3 ms·

The simplest solution here is to require users to present government recognized credentials when signing up for accounts. Users can then create pseudonymous acc

The simplest solution here is to require users to present government recognized credentials when signing up for accounts. Users can then create pseudonymous accounts that preserve some notion of anonymity, but when they become abusive the user can then be held accountable in the real world. Any solution here needs to be gated by the courts though, otherwise it would be ripe for abuse in and of itself through doxxing.

anon22hdjsks 5y ago
How is this "simple"? how do you imagine I would implement this to allow people to comment on my blog.
C19is20 5y ago
Imagine the effects of a data breach, though.
wackro 5y ago
I heard a discussion on the radio where a lady was describing the potential use of a third party identity provider for all social media. This would be instead of the government. If I understood it correctly, the third party would hold your ID etc, and would vouch for you on signup to services. Users would be anonymous/pseudonymous until a warrant was acquired by the police. A third party would be better IMO than the government. Not sure I like it either way tho. Who is the third party? Breaches would be an issue as the other poster has said. And too much like big brother.
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  I don't think having a third party instead of government control would be any better because the Snowden leaks showed us that the intelligence agencies will simply secretly co-opt the service to their own ends.
  - tzs 5y ago
    Instead of a third party make it shared among multiple third parties such that it requires agreement among N of the third parties to reveal an identity. Spread the third parties among jurisdictions and make N large enough that no government has enough of the third parties under its jurisdiction to be able to coerce an identity reveal.
  - dane-pgp 5y ago
    Yes, and I'm surprised that mandatory data retention by ISPs hasn't already gone further down that slippery slope. Now that people are used to that idea, I expect a government to say "Why don't you store the logs on our computers instead, to save money and be protected with military-grade security. We promise we will still go to the hassle of getting a warrant before reading from the database... Unless of course there's an emergency...". Perhaps the reason they haven't said this yet is because government cyber-security agencies have already gained real-time unwarranted access to the ISPs' logs. I don't suppose a company could be sued for not correctly securing this data against the government, since the government could hide behind "national security" to block any evidence being admitted in a court case.
gjs278 5y ago
abusive how? for calling them names? what if an admin starts leaking your details for defending them?

anon22hdjsks 5y ago

How is this "simple"? how do you imagine I would implement this to allow people to comment on my blog.

C19is20 5y ago

Imagine the effects of a data breach, though.

wackro 5y ago

I heard a discussion on the radio where a lady was describing the potential use of a third party identity provider for all social media. This would be instead of the government. If I understood it correctly, the third party would hold your ID etc, and would vouch for you on signup to services. Users would be anonymous/pseudonymous until a warrant was acquired by the police. A third party would be better IMO than the government. Not sure I like it either way tho. Who is the third party? Breaches would be an issue as the other poster has said. And too much like big brother.

BitwiseFool 5y ago
I don't think having a third party instead of government control would be any better because the Snowden leaks showed us that the intelligence agencies will simply secretly co-opt the service to their own ends.
- tzs 5y ago
  Instead of a third party make it shared among multiple third parties such that it requires agreement among N of the third parties to reveal an identity. Spread the third parties among jurisdictions and make N large enough that no government has enough of the third parties under its jurisdiction to be able to coerce an identity reveal.
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  Yes, and I'm surprised that mandatory data retention by ISPs hasn't already gone further down that slippery slope. Now that people are used to that idea, I expect a government to say "Why don't you store the logs on our computers instead, to save money and be protected with military-grade security. We promise we will still go to the hassle of getting a warrant before reading from the database... Unless of course there's an emergency...". Perhaps the reason they haven't said this yet is because government cyber-security agencies have already gained real-time unwarranted access to the ISPs' logs. I don't suppose a company could be sued for not correctly securing this data against the government, since the government could hide behind "national security" to block any evidence being admitted in a court case.

gjs278 5y ago

abusive how? for calling them names? what if an admin starts leaking your details for defending them?