3 ms·

There absolutely is moral equivalence - they're trying to cut off all means of anonymous communication. It's difficult to get a SIM without providing ID in the

by deogeo 7y ago

There absolutely is moral equivalence - they're trying to cut off all means of anonymous communication. It's difficult to get a SIM without providing ID in the EU as well, and you have to provide ID when renting a room. I wish the media were always sensitive to privacy erosion, not just when China does it. I guess using Chinese surveillance tech is a roundabout way of getting them to pay attention, as happened with the Hikvision cameras.

mytailorisrich 7y ago
Having a requirement to link a SIM to an individual is not privacy erosion. It does not mean that usage is monitored, and usage is the important privacy aspect. Furthermore, this just puts mobile phones on par with landlines. It used to be that having a phone meant having a landline at home, and obviously that meant knowing exactly who a number belonged to. There needs to be a balance for everything in the real world. And even most Western countries have concluded that requiring IDs for SIM cards is a necessary measure. Now, for Chinese authorities one issue (without even going into politics) is that China is a very low trust society where it is almost expected that everyone will flaunt the rules at the first opportunity. So I am half guessing that the government sees technological solutions as a way around that. (As for renting a room, it would be crazy for a landlord not to know who their tenant is just for practical reasons considering land and tenancy laws in most EU countries)
- throw476543 7y ago
  I feel anonymity is a part of privacy, and anything that limits anonymity also affects privacy.
- jen20 7y ago
  > It does not mean that usage is monitored, and usage is the important privacy aspect. I think one would have to be especially naive to believe that an ID requirement is in place without any provision for usage monitoring.
  - mytailorisrich 7y ago
    Do you think someone is monitoring your landline?
    - StanislavPetrov 7y ago
      It is absolutely beyond dispute that all communications are being monitored at all times by a variety of government and non-governmental agencies. Being forced to link your identity to these communications is yet another step down towards absolute tyranny (and we are already near the bottom step).
      - CamperBob2 7y ago
        It's not necessarily a step towards tyranny in itself... but when tyranny does come, it will make life very easy for the tyrants.
    - deogeo 7y ago
      This has been known for a fact for the last 13 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A Edit: Downvotes for a factual answer? Pathetic.
    - CamperBob2 7y ago
      Well, we've been assured by the likes of James Clapper that no one is listening, so...
    - vbezhenar 7y ago
      It's incredibly easy nowadays. Compressed voice takes very little to archive. Speech recognition allows to index everything. I don't believe that every government does not do this.
- StanislavPetrov 7y ago
  >Having a requirement to link a SIM to an individual is not privacy erosion. You're right, its not privacy erosion, its privacy annihilation. >It does not mean that usage is monitored, and usage is the important privacy aspect. Its not up to you or the government to decide what "aspects" of my privacy are important. Privacy is a basic human right and fundamental to human liberty and dignity. Attempts by governments and others to eliminate human freedom and privacy because of the inherent risks that freedom pose should be opposed by everyone.
- deogeo 7y ago
  > And even most Western countries have concluded that requiring IDs for SIM cards is a necessary measure. > (As for renting a room, it would be crazy for a landlord not to know who their tenant is just for practical reasons considering land and tenancy laws in most EU countries) That's circular reasoning, and could be applied to any law. Edit: How it's circular reasoning: "The law is necessary because it has been enacted." "It's necessary to collect ID when renting a room, because the law requires it." As for how "most Western countries determined it was necessary" - there weren't exactly large, public debates and demands as happened for e.g. gay rights, were there? The laws just came about, very discreetly. Edit2, due to posting limit: I did no conflating - my point applies to both your statements, separately.
  - mytailorisrich 7y ago
    How is that circular reasoning? Edit: I have seen your edit. I did not write that. You are conflating 2 unrelated topics and 2 unrelated parts of my comment although they were clearly separated. In many countries IDs are not required by law in order to rent a house (afaik). In the UK (which I know most) it only became a requirement a couple of years ago, specifically to check that the prospective tenant was not an illegal immigrant (in fact the requirement is not to check IDs but not to rent to illegal immigrants...) Landlords require an ID quite independently of any legal requirement because it does not make sense to entrust a real property to someone if you do not know who they are due to the financial liability and the legal procedures required to evict. In some commercial and legal relations it simply does make sense to assert the identity of the other party.
- gruez 7y ago
  >Furthermore, this just puts mobile phones on par with landlines. It used to be that having a phone meant having a landline at home, and obviously that meant knowing exactly who a number belonged to. Not really. Unless you lived alone, a landline was often shared with everyone in the household. Furthermore, just because there is a link (by necessity of delivering a service to a physical location), doesn't mean there needs to be a link.

by deogeo 7y ago

mytailorisrich 7y ago

Having a requirement to link a SIM to an individual is not privacy erosion. It does not mean that usage is monitored, and usage is the important privacy aspect. Furthermore, this just puts mobile phones on par with landlines. It used to be that having a phone meant having a landline at home, and obviously that meant knowing exactly who a number belonged to. There needs to be a balance for everything in the real world. And even most Western countries have concluded that requiring IDs for SIM cards is a necessary measure. Now, for Chinese authorities one issue (without even going into politics) is that China is a very low trust society where it is almost expected that everyone will flaunt the rules at the first opportunity. So I am half guessing that the government sees technological solutions as a way around that. (As for renting a room, it would be crazy for a landlord not to know who their tenant is just for practical reasons considering land and tenancy laws in most EU countries)

throw476543 7y ago
I feel anonymity is a part of privacy, and anything that limits anonymity also affects privacy.
jen20 7y ago
> It does not mean that usage is monitored, and usage is the important privacy aspect. I think one would have to be especially naive to believe that an ID requirement is in place without any provision for usage monitoring.
- mytailorisrich 7y ago
  Do you think someone is monitoring your landline?
  - StanislavPetrov 7y ago
    It is absolutely beyond dispute that all communications are being monitored at all times by a variety of government and non-governmental agencies. Being forced to link your identity to these communications is yet another step down towards absolute tyranny (and we are already near the bottom step).
    - CamperBob2 7y ago
      It's not necessarily a step towards tyranny in itself... but when tyranny does come, it will make life very easy for the tyrants.
  - deogeo 7y ago
    This has been known for a fact for the last 13 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A Edit: Downvotes for a factual answer? Pathetic.
  - CamperBob2 7y ago
    Well, we've been assured by the likes of James Clapper that no one is listening, so...
  - vbezhenar 7y ago
    It's incredibly easy nowadays. Compressed voice takes very little to archive. Speech recognition allows to index everything. I don't believe that every government does not do this.
StanislavPetrov 7y ago
>Having a requirement to link a SIM to an individual is not privacy erosion. You're right, its not privacy erosion, its privacy annihilation. >It does not mean that usage is monitored, and usage is the important privacy aspect. Its not up to you or the government to decide what "aspects" of my privacy are important. Privacy is a basic human right and fundamental to human liberty and dignity. Attempts by governments and others to eliminate human freedom and privacy because of the inherent risks that freedom pose should be opposed by everyone.
deogeo 7y ago
> And even most Western countries have concluded that requiring IDs for SIM cards is a necessary measure. > (As for renting a room, it would be crazy for a landlord not to know who their tenant is just for practical reasons considering land and tenancy laws in most EU countries) That's circular reasoning, and could be applied to any law. Edit: How it's circular reasoning: "The law is necessary because it has been enacted." "It's necessary to collect ID when renting a room, because the law requires it." As for how "most Western countries determined it was necessary" - there weren't exactly large, public debates and demands as happened for e.g. gay rights, were there? The laws just came about, very discreetly. Edit2, due to posting limit: I did no conflating - my point applies to both your statements, separately.
- mytailorisrich 7y ago
  How is that circular reasoning? Edit: I have seen your edit. I did not write that. You are conflating 2 unrelated topics and 2 unrelated parts of my comment although they were clearly separated. In many countries IDs are not required by law in order to rent a house (afaik). In the UK (which I know most) it only became a requirement a couple of years ago, specifically to check that the prospective tenant was not an illegal immigrant (in fact the requirement is not to check IDs but not to rent to illegal immigrants...) Landlords require an ID quite independently of any legal requirement because it does not make sense to entrust a real property to someone if you do not know who they are due to the financial liability and the legal procedures required to evict. In some commercial and legal relations it simply does make sense to assert the identity of the other party.
gruez 7y ago
>Furthermore, this just puts mobile phones on par with landlines. It used to be that having a phone meant having a landline at home, and obviously that meant knowing exactly who a number belonged to. Not really. Unless you lived alone, a landline was often shared with everyone in the household. Furthermore, just because there is a link (by necessity of delivering a service to a physical location), doesn't mean there needs to be a link.