4 ms·
I think you'll find many people are not in favor of universal anonymity, and most people are in favor of strong guarantees of identity. They are separate issues
by Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
I think you'll find many people are not in favor of universal anonymity, and most people are in favor of strong guarantees of identity. They are separate issues and useful in different cases.
- josefresco 8y ago"most people are in favor of strong guarantees of identity" I dunno, folks on HN seem pretty opposed to this given the potential for abuse by government/business. They typically say someting like "sure it will stop spammers, but what happens when I use my phone to call a political opponent or an organization that criticizes authorities?"
- Sir_Cmpwn 8y agoYou should be able to call politicians or organizations which criticise authorities, and they should set up anonymous means of doing so (perhaps required by law). You shouldn't be able to call someone's Grandma, impersonate her son, and scam her out of her retirement.
- josefresco 8y agoI think the problem is an "anonymous tip line" just for criticizing or whistle blowing purposes is too limited in scope. There are plenty of other reasons people need anonymity where you can't setup a dedicated, anonymous system. You would also be at the mercy of those who setup the system, because you'd be calling it with your "real ID" telephone line. If you setup a general system that allows anonymity on-demand, it will be abused. I'm not advocating for or against this, just trying to work out the ethical model where citizens are protected, but criminals can be identified and prosecuted. I don't have the answer ;)
- TallGuyShort 8y agoThere's anonymity, fraud, and strong guarantees of identity. I'm fine with 1 and 3. There's no reason for the phone company to have a knowingly spoofable caller ID system when it's already being used so heavily for 2.