3 ms·

> The tricky thing is that it's relatively hard to precisely track identity and intentional authorship on the internet. It's also easy to imagine somebody losin

> The tricky thing is that it's relatively hard to precisely track identity and intentional authorship on the internet. It's also easy to imagine somebody losing their internet privileges, because some botnet hijacked their printer and used it to spread X-rated content. In the analogy, it's hard to disambiguate between drivers and vehicles. This basically makes the entire plan unfeasible. Given the current general insecurity it would be entirely too trivial to somehow fuck up and have a botnet get you banned permanently from the "roads". However, this could work if internet is only available using your digital ID. However, that is seriously actually dystopian and would brutally murder all of the privacy people have and in certain cases also the people.

gen220 6y ago
Yep, that's why I suggested the biometric ID. But I agree, it's dystopian. I think such a system would encourage the development of two parallel webs: the above-ground, requires-ID-for-every-http-request web (Facebook, Amazon), and a somewhat shadier, sometimes-or-never-requires-ID-except-in-exceptional-circumstances internet. Kind of like how bars and grocery stores are supposed to verify your age, but many don't. Or kind of like how there's large swathes of the country where people drive around without driver's licenses or insurance, and it isn't an issue unless they end up in an accident.
- Avamander 6y ago
  The "shadier" internet will be slowly killed. Without any doubt. It would just be more convenient for website hosts, to people in power in general. Especially so under oppressive regimes, I think China has already displayed how internet would end up if we went that route. Restrictive, dangerous for dissidents, without any real privacy.
RestlessMind 6y ago
> ... digital ID. However, that is seriously actually dystopian and would brutally murder all of the privacy people have Do you really need exactly the same level of privacy for all the cases though? How about having a corner of the internet which is an ultimate walled garden - with access restricted to someone with validated government IDs and everyone's activity tracked and transparent to everyone else? This will work great for many cases - kids can have access to only this corner, plain vanilla entertainment[1] like Netflix or Disney or Sports, money related stuff[2] like banking / money transfer / shopping, etc etc. We can do those activities with relative peace of mind because everyone accessing this corner would be physically trackable and hence nefarious actors will have the risk of instant exposure. In that sense, it will be very similar to the physical world (or even stricter because of enhanced security). For a lot of other legit reasons like fighting oppressive governments or hacking things to push boundaries or uncensored forums, we can of course have rest of the internet. There will be some nuances just like we do in real world, like: [1] different ratings for entertainment, like R-rated vs PG vs G-rated [2] protecting sensitive info like bank account details or tax returns
- Avamander 6y ago
  Do you think that the free internet won't be slowly strangled until there's none? People will find so many reasons to kill privacy, "think of the kids", "think of the crime", "think of the spies". So on and on, we've seen it happen, I think China and other oppressive regimes have displayed that already.
  - RestlessMind 6y ago
    > Do you think that the free internet won't be slowly strangled until there's none? In places like China, maybe! In places like the US, definitely not. After all, US Supreme Court literally allowed neo-nazis to march in public defending their freedom of speech[1]. > People will find so many reasons to kill privacy They might, but they will always have to play catch up with the technical solutions (cryptocurrencies, strong encryption) etc. As long the fundamental protocol remains open, you can recreate your own stack. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_Am...

gen220 6y ago

Yep, that's why I suggested the biometric ID. But I agree, it's dystopian. I think such a system would encourage the development of two parallel webs: the above-ground, requires-ID-for-every-http-request web (Facebook, Amazon), and a somewhat shadier, sometimes-or-never-requires-ID-except-in-exceptional-circumstances internet. Kind of like how bars and grocery stores are supposed to verify your age, but many don't. Or kind of like how there's large swathes of the country where people drive around without driver's licenses or insurance, and it isn't an issue unless they end up in an accident.

Avamander 6y ago
The "shadier" internet will be slowly killed. Without any doubt. It would just be more convenient for website hosts, to people in power in general. Especially so under oppressive regimes, I think China has already displayed how internet would end up if we went that route. Restrictive, dangerous for dissidents, without any real privacy.

RestlessMind 6y ago

> ... digital ID. However, that is seriously actually dystopian and would brutally murder all of the privacy people have Do you really need exactly the same level of privacy for all the cases though? How about having a corner of the internet which is an ultimate walled garden - with access restricted to someone with validated government IDs and everyone's activity tracked and transparent to everyone else? This will work great for many cases - kids can have access to only this corner, plain vanilla entertainment[1] like Netflix or Disney or Sports, money related stuff[2] like banking / money transfer / shopping, etc etc. We can do those activities with relative peace of mind because everyone accessing this corner would be physically trackable and hence nefarious actors will have the risk of instant exposure. In that sense, it will be very similar to the physical world (or even stricter because of enhanced security). For a lot of other legit reasons like fighting oppressive governments or hacking things to push boundaries or uncensored forums, we can of course have rest of the internet. There will be some nuances just like we do in real world, like: [1] different ratings for entertainment, like R-rated vs PG vs G-rated [2] protecting sensitive info like bank account details or tax returns

Avamander 6y ago
Do you think that the free internet won't be slowly strangled until there's none? People will find so many reasons to kill privacy, "think of the kids", "think of the crime", "think of the spies". So on and on, we've seen it happen, I think China and other oppressive regimes have displayed that already.
- RestlessMind 6y ago
  > Do you think that the free internet won't be slowly strangled until there's none? In places like China, maybe! In places like the US, definitely not. After all, US Supreme Court literally allowed neo-nazis to march in public defending their freedom of speech[1]. > People will find so many reasons to kill privacy They might, but they will always have to play catch up with the technical solutions (cryptocurrencies, strong encryption) etc. As long the fundamental protocol remains open, you can recreate your own stack. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_Am...