5 ms·

> Unless of course we ask adults to provide their credit card or driver's license to sign up. Which I suspect they won't. Some states are already moving in thi

> Unless of course we ask adults to provide their credit card or driver's license to sign up. Which I suspect they won't. Some states are already moving in this direction. However, it is a firmly unconstitutional approach. Our forefathers are rolling in their graves.

theGnuMe 3y ago
Why is it unconstitutional?
- soulofmischief 3y ago
  > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
  - INTPenis 3y ago
    Nothing in there prohibits a national eID.
    - LoganDark 3y ago
      Exactly. Nothing in there prohibits electronic anything. It's talking about people. If you so choose, you can still do everything in person. The fact that computers currently make it easier and it's about to get harder doesn't change the fact that computers are entirely irrelevant.
      - soulofmischief 3y ago
        The key insight is that the government should never be allowed to mediate the interactions I have with other humans on platforms which allow these interactions, and should never be allowed to mandate a platform to adopt policies which prohibit such activity. If we share information which is a true risk to national security or the general welfare of the People, that's something the Constitution allows for. But wholesale enforcement of eID is reprehensible and must be met with rigid disobedience.
      - bregma 3y ago
        It wouldn't be restricting your freedoms, just your ability to exercise them.
    - bryanrasmussen 3y ago
      I guess the argument would have to be the admittedly stretchy one of by requiring an eID you are requiring people declare who they are when communicating, which would then be compelled speech. since this is HN I better clarify - I'm not sure I agree that should pass or would pass, it seems a stretch to me. But if I wanted to make the argument that is where I would go.
      - INTPenis 3y ago
        Not necessarily. An eID can also just make a call to the eID issuer, identifying the person, and then a callback to the service indicating that the identified person complies with certain requirements like age. Think of it as a bouncer at the door that does not divulge any details to the club owner. ;)
      - AlecSchueler 3y ago
        The requirement only applies to certain platforms, though, you're still free to communicate what you wish.
        soulofmischief 3y ago
        How do we decide which platforms it applies to? And once the infrastructure is in place, how do we ensure the list of platforms does not grow at the whim of the administration of the month?
    - soulofmischief 3y ago
      It absolutely does, as a national eID creates a chilling effect that can negatively impact my right to free speech and to peacefully assemble. Digital anonymity is not a joke, it is a fundamental human right whether or not you or any state agency recognizes it. It is crucial to a healthy democracy.
      - INTPenis 3y ago
        You mean if the issuer of the eID violates people's privacy, in violation of the first amendment. That's what you have courts for.
        serf 3y ago
        yeah that's worked out fantastically against any hundreds of companies that leak user data every year. same thing will happen, a leak will occur and the authorities will be thrilled to offer me a 45 cent class action suit -- meanwhile bad actors will have the data and do who-knows-what with it. if bad internet data is really the problem here then I would suggest more rigorous filtering of results rather than involuntarily signing up the world for a club that every individual may or may not want to be a part of by way of an eID.
      - simiones 3y ago
        > It is crucial to a healthy democracy. And yet democracies predate the existence of digital anonimity by quite a few centuries (or at the very least decades, depending on how many slaves you accept in your definition of a "healthy democracy").
        soulofmischief 3y ago
        Digital anonymity is the higher-level concept being discussed, but the underlying issue which it relates to is that of a chilling effect, which is a timeless phenomenon. > The "chilling effect" refers to a phenomenon where individuals or groups refrain from engaging in expression for fear of running afoul of a law or regulation. > Laws that chill free expression do not provide the appropriate level of breathing space for First Amendment freedoms. https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/chilling-effect-overview https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/chilling-effect-overv...
INTPenis 3y ago
Those forefathers had no idea we'd be using a global digital medium. In the 18th century your word was everything, and your identity was tied to your word. When you came into town, or a tavern, or wherever, you had to identify yourself. And if you lied about who you were your word was tarnished forever. Now we're doing the same thing in a digital world. It's time to adapt to that.
- lukan 3y ago
  But you could write letters (and later telegrams) anonymously around the world back then. Online and offline is not the same.
  - INTPenis 3y ago
    And it would be fraud. And it was a huge problem when people did that. If you got caught you were done. In a digital world we can combat such fraud in vastly different ways.
    - simiones 3y ago
      It was fraud to write a letter without signing it?
      - INTPenis 3y ago
        Now you're splitting hairs. Obviously I mean any letter of substance where identification is a crucial factor. Not your anonymous love letters to your childhood sweetheart.
        soulofmischief 3y ago
        They are not splitting hairs. The GP comment was about the right toward anonymously sending telegrams and letters, then the response was about fraud, which makes no sense given the context of anonymity; you can't be fraudulently anonymous.
        3y ago
notTooFarGone 3y ago
I don't see much of an internet in 20ish years without it. It's getting filled up with trash and this will be exponential. Data quality on the internet will rapidly decline and only platforms that can provide authenticity will be able to provide value imo. If I can run multiple person bots in 10 years on my cpu, governments around the world will abuse it to 11 and forcing all actors to such measures.
- anthk 3y ago
  Twitter almost requires logins and yet it's full of crap. Usenet can be anonymous, and once you set up kill files to filter all the SPAM, you can get really high technical discussions in lots of groups.

theGnuMe 3y ago

Why is it unconstitutional?

soulofmischief 3y ago
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
- INTPenis 3y ago
  Nothing in there prohibits a national eID.
  - LoganDark 3y ago
    Exactly. Nothing in there prohibits electronic anything. It's talking about people. If you so choose, you can still do everything in person. The fact that computers currently make it easier and it's about to get harder doesn't change the fact that computers are entirely irrelevant.
    - soulofmischief 3y ago
      The key insight is that the government should never be allowed to mediate the interactions I have with other humans on platforms which allow these interactions, and should never be allowed to mandate a platform to adopt policies which prohibit such activity. If we share information which is a true risk to national security or the general welfare of the People, that's something the Constitution allows for. But wholesale enforcement of eID is reprehensible and must be met with rigid disobedience.
    - bregma 3y ago
      It wouldn't be restricting your freedoms, just your ability to exercise them.
  - bryanrasmussen 3y ago
    I guess the argument would have to be the admittedly stretchy one of by requiring an eID you are requiring people declare who they are when communicating, which would then be compelled speech. since this is HN I better clarify - I'm not sure I agree that should pass or would pass, it seems a stretch to me. But if I wanted to make the argument that is where I would go.
    - INTPenis 3y ago
      Not necessarily. An eID can also just make a call to the eID issuer, identifying the person, and then a callback to the service indicating that the identified person complies with certain requirements like age. Think of it as a bouncer at the door that does not divulge any details to the club owner. ;)
    - AlecSchueler 3y ago
      The requirement only applies to certain platforms, though, you're still free to communicate what you wish.
      - soulofmischief 3y ago
        How do we decide which platforms it applies to? And once the infrastructure is in place, how do we ensure the list of platforms does not grow at the whim of the administration of the month?
  - soulofmischief 3y ago
    It absolutely does, as a national eID creates a chilling effect that can negatively impact my right to free speech and to peacefully assemble. Digital anonymity is not a joke, it is a fundamental human right whether or not you or any state agency recognizes it. It is crucial to a healthy democracy.
    - INTPenis 3y ago
      You mean if the issuer of the eID violates people's privacy, in violation of the first amendment. That's what you have courts for.
      - serf 3y ago
        yeah that's worked out fantastically against any hundreds of companies that leak user data every year. same thing will happen, a leak will occur and the authorities will be thrilled to offer me a 45 cent class action suit -- meanwhile bad actors will have the data and do who-knows-what with it. if bad internet data is really the problem here then I would suggest more rigorous filtering of results rather than involuntarily signing up the world for a club that every individual may or may not want to be a part of by way of an eID.
    - simiones 3y ago
      > It is crucial to a healthy democracy. And yet democracies predate the existence of digital anonimity by quite a few centuries (or at the very least decades, depending on how many slaves you accept in your definition of a "healthy democracy").
      - soulofmischief 3y ago
        Digital anonymity is the higher-level concept being discussed, but the underlying issue which it relates to is that of a chilling effect, which is a timeless phenomenon. > The "chilling effect" refers to a phenomenon where individuals or groups refrain from engaging in expression for fear of running afoul of a law or regulation. > Laws that chill free expression do not provide the appropriate level of breathing space for First Amendment freedoms. https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/chilling-effect-overview https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/chilling-effect-overv...

INTPenis 3y ago

Those forefathers had no idea we'd be using a global digital medium. In the 18th century your word was everything, and your identity was tied to your word. When you came into town, or a tavern, or wherever, you had to identify yourself. And if you lied about who you were your word was tarnished forever. Now we're doing the same thing in a digital world. It's time to adapt to that.

lukan 3y ago
But you could write letters (and later telegrams) anonymously around the world back then. Online and offline is not the same.
- INTPenis 3y ago
  And it would be fraud. And it was a huge problem when people did that. If you got caught you were done. In a digital world we can combat such fraud in vastly different ways.
  - simiones 3y ago
    It was fraud to write a letter without signing it?
    - INTPenis 3y ago
      Now you're splitting hairs. Obviously I mean any letter of substance where identification is a crucial factor. Not your anonymous love letters to your childhood sweetheart.
      - soulofmischief 3y ago
        They are not splitting hairs. The GP comment was about the right toward anonymously sending telegrams and letters, then the response was about fraud, which makes no sense given the context of anonymity; you can't be fraudulently anonymous.
      - 3y ago

notTooFarGone 3y ago

I don't see much of an internet in 20ish years without it. It's getting filled up with trash and this will be exponential. Data quality on the internet will rapidly decline and only platforms that can provide authenticity will be able to provide value imo. If I can run multiple person bots in 10 years on my cpu, governments around the world will abuse it to 11 and forcing all actors to such measures.

anthk 3y ago
Twitter almost requires logins and yet it's full of crap. Usenet can be anonymous, and once you set up kill files to filter all the SPAM, you can get really high technical discussions in lots of groups.