4 ms·
>you will gradually lose control of your government much like how the people of the UK already lost control of theirs. As a UK citizen, can you explain your re
by jansper39 1y ago
>you will gradually lose control of your government much like how the people of the UK already lost control of theirs.
As a UK citizen, can you explain your reasoning here? We haven't implemented anything like the chat control proposal and while a few politicians have brought up similar ideas, there is a lot of pushback against it.
- drnick1 1y agoAge verification, while trivial to bypass (for now), has brought you closer to further privacy-invading restrictions. Next, VPNs will be attacked. Then it will be unsigned apps on "untrusted" operating systems.
- ycombigators 1y agoAnonymity is not privacy.
- noncoml 1y agoVPN is not only for anonymity
- ycombigators 1y agoI'm not sure what point you are making, but isn't the one I was responding to.
- ang_cire 1y agoThe mechanisms that attack one attack the other as well. The apparatuses which exist to de-anonymize communication also remove the ability to definitively keep the content of the communication private, and no government (UK or EU or US, etc) that has proposed a ChatControl-like scheme has ever used a method that did not allow them to do both. If a porn site checks my ID against a gov database, the gov now knows I went to that porn site. That is a loss of both anonymity and privacy.
- anonym29 1y agoI'm completely against all infringements of privacy, but, >If a porn site checks my ID against a gov database, the gov now knows I went to that porn site. That is a loss of both anonymity and privacy. This is not necessarily true. It is possible to design systems much more like CRL than OCSP, including identity or even just age verification systems. Consider the FedGov sharing a list of public keys tied to identities of people over the age of 18, updated daily, while issuing corresponding private keys to citizens. The citizens could use their private key to sign a challenge issued by the adult media website, who would simply verify that the public key tied to the signed challenge response exists on the list of all public keys tied to identities of people over 18 issued by the fedgov. With this system, adult websites would not need to send any identifying information to FedGov, nor would private citizens be disclosing any identifying information to the adult website - not their name, not their address, not even their date of birth, just cryptographic proof that they're in possession of a private key that corresponds to the identity of an adult. Sure, kids could still conceivably obtain cryptographic private keys, just as they can obtain photographs of state-issued government ID that are currently used for age verification. The real problem with schemes like these isn't the technical feasibility, but rather the capacity of the citizenry to understand and perform their own cryptographic key management.
- ang_cire 1y agoI have proposed a similar PKI-based system myself before, but no government is proposing this because the point is not to protect children, it's to de-anonymize and surveil.
- ycombigators 1y agoAnonymity is eroding our democracies far faster than our privacy.
- ang_cire 1y agoNeither are eroding our democracy. They are both states of information, not actors. What you mean is, bad actors are eroding our democracy using anonymity to avoid negative repercussions, but Fox News, OANN, Newsmax hosts, etc, with their names and faces attached to their message, have hurt democracy far worse and more efficiently than internet trolls, and with even less pushback.
- dmix 1y agoTwo obvious ones come to mind, the UK age verification system laid the groundwork for internet IDs + ~12,000 people per year being arrested for online speech (a number that's grown exponentially) [1]. There's many other examples. [1] https://factually.co/fact-checks/justice/uk-social-media-arrests-2024-cb98f7 https://factually.co/fact-checks/justice/uk-social-media-arr...
- txrx0000 1y agoThe UK doesn't have the exact equivalent of chat control yet, but it already arrests people for politically incorrect posts. They're doing things in smaller steps, which is more likely to succeed.
- ycombigators 1y ago[dead]
- XajniN 1y agoYou’re just proving his point.
- ycombigators 1y agoLazy. The US believes the right of the individual to harass others based on their immutable characteristics is more important than the right of the individual to be free of harassment based on their immutable characteristics. The UK doesn't, and that very much reflects UK vs US culture (US culture as we know being racist and divisive). Meanwhile, the US seems to be flirting with a central idea of communism and fascism - that political criticism of the dear leader is off limits. Thus protecting the right of the (future) authoritarian (dictator) to be free of criticism. I know which one of two actually reflects an important aspect of freedom of speech. Rabble rousers will tell you otherwise, but the trick is to recognise they are rabble rousers.
- wpasc 1y agoAre you certain the person you just replied to is not in a marginalised group? If that person is, would you be running afoul of that law with "Don't be a moron."?
- dpatterbee 1y ago[flagged]
- ycombigators 1y ago
- torified 1y agoHow many surveillance cameras does your government operate again? How much do you trust your current government with the extensive surveillance apparatus they have created? How much do you trust the next government? What about the government after that?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- afiori 1y agoThis is a very naive view of surveillance and government trust.