4 ms·

The US cannot implement a proper registry, large sections of the country would freak out.

by agentdrtran 9y ago

dforrestwilson 9y ago
Interesting. What sections?
- querulous 9y ago
  evangelicals. they believe any sort of government issued identifier is synonymous with the biblical 'number of the beast' and a step towards biblical armageddon
  - michel-slm 9y ago
    don't forget libertarians too.
- microcolonel 9y ago
  The sane. Frankly people who use this kind of language to insist that the only way to achieve this is through the state are just looking for excuses to be mean to people who don't trust the state. We've had public key infrastructure for a long time, we have also had legal attestation; the reason we don't use these things to secure this information is that nobody cares. When the state does it, you get breaches, but nobody gets all that upset. Just look at what happened with the data breach and subsequent coverup in Sweden. One person had half a month's salary docked, and that was it.
  - wwweston 9y ago
    It isn't that nobody cares. Many people definitely care. Maybe not everybody cares, and maybe even among those that do there's only some subset that's actually capable of proposing effective solutions to the problem. But I know plenty of normal everyday people outside the techsphere who would prefer if data privacy and authentication worked better and are scared by data breaches like this. The apathy is really more of a practical matter -- they don't feel like they understand the problem or know how to solve it, and they don't feel like they'd have the power to do something even if they did. They correctly realize that we don't have a system where entities like Equifax are accountable to individuals that care. The only way you'd get that accountability is through some kind of collective action. Same thing is true for widespread adopting of PKI-based schemes. Saying "nobody cares" is about as true as saying nobody cares if the oil in their car gets changed -- they don't want to have to pay attention, they don't want to invest in understanding/adopting, and maybe rightly so because there's so damn much that already requires attention. But you might get adoption among private institutions that matter by some kind of legal policy. A state-run identity registry and authentication solution isn't the only way, to be sure, and I think it's a weird shibboleth in the context of democratic republic run by elected representatives, but since it's not the only solution, nobody needs to die on that hill. But by the time you're talking about society-wide improvements that address the relevant problems, you're almost certainly going to be invoking government-like powers. The issue you've discovered here isn't about who/how many people care, it's about one of the limits of market-like institutions to transform some forms of concern into effective action. Something even for people who don't trust the state to think about.* (Also: "people who use this kind of language to insist that the only way to achieve this is through the state are just looking for excuses to be mean to people who don't trust the state" deserves an eye roll so hard. It's manifestly true that there are people out there who enjoy trolling, but the idea that's the only possible motivation is a non-starter and not a good way to indicate you yourself are approaching a conversation in good faith.) (* I also don't trust the state, just like I don't trust many forms of private power. But it turns out both can be situationally useful and beneficial if you can get the balance right.)
    - CamperBob2 9y ago
      Also: "people who use this kind of language to insist that the only way to achieve this is through the state are just looking for excuses to be mean to people who don't trust the state" deserves an eye roll so hard. You can roll your eyes all you want, but there are valid historical reasons for being concerned about the extent and disposition of the data that a government collects on its citizens or subjects. Corporations didn't intentionally kill 100 million of their own customers in the last century alone. It took governments to do that.
      - skj 9y ago
        There are certainly valid reasons to be concerned. The eye roll is for the comment about the sole purpose of being "mean" to people who disagree.
- wyager 9y ago
  Me. The less sensitive information on me that is centralized, the better for my privacy and security, as very clearly demonstrated by this leak. If you think Equifax's security is bad, wait until you see what it's like at any government agency that doesn't explicitly focus on security. It's also pretty unlikely that a credit bureau decides to use vast stores of personal information to prosecute people, but governments have done this several times throughout history, perhaps most notably during WWII.
  - gglitch 9y ago
    > The less sensitive information on me that is centralized, the better for my privacy and security This is interesting. I don't agree or disagree with it; I'm not informed enough to stake a position. But as a thought experiment, if we took it as given that any information a given entity tried to keep secure will eventually be revealed publicly, what kind of security infrastructure would we end up with?
    - Kalium 9y ago
      A highly de-centralized one, with information joined together across services only after authentication, authorization, and a lot of artificial identifiers. Or at least, in a context where the people driving product decisions place a high priority on security. In reality, we're in the world you hypothecate right now. Centralization is really convenient for a lot of uses, and security advocates are rarely in a position to impose the kind of privacy controls the rest of us might like. And the average people who buy services LOVE the convenience enabled by centralization - until there's a breach, and they disapprove for a few days.
  - Atheros 9y ago
    I don't think we're proposing a centralized information store- only an identity service.
    - wyager 9y ago
      "Real-name" identity services inherently need to know and store a great deal of identifying information. It's also naive to assume that the government would stop at a straightforward oauth service. They are going to add request tracking (if they don't have it already), background check data, etc. It's too politically and practically appealing to leave it even as privacy-preserving as, say, google oauth (which is a pretty low bar already).
- astura 9y ago
  Many (not all) Christians believe such a system to be the biblical "mark of the beast" as described in the Book of Revelation. That's the most politically significant opposing group, IMO.
  - ScottBurson 9y ago
    Uh, "mark of the beast". (I usually don't correct other people's spellos on HN, but this one could be confusing.)
    - astura 9y ago
      Thanks, fixed the typo.
- banned1 9y ago
  Pretty much everybody with a brain. Or who knows government officials with lists can turn many people into ashes. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1zxwka/what_kept_jews_from_blending_in_during_wwii/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/...

The US cannot implement a proper registry, large sections of the country would freak out.

dforrestwilson 9y ago

Interesting. What sections?

querulous 9y ago
evangelicals. they believe any sort of government issued identifier is synonymous with the biblical 'number of the beast' and a step towards biblical armageddon
- michel-slm 9y ago
  don't forget libertarians too.
microcolonel 9y ago
The sane. Frankly people who use this kind of language to insist that the only way to achieve this is through the state are just looking for excuses to be mean to people who don't trust the state. We've had public key infrastructure for a long time, we have also had legal attestation; the reason we don't use these things to secure this information is that nobody cares. When the state does it, you get breaches, but nobody gets all that upset. Just look at what happened with the data breach and subsequent coverup in Sweden. One person had half a month's salary docked, and that was it.
- wwweston 9y ago
  It isn't that nobody cares. Many people definitely care. Maybe not everybody cares, and maybe even among those that do there's only some subset that's actually capable of proposing effective solutions to the problem. But I know plenty of normal everyday people outside the techsphere who would prefer if data privacy and authentication worked better and are scared by data breaches like this. The apathy is really more of a practical matter -- they don't feel like they understand the problem or know how to solve it, and they don't feel like they'd have the power to do something even if they did. They correctly realize that we don't have a system where entities like Equifax are accountable to individuals that care. The only way you'd get that accountability is through some kind of collective action. Same thing is true for widespread adopting of PKI-based schemes. Saying "nobody cares" is about as true as saying nobody cares if the oil in their car gets changed -- they don't want to have to pay attention, they don't want to invest in understanding/adopting, and maybe rightly so because there's so damn much that already requires attention. But you might get adoption among private institutions that matter by some kind of legal policy. A state-run identity registry and authentication solution isn't the only way, to be sure, and I think it's a weird shibboleth in the context of democratic republic run by elected representatives, but since it's not the only solution, nobody needs to die on that hill. But by the time you're talking about society-wide improvements that address the relevant problems, you're almost certainly going to be invoking government-like powers. The issue you've discovered here isn't about who/how many people care, it's about one of the limits of market-like institutions to transform some forms of concern into effective action. Something even for people who don't trust the state to think about.* (Also: "people who use this kind of language to insist that the only way to achieve this is through the state are just looking for excuses to be mean to people who don't trust the state" deserves an eye roll so hard. It's manifestly true that there are people out there who enjoy trolling, but the idea that's the only possible motivation is a non-starter and not a good way to indicate you yourself are approaching a conversation in good faith.) (* I also don't trust the state, just like I don't trust many forms of private power. But it turns out both can be situationally useful and beneficial if you can get the balance right.)
  - CamperBob2 9y ago
    Also: "people who use this kind of language to insist that the only way to achieve this is through the state are just looking for excuses to be mean to people who don't trust the state" deserves an eye roll so hard. You can roll your eyes all you want, but there are valid historical reasons for being concerned about the extent and disposition of the data that a government collects on its citizens or subjects. Corporations didn't intentionally kill 100 million of their own customers in the last century alone. It took governments to do that.
    - skj 9y ago
      There are certainly valid reasons to be concerned. The eye roll is for the comment about the sole purpose of being "mean" to people who disagree.
wyager 9y ago
Me. The less sensitive information on me that is centralized, the better for my privacy and security, as very clearly demonstrated by this leak. If you think Equifax's security is bad, wait until you see what it's like at any government agency that doesn't explicitly focus on security. It's also pretty unlikely that a credit bureau decides to use vast stores of personal information to prosecute people, but governments have done this several times throughout history, perhaps most notably during WWII.
- gglitch 9y ago
  > The less sensitive information on me that is centralized, the better for my privacy and security This is interesting. I don't agree or disagree with it; I'm not informed enough to stake a position. But as a thought experiment, if we took it as given that any information a given entity tried to keep secure will eventually be revealed publicly, what kind of security infrastructure would we end up with?
  - Kalium 9y ago
    A highly de-centralized one, with information joined together across services only after authentication, authorization, and a lot of artificial identifiers. Or at least, in a context where the people driving product decisions place a high priority on security. In reality, we're in the world you hypothecate right now. Centralization is really convenient for a lot of uses, and security advocates are rarely in a position to impose the kind of privacy controls the rest of us might like. And the average people who buy services LOVE the convenience enabled by centralization - until there's a breach, and they disapprove for a few days.
- Atheros 9y ago
  I don't think we're proposing a centralized information store- only an identity service.
  - wyager 9y ago
    "Real-name" identity services inherently need to know and store a great deal of identifying information. It's also naive to assume that the government would stop at a straightforward oauth service. They are going to add request tracking (if they don't have it already), background check data, etc. It's too politically and practically appealing to leave it even as privacy-preserving as, say, google oauth (which is a pretty low bar already).
astura 9y ago
Many (not all) Christians believe such a system to be the biblical "mark of the beast" as described in the Book of Revelation. That's the most politically significant opposing group, IMO.
- ScottBurson 9y ago
  Uh, "mark of the beast". (I usually don't correct other people's spellos on HN, but this one could be confusing.)
  - astura 9y ago
    Thanks, fixed the typo.
banned1 9y ago
Pretty much everybody with a brain. Or who knows government officials with lists can turn many people into ashes. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1zxwka/what_kept_jews_from_blending_in_during_wwii/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/...