Hacker News Reader

Comment by rekabis | Hacker News Reader

If you want “papers, please” every time you back out of your driveway or go beyond your government-assigned oblast, then your suggestion is the digital version of the physical authoritarian nightmare that was imposed by totalitarianist regimes throughout history.

People have a right to complete anonymity, and should be able to go across the majority of the Internet just as they can go across most of the country.

That’s what you are missing.

Don’t get me wrong, I am also in favour of a single government ID, but in terms of combatting identity fraud, accessing public resources like single-payer healthcare, and making it easier for a person to prove their identity to authorities or employers.

It should not be used as a pass card for fundamental rights that normally would have zero government involvement.

View on HN

>>> People have a right to complete anonymity

Why? (Am not trolling. Genuinely interested)

I walk out my front door in the UK and I am not anonymous. Every transaction I make either identifies me through bank, railway or other id, or quite simply by my face standing in front of the coffee seller. My walk down the road is observed by neighbours and postmen.

Should my government arrest me without cause or trample on my free speech rights, I get that’s a problem but I am not sure why being anonymous helps. Having rights upheld by the courts helps, well trained police who respect the law helps.

I am honestly open to debate on this but I do find the “what if Hitler took over government where would we be” to be a problematic argument not a final answer.

> Should my government arrest me without cause or trample on my free speech rights, I get that’s a problem but I am not sure why being anonymous helps. Having rights upheld by the courts helps, well trained police who respect the law helps.

You're suggesting the same government that would violate your rights would then help prevent it? I don't follow. Any power structure (tiered or not) was wiped away by authoritarians, historically. They will not be helping in the worst case. Ideological capture (corruption) has already started eroding at UK rights and that took a much less overt effort. America has had a robust 3-branch system (executive, legislative, judiciary) corrupted by a singular cult of personality. THAT was highly unlikely to happen, but here we are.

With this being said, I do predict that anonymity on the web is going to be phased out. It will result in all sorts of changes to cultural norms across western nations that largely will curtail rights. I dread it.

Shouldn't we try tracing IP addresses and fining organizations for letting the traffic through or originating the traffic first? Seems a lot simpler.

Sorry maybe I should be clearer - the problem of tyrannical governments is not solved by being anonymous online, or indeed any technology that makes it hard for government to do the tyrannical things. Safety lies in an engaged citizenry that reacts to fundamental threats. The protests against the ICE in Minnesota being an example.

>>> It will result in all sorts of changes to cultural norms across western nations

I quite agree - but I (hope / think) that the benefits can outweighs the downsides if done well. Those nations that do it well will I believe find a rocket like boost to society and industry perhaps akin to post 1945 world. Those who don’t will fall behind.

> Every transaction I make either identifies me through bank, railway or other id, or quite simply by my face standing in front of the coffee seller. My walk down the road is observed by neighbours and postmen.

Are these the government? Is the bank the government? Is the rail company the government?

No? Then you have answered your own question.

A silo of identification between you and a service provider that uses the provider’s own tooling is still anonymity from government authoritarianism.

The fact that nearly all of these silos are leaky IRL - with the government eager to punch howitzer-sized holes through them for even more access - is not the point. It is a citizen-hostile flaw that needs patching through loophole-proof legislation, not an ID system that would violently eradicate any remaining separation of government from capitalism.

Remember: when government and capitalism rides in the same cart, it is called corporatism, and is the basis of Fascism. Which is what is happening to America.

The problem here is that pretty much every part of modern life has been government and capitalism riding in the same cart - from cities installing electric power stations 100 years ago, to roads and inventions like the transistor and internet itself was government and private capital working towards common goals.

The issue is we want “good” government and “good” corporate behaviour but not the bad. And knowing the difference especially ahead of time requires engaged citizenry, lots of feedback mechanisms that are not overwritten by corruption and noise in the mechanism (ie primaries materringnmore than elections is a feedback mechanism fail in my book)

> The problem here is that pretty much every part of modern life has been government and capitalism riding in the same cart - from cities installing electric power stations 100 years ago, to roads and inventions like the transistor and internet itself was government and private capital working towards common goals.

And here is your argument’s fatal flaw: mistaking public works, that benefits the commons and society as a whole, with government tracking.

The two are NOT the same.

Just a sec - you said: “”” Remember: when government and capitalism rides in the same cart, it is called corporatism, and is the basis of Fascism. ”””

The implication being when gov and big business get together bad things do happen. My point is they can happen yes, but also same players can make good things happen - it depends on the players (and regulatory and reporting and voting and and and )

Government tracking can be good - tracking covid cases good, tracking criminals planning robberies good. It it can also be bad.

This is imo why this is such hard problem - there is no clear answers only something we want sensible courts to (quickly) decide upon based on good laws.

> Just a sec - you said: “”” Remember: when government and capitalism rides in the same cart, it is called corporatism, and is the basis of Fascism. ”””

>The implication being when gov and big business get together bad things do happen. My point is they can happen yes, but also same players can make good things happen - it depends on the players (and regulatory and reporting and voting and and and )

I think you need to go back and take some elementary courses on economics and how governments operate.

Public works are not “government and corporations in the same cart”. If that’s what you are coming to, that only demonstrates your ignorance bleeding out all over the place.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com