Hacker News Reader

Comment by tim333 | Hacker News Reader

I'd dispute there is a UK war on anonymity just because they've tried to stop showing kids porn and the like. The UK has always been kind of pro anonymity - there was ID during WW2 but it was scrapped after. There have been revolts against ID cards, you don't have to carry a driving license to drive and things like that. We've always had child protection though - film certificates, over 18 to buy porn mags etc. The new internet stuff seems like a half hearted child protection effort.

I'm a Brit who wastes time web surfing and the total impact on me so far is reddit asked for a selfie. It's very different from areas where they did have a war on anonymity like bank accounts and investments where you have to scan passports and stuff. I've heard no one at all suggest that for general web surfing.

View on HN

What country have you been living in? The UK is most certainly at war with anonymity: one of the highest CCTV countries in the world, key disclosure, OSA, KYC means yes you do need to scan your passport/ID now for any financial institution, Apple stopping full device encryption, the only thing left is ID cards and we will have no anonymity at all.

If you really believe the UK is a privacy-friendly and anonimity-friendly country then you have definitely been brainwashed. I can't think of a first-world country that's worse than the UK in this.

The nuance here is that only the state can deanonymise you[1], in the USA you can just pay a data broker. Sure the UK is the boogeyman here, but the reason why the federal government isn't making a fuss is because they already have the legal rules to force a backdoor.

[1] there are caveats, but the crucial point is its a legal process, rather than bidding war.

You are measuring only the inconvenience you have directly experienced. Not the impact on wider society.

Whistle blowers, journalists, religious apostates, people unsure about their sexuality all rely on annonimity on the internet.

I can't find the Times article but government officials have clearly stated that this isn't about protecting children, it's about controlling political discourse online. They are now floating the idea of forcing YouTube to give "trusted" public service news sources prominence. Again to control the discourse. That includes the BBC, which I personally have completely lost trust in.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/plans-for-prominence-of-t...

>Whistle blowers... all rely on anonymity

Sure - open an email not in your name, write to papers not in your name, whistle blow away. It still works. I've got various anon accounts - no problems so far.

Not sure about the trusted source bit although the likes of x and youtube seem to do that anyway a bit - give more prominence to medical experts than antivax cranks for example.

Yeah buddy, asking for a backdoor to all my private files on iCloud is just a noble attempt to protect children. What else are you selling?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com