2 ms·
I wasn't whining. I was asking if the conversation is being had. It's a question of fostering trust. So I'll ask again: Is anyone talking about the potential
by lukejduncan 15y ago
I wasn't whining. I was asking if the conversation is being had. It's a question of fostering trust. So I'll ask again: Is anyone talking about the potential concerns here? Has this been asked and answered? Is there a technical solution that alleviates the concerns? I don't think this is whining, just starting a conversation. If the goal of the forum is to open a dialogue is there a way of doing so that ensures the security of citizens?
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- anigbrowl 15y agoI'm not saying you are, just that some people will be dissatisfied regardless of what solution is put in place. That said, I don't really consider this particular conversation worth having. You want some level of unique ID on a site like this to deter casual/not spamming, but if you implement strict ID then you'll either drive people away and/or make them paranoid. This is meant to function as a barometer of sentiment, and there's no point in over thinking it. If/when Congress allows some sort of formal petitioning mechanism that guarantees some degree of legislative procedure, then an audit trail and a balancing of transparency with privacy will need to be in place. That wouldmrpobably involve use of a social security number or similar to ensure only citizens can participate.