Hacker News Reader

Comment by deweller | Hacker News Reader

This protocol is designed to not send any data that can be used to identify you directly or fingerprint your identity.

It's designed to gatekeep access to the Internet. This is a company's solution to a problem caused by the same company and we are all forced to participate.

As far as I understand, the problem is caused by massive networks of malware ridden computers and bots.

The problem is caused by other peoples reactions to computers and bots. Bots are the servers problem, not mine, my machine should not be involved in solving it. Same reason I block ad/tracking scripts, it's no my responsibility to ensure other peoples advertising contracts are upheld, that's their problem, if they can't solve it without involving me, too bad.

My comment was to point out what I think was an incorrect characterization in these words:

> company's solution to a problem caused by the same company

The “company” needed a solution to a problem caused by bad actors in the network.

Whether or not a company’s solution causes someone else to have a problem is a different matter.

That seems like saying that DDoS is the server's problem and that it doesn't affect you and that the issue is the server's response to bad actors, not the bad actors.

Like DDoS, bots become the problem of all users when they slip through.

Fair enough to disagree with the mitigation strategy. I suppose most web services wouldn't care to differentiate you from a bot.

Sure but, what about for instance bots on Twitter created to push all kind of agendas into our own country?

That's so wrong it's barely worth responding to.

It instantly narrows your identity down to an owner of a particular batch of hardware and will force you to have an OS owned by one of the big 3 tech companies installed (which will spy on you constantly) to function.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com