomerate which it belongs to, sell it to advertisers and corporate security, and make it available on request to governments of the world?

And was this process duplicated for every other piece of media you consumed, to create a full profile of your interests?

A large change in quantity changes quality as well.

This is a mistake we make over and over and over.

It practically seems like a type of cognitive bias based around technology.

We use some similar technology from the past to model the implications of the new technology and then willfully ignore the fundamental change brought about by digitization and network connectivity. The strangest thing is everyone understands how powerful network connectivity and digitization are in the abstract but when it comes to the concrete we brush it off like it is not.

This is just like renting The Terminator from the video store in 1989. What could possibly go wrong?

Agreed, and not sure why the early downvote wave you experienced there. I am surprised to see this sort of sentiment downvoted on HN.

I've done my part to correct this injustice. I am curious what kind of person downvotes such opinions

edit: point taken. I had read the "google should flat out refuse to follow the law" bit. oops

I'll explain why I downvoted - because I get a little bit sick of these slippery slope arguments that every time Google has to follow a law that, while controversial, is not exactly the last breath of a despotic régime, that people love to decry Google as "being evil".

The fact is, there are gray areas. When it comes to government regulations, tech companies essentially have 2 options: comply or leave the country in question (note Google has already tried to lobby against the law in question). While "leave" sometimes is the only moral option, I totally disagree that this law warrants Google leaving Australia.

Then we agree, at least in principle.

I don't know the details of this legislation but I have viewed Australia as a beta test for new tech legislation and worry this sort of authorization barrier could become more common place in Western countries.

Consider then if Google had decided to leave it would have had a huge negative backlash on the law, given the usefulness of Google.

Instead Australia can now get what it wants and the backlash is minimal at best. Meanwhile they can go on to celebrate their dystopian law as working because of the endorsement Google gave them by capitulating.

Short term yeah it'd suck for Australia to lose Google but then the law gets changed back, Google comes back, and everyone wins. Well except for the Australian government.

I find this reaction, well, odd. It is basically arguing that we want giant multinational corporations to have more power than democratically elected governments.

I see diatribes all the time on HN bashing companies like AirBnB and Uber for "blatantly ignoring the law" to get what they want, and here are a bunch of people wishing for Google to blatantly ignore the law to get what they want.

You have a point. However I don't believe anyone here's advocating that Google ignore or break laws. But rather, to (as done with China) voluntarily withdraw certain services in response to arguably-unacceptable duress.

[note: that is not my position here - I'm merely clarifying part of the discussion]

I must add, being relatively familiar with Australia's tech sector and it's people, that there is not a great deal of respect in the sector for the tech choices made by Australia's incumbent government of recent years. Whether or not that sentiment is ethically trumped by the fact of that government's democratic election by the general populace, is up to the reader...

> I totally disagree that this law warrants Google leaving Australia

I think most people have this opinion, but I wonder if they would have the same opinion if the country in question is a non-Anglo non-West but democratic country like India or Brazil

For the record, i think Google should leave

> I wonder if they would have the same opinion if the country in question is a non-Anglo non-West but democratic country like India or Brazil

I for one would have the same opinion. India and Brazil may have lots of corruption but they are still functioning democracies.

If it were Russia or China I would have a different opinion.

i think regimes in china and russia feed on this type of hypocricy quite succesfully

I disagree, but appreciate the explanation rather than vote and run.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com