Comment by rektide | Hacker News Reader

Comment by rektide | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Yeah I absolutely hate it but yeah. Every time we feel sad & bad about the world, every time the Fear Uncertainty & Doubt is given places in our hearts, it makes us weak & susceptible. That's the premise of The Shock Doctrine & oh how sadly it's true.

The web has two horrific fronts right now on this. Google is creating two specs, one to only let Attested devices through, and one to transmit government ID. So only users on devices they can't control, with id by government, can participate at all. This is what fear is bringing us to. People will welcome this hell. The end of the War Against General Purpose Computing will come with applause, from those who have been sold the message to be afraid.

Coproate controlled devices only: https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/...

Government ID required only: https://github.com/WICG/mobile-document-request-api

Or also see the Android Protected Confirmation API, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35942710 https://security.googleblog.com/2023/04/secure-mobile-paymen...

What's the argument against requiring a government issued ID to interact with government systems?

I mean I understand a case for anonymity for whistleblowers, etc. but it seems like if you want to file a complaint with the FCC then requiring you to prove that you're a real person who lives in the United States seems like a reasonable thing?

How do we discriminate on what use cases are acceptable or not? How do we prevent arbitrary sites from abroad soaking up gobs of very exact detailed government signed data?

I don't see the active question as: are there valid uses? Maybe. Perhaps. But how can we create a tech so overpoweringly capable of destroying privacy at such a large scale responsibly, in a way that doesn't have horrific side effects?

You shouldn't need to pay money to file a complaint with the FCC.

You need to prove who you are for all sorts of government interactions. Even getting a passport requires a small fee.

Why should providing valid identification here be any different?

Yeah I’m sorry but a government ID seems like the solution to so many issues here. I want to be able to have online discussions about political elections while being sure the people on the other end are actual voters and not spammers being paid to swing elections. I want people who create accounts just to spam and run blackmail rings to be identifiable. We already have social security numbers, online IDs are not that big of a deal.

Or instead of pearl-clutching, how about suggesting something productive like a digital id that is only needed for public comments on work-in-progress legislation? There is quite a bit of daylight between that and 1984.

I don't hate the idea of this.

Ideally what I'd like & have suggested is that citizens be able to get attestation of their content at their desired level. I should be able to get anything I write signed by varying levels of government, federal, state, or county, or neighborhood. I should be able to opt into how much identity to share: name, initials, some rotating psuedorandom identitifer, age bracket , income bracket, other core data.

I've stated this repeatedly as I think the baseline of what I think a democratic society should offer, a way to enshrine real speech of citizens as citizens so desire. That would be a real service. What we have here is a vile screwing over of society by hostile powers thieving our liberties from us, locking down the world against humanity for their own sad shallow pathetic ends. These aren't pearls. These are basic rights to be human on this planet. Thanks.

Net neutrality, which allows Netflix to clog broadband pipes with entertainment, is a subsidy from broadband pipe provider to Netflix owners. Unlimited pipe cramming is not a human/corporate right.

> These are basic rights to be human on this planet.

Net neutrality and being free from government ids isn’t a human right ordained by god. That’s a whole new level of ridiculous. People will claim any policy dear to their hearts is a human right ffs

It's super weird to me that there are not one but two rebutalls arguing a topic that never came up?

Both from relatively longstanding ish accounts.

The comment I replied to stated that it was a basic human right on a human planet. Don’t pretend it didn’t and don’t go looking at account histories trying to write people off as trolls. Respond with substance or piss off, this ain’t Reddit

Lying liar lies. "It" (this entire thread) said & says nothing at all about net neutrality. This gets weirder & weirder, debating totally unmentioned topics, now with your absurd aggro & ad hominem assault.

"It":

> Ideally what I'd like & have suggested is that citizens be able to get attestation of their content at their desired level. I should be able to get anything I write signed by varying levels of government, federal, state, or county, or neighborhood. I should be able to opt into how much identity to share: name, initials, some rotating psuedorandom identitifer, age bracket, income bracket, other core data

So where again are we talking about what you & other dude jumped in with, seemingly out of nowhere?

I don't care where this is, this is indecorous of you & it's bizarre & unexplained. Blowing more smoke isnt helping.

Are you high? It said being free from government ids is a human right for a human planet in a thread about net neutrality.

I'm really not in favor of a government database explicitly tracking my political beliefs. That seems pretty "1984" to me.

You no longer have to imagine this.

The Minnesota State House, Senate and Governor seat are all controlled by the same party. That party is now planning to use their unchecked power to push through legislation for a program which will track all reported wrongthink:

https://news.yahoo.com/minnesota-lawmakers-lock-horns-over-2...

I have no idea what this supposed Minnesota law is, but I'm certainly not going to watch a video from Fox News to learn about it.

After 2016, I feel like I need to keep an eye on what is going on over there.

I find my life is overall more pleasant the less cable news I watch.

Agreed. Though it’s not localized to cable. Most non-local news is designed to incite fear/anger in you and push you to their thinking, not inform you of what’s going on in the world. In fact most news orgs don’t even work for their own news, they buy it wholesale from news aggregators like Reuters, AP, etc and put their own spin on it.

In my case, I found no benefit to any national/international news orgs and focus solely on local news on the county/state levels.

I don't think they're proposing a system where you're required to disclose your political beliefs... if you weren't comfortable sharing your beliefs with the government, you could simply not submit public comments

Only being allowed a voice if you don't fear reprisals doesn't improve things.

Seems better than an alternative: where the ones with a voice are those who created the most-effective bot network.

I don't feel like I have much of voice when I submit one comment to my legislators, and a kid from California submits 10 million (as mentioned in this case).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com