13 ms·

>Thinking of switching a job, thinking of getting a divorce, becoming a whistleblower, investigating symptoms of a disease you may have, forming or joining a un

>Thinking of switching a job, thinking of getting a divorce, becoming a whistleblower, investigating symptoms of a disease you may have, forming or joining a union. Or even just showing your irrational spending habits. Almost everything you've listed there is solved by using private browsing and pseudonyms. That's not strong anonymity. You don't need Tor to unionize.

heavyset_go 7y ago
> You don't need Tor to unionize. Labor history is rife with eavesdropping, spying, honey pots and sabotage against workers at the hands of employers. Computers make all of those things easier and cheaper than they were in the past. Nowadays, firms offering those services go by the names of 'union-avoidance consultancies'[1] among many others. You can Google that term or 'fighting union' for dozens of companies you can hire towards that end. Also, the Pinkertons[2] are still in business doing what they did 150 years ago. [1] https://www.epi.org/blog/union-busters-are-more-prevalent-than-they-seem-and-may-soon-even-be-at-the-nlrb/ https://www.epi.org/blog/union-busters-are-more-prevalent-th... [2] https://www.pinkerton.com https://www.pinkerton.com
raxxorrax 7y ago
Pseudonymity and anonymity are synonymous in many use cases. And unions did have a lot of secrets at their time.
_jal 7y ago
Another poster addressed this as well, but: > You don't need Tor to unionize. Do journalists need Tor? Do lawyers? I suppose Tor specifically is not required, but there are reasons why plenty of "normal people" need strong anonymity. Even if you discount state-sponsored surveillance[1], there are a ton of outfits who are willing to surveil you or your union drive, whether or not it is legal. But beyond all that, it simply is not your call to make whether or not I need anonymous communications. You don't know why I think I need them, and frankly you don't need to. It is enough that everyone should be able to make that determination for themselves. [1] Which, if you're unionizing, would be a serious error - there is a long history of less-than-legal state collusion in union busting in the US on top of the legal hostility.

heavyset_go 7y ago

> You don't need Tor to unionize. Labor history is rife with eavesdropping, spying, honey pots and sabotage against workers at the hands of employers. Computers make all of those things easier and cheaper than they were in the past. Nowadays, firms offering those services go by the names of 'union-avoidance consultancies'[1] among many others. You can Google that term or 'fighting union' for dozens of companies you can hire towards that end. Also, the Pinkertons[2] are still in business doing what they did 150 years ago. [1] https://www.epi.org/blog/union-busters-are-more-prevalent-than-they-seem-and-may-soon-even-be-at-the-nlrb/ https://www.epi.org/blog/union-busters-are-more-prevalent-th... [2] https://www.pinkerton.com https://www.pinkerton.com

raxxorrax 7y ago

Pseudonymity and anonymity are synonymous in many use cases. And unions did have a lot of secrets at their time.

_jal 7y ago

Another poster addressed this as well, but: > You don't need Tor to unionize. Do journalists need Tor? Do lawyers? I suppose Tor specifically is not required, but there are reasons why plenty of "normal people" need strong anonymity. Even if you discount state-sponsored surveillance[1], there are a ton of outfits who are willing to surveil you or your union drive, whether or not it is legal. But beyond all that, it simply is not your call to make whether or not I need anonymous communications. You don't know why I think I need them, and frankly you don't need to. It is enough that everyone should be able to make that determination for themselves. [1] Which, if you're unionizing, would be a serious error - there is a long history of less-than-legal state collusion in union busting in the US on top of the legal hostility.