4 ms·

I don't see this, properly implemented, as incompatible with pseudonymity or anonymity. With modern (even 90s) technology there is no reason why "Be able to pr

by xp84 4y ago

I don't see this, properly implemented, as incompatible with pseudonymity or anonymity. With modern (even 90s) technology there is no reason why "Be able to prove that you checked their ID" has to mean "Keep their information on file." The Utah government could generate public/private keypairs, and have the social network upon signup do a live call to check ID. The social network can use the public keys to encrypt photos of the ID picture and the user's face from the video, together with the ID numbers. They'd be required to not keep any unencrypted copies. Then the government could, if investigating violations, ask for the encrypted info, decrypt it and see what ID the user provided and whether it (A) looked real enough and (B) matched the person who appeared.

JohnFen 4y ago
> With modern (even 90s) technology there is no reason why "Be able to prove that you checked their ID" has to mean "Keep their information on file." But then... > Then the government could, if investigating violations, ask for the encrypted info, decrypt it and see what ID the user provided and whether it (A) looked real enough and (B) matched the person who appeared. Which would only be possible if the ID was kept on file. So, that's not even close to being anonymous. I'm so glad I still live in an area where I don't have to register with the government in order to use the internet.
pavel_lishin 4y ago
Ah, so it's compatible with pseudo/anonymity - until the government comes calling. That's not really compatible.
- xp84 4y ago
  To be clear here, the government's only business in my example scheme is investigating the crime of say, Facebook, of allowing an 8-year-old to register. I wouldn't suggest empowering the government to compel Facebook to hand over the ID of said person so that they can be prosecuted for saying mean things about the President or whatever. As it stands today if the government is mad about something a user posts they already have the power to demand that person's IP so they can pursue them in meatspace.
  - pavel_lishin 4y ago
    > I wouldn't suggest empowering the government to compel Facebook to hand over the ID of said person so that they can be prosecuted for saying mean things about the President or whatever. But the government _already_ has this power. They can issue a warrant. How is requesting their identification - which your example specifically cited - significantly different from demanding the person's IP address?
plagiarist 4y ago
I sure as hell would not trust a tech company to neither retain nor leak unencrypted copies of my information regardless of what laws are in place.
mindslight 4y ago
Companies won't create a bunch of technical complexity so they can forget personal information, because surveillance companies want this information. The main thing that holds them back from demanding it right now is that it would weird people out. Once government directs companies to move in lockstep and normalizes the practice, it will become standard. Think how Google continually harasses you to tell them your birthday to "comply with the law".

by xp84 4y ago

JohnFen 4y ago

> With modern (even 90s) technology there is no reason why "Be able to prove that you checked their ID" has to mean "Keep their information on file." But then... > Then the government could, if investigating violations, ask for the encrypted info, decrypt it and see what ID the user provided and whether it (A) looked real enough and (B) matched the person who appeared. Which would only be possible if the ID was kept on file. So, that's not even close to being anonymous. I'm so glad I still live in an area where I don't have to register with the government in order to use the internet.

pavel_lishin 4y ago

Ah, so it's compatible with pseudo/anonymity - until the government comes calling. That's not really compatible.

xp84 4y ago
To be clear here, the government's only business in my example scheme is investigating the crime of say, Facebook, of allowing an 8-year-old to register. I wouldn't suggest empowering the government to compel Facebook to hand over the ID of said person so that they can be prosecuted for saying mean things about the President or whatever. As it stands today if the government is mad about something a user posts they already have the power to demand that person's IP so they can pursue them in meatspace.
- pavel_lishin 4y ago
  > I wouldn't suggest empowering the government to compel Facebook to hand over the ID of said person so that they can be prosecuted for saying mean things about the President or whatever. But the government _already_ has this power. They can issue a warrant. How is requesting their identification - which your example specifically cited - significantly different from demanding the person's IP address?

plagiarist 4y ago

I sure as hell would not trust a tech company to neither retain nor leak unencrypted copies of my information regardless of what laws are in place.

mindslight 4y ago

Companies won't create a bunch of technical complexity so they can forget personal information, because surveillance companies want this information. The main thing that holds them back from demanding it right now is that it would weird people out. Once government directs companies to move in lockstep and normalizes the practice, it will become standard. Think how Google continually harasses you to tell them your birthday to "comply with the law".