4 ms·

Authenticity validation could be completely external from Facebook, and if they gave a shit about your privacy they would not only be OK with it but even push f

by hnarn 9y ago

Authenticity validation could be completely external from Facebook, and if they gave a shit about your privacy they would not only be OK with it but even push for it. Many countries already have crypto-secure solutions for verifying their identity when submitting things like tax forms. Facebook just needs to start using them, but they won't, and it's obvious why.

likpok 9y ago
> and it's obvious why. Because most countries don't have crypto-secure identity verification, which means Facebook would still need something like this? I suppose they could contract out to Experian (or other local providers) and ask you to answer some questions from your credit report, but I'm not sure that's really a good solution either.
- hnarn 9y ago
  I thought it was clear enough that I mean't that it's obvious why [Facebook will never implement it even in countries where it already exists]. It's not in their interest to do so, because it's not in their interest to protect the privacy of their users.
  - kinkrtyavimoodh 9y ago
    Just because you could only think of a sarcastic reason why Facebook doesn't want to do it doesn't mean that other reasons for it don't exist. That's precisely what the GP is saying—FB needs to come up with systems that work for literally the whole world.
    - hnarn 9y ago
      How is my reason sarcastic? I'm being completely serious. And yes, of course it needs to work world-wide but I think it's naive to think that's the primary reason FB would be doing it. They'd be doing it because they want complete control of the authentication ecosystem.
bhhaskin 9y ago
No. This is the absolute wrong direction and would likely help push for a Government Internet ID. This would complete destroy online anonymity.
- hnarn 9y ago
  The US isn't the world. "Government Internet IDs" already exist, and there is nothing inherent in them existing that eliminates online anonymity, it just removes it on Facebook (which is exactly the point).
  - bhhaskin 9y ago
    Imagine having to use your government ID to even connect to the internet. Having all your data logged and cataloged to your ID. At one point in time that is what the US government wanted to do. It starts by normalizing the action. Not a world I want to live in.
    - hnarn 9y ago
      You're completely de-railing the discussion and trying to respond to this nonsense in any constructive way would only de-rail it further. No amount of strawmen and US-centric "the government wants to enslave us all" propaganda will make me think that the now existing, well working digital ID systems available in the world (not the US) are the work of the illuminati, should be abolished, and/or will be surgically inserted into my brain in the near future. I made a point that there are already ways for Facebook, in certain countries, to verify the identity of their users, if they so please; and that Facebook will never use these because they'd rather control the system of verification themselves (prioritizing profit, not privacy and integrity of users). They could use the systems already in place and say "you know what, the state of Estonia is telling us this guy is who he says he is, we'll accept that". What you're doing is arguing against government-backed digital identification in any broad definition of the term, and you can have that opinion but it's off topic.

by hnarn 9y ago

likpok 9y ago

> and it's obvious why. Because most countries don't have crypto-secure identity verification, which means Facebook would still need something like this? I suppose they could contract out to Experian (or other local providers) and ask you to answer some questions from your credit report, but I'm not sure that's really a good solution either.

hnarn 9y ago
I thought it was clear enough that I mean't that it's obvious why [Facebook will never implement it even in countries where it already exists]. It's not in their interest to do so, because it's not in their interest to protect the privacy of their users.
- kinkrtyavimoodh 9y ago
  Just because you could only think of a sarcastic reason why Facebook doesn't want to do it doesn't mean that other reasons for it don't exist. That's precisely what the GP is saying—FB needs to come up with systems that work for literally the whole world.
  - hnarn 9y ago
    How is my reason sarcastic? I'm being completely serious. And yes, of course it needs to work world-wide but I think it's naive to think that's the primary reason FB would be doing it. They'd be doing it because they want complete control of the authentication ecosystem.

bhhaskin 9y ago

No. This is the absolute wrong direction and would likely help push for a Government Internet ID. This would complete destroy online anonymity.

hnarn 9y ago
The US isn't the world. "Government Internet IDs" already exist, and there is nothing inherent in them existing that eliminates online anonymity, it just removes it on Facebook (which is exactly the point).
- bhhaskin 9y ago
  Imagine having to use your government ID to even connect to the internet. Having all your data logged and cataloged to your ID. At one point in time that is what the US government wanted to do. It starts by normalizing the action. Not a world I want to live in.
  - hnarn 9y ago
    You're completely de-railing the discussion and trying to respond to this nonsense in any constructive way would only de-rail it further. No amount of strawmen and US-centric "the government wants to enslave us all" propaganda will make me think that the now existing, well working digital ID systems available in the world (not the US) are the work of the illuminati, should be abolished, and/or will be surgically inserted into my brain in the near future. I made a point that there are already ways for Facebook, in certain countries, to verify the identity of their users, if they so please; and that Facebook will never use these because they'd rather control the system of verification themselves (prioritizing profit, not privacy and integrity of users). They could use the systems already in place and say "you know what, the state of Estonia is telling us this guy is who he says he is, we'll accept that". What you're doing is arguing against government-backed digital identification in any broad definition of the term, and you can have that opinion but it's off topic.