5 ms·

I guess history made us different. Personally I have reasons to be equally distrustful to anyone who wants to know too much about me, but much more afraid of my

I guess history made us different. Personally I have reasons to be equally distrustful to anyone who wants to know too much about me, but much more afraid of my gov't than overseas entities.

handoflixue 5mo ago
In this specific case, why fear the government? My government has already seen my government-issued ID. If my government hasn't worked out my phone number, they can always ask the phone company. My address is required for the ID, voting, and filing taxes. I don't see how the government learns anything from this? Conversely, I would like to believe most companies do not have my government-issued ID, nor a lot of the information on it.
- wyldberry 5mo ago
  From an American perspective, i don't trust the government with the implementation details, nor do I trust our political climate, misaligned incentives, and general disinterest in good governance to implement something so sensitive. If I lived in say, Sweden, I feel much more comfortable trusting their government to implement. In America, I feel I must always vote in a way that prevents giving any power to the government that I wouldn't want my political opponents to have over me.
  - slaw 5mo ago
    the grass is always greener on the other side
    - AlecSchueler 5mo ago
      You think people in Nordic countries think they'd be able to trust their government more if they were American?
      - slaw 5mo ago
        OP never lived in Europe and is looking through rose-colored glasses.
        AlecSchueler 5mo ago
        Sometimes your grass is just yellow.
        wyldberry 5mo ago
        No, it's not rose-colored glasses. It's a position based on the level of trust certain societies have. As a person, i inherently distrust anyone who has state sanctioned authority over me and a monopoly on violence. Compared to the US, nordic countries are more homogeneous and higher trust overall. If I was living in those countries, I'd defer more, due to it's culture and small size. By small size I mean population. Sweden is less than 11 million, smaller than the LA metro area. My statement was not a ethical judgement that Sweden or Nordics are more trustworthy. Just that they are smaller with a more homogeneous, higher trust society. Thus if I were there I'd trust the government to more likely represent the will of the people broadly, as opposed to the US Congress.
  - soco 5mo ago
    In said US of America, when the government wants to know something about you, they will get everything they want from the companies - it's even written clearly in the US laws. So I'm not sure why (or where) you draw that line...
    - sterlind 5mo ago
      1. if they have to subpoena each site each time they need user data, it reduces mass surveillance risk. I'm okay with cops getting a warrant to access someone's gmail. I'm not okay requiring everyone to use email.gov. 2. I use a VPN and pseudonyms. they could unmask me if they cared to, but it'd be annoying. it'd be a lot more annoying if they wanted to unmask every VPN user all the time.
      - NetMageSCW 5mo ago
        Being available as part of Google Cliud means subpoenaing Google is probably sufficient for most web sites.
- AnthonyMouse 5mo ago
  > My government has already seen my government-issued ID. If you have a government ID and all you use it for is voting and paying taxes, then they know that you vote and you pay taxes. If you have to use it for accessing the internet then they know everything you do on the internet. What you read, who you talk to, what you post, when you sleep, where you are at any given time -- it's very much not the same thing as just having a picture of you and your name.
  - ForHackernews 5mo ago
    No they do not. A properly designed government app that uses cryptography to generate a deniable token that can't be cross-correlated but proves your humanity/age to a consuming site is manifestly different than Google adtech hoovering up as much of your activity as possible.
    - sterlind 5mo ago
      I have not seen any government adopt such a standard. some EU countries claim to provide anonymous age verification services, but those only hide your identity from the relying party. the site you visited is logged to the government's database along with your identity, before you're redirected to the target site with an "anonymous" token.
      - ForHackernews 5mo ago
        > the site you visited is logged to the government's database along with your identity Is that true, or are you spreading FUD? Because the system in question is not even live yet, it's only had experimental releases.
        sterlind 5mo ago
        MitID has been active since 2024: https://www.nordicalcohol.org/post/id-now-required-in-denmark-for-online-purchases-of-alcohol-nicotine-e-cigarettes-and-tobacco https://www.nordicalcohol.org/post/id-now-required-in-denmar... https://idura.eu/blog/mitid-vs-age-verification-login https://idura.eu/blog/mitid-vs-age-verification-login
- broken-kebab 5mo ago
  In this specific case your government can ban you from the web by refusing to verify. E.g. to punish dissidents abroad Belarusian dictatorship simply nullifies their IDs, and lists them as terrorists in public data. Apparently that's enough to ruin somebody's life worldwide. But at least they can use their browsers, which would be not that easy in a world where gov't-backed verification is norm on the net.
- a96 5mo ago
  In a general case, your own government can literally have a gun to your head if they happen to decide they don't like you. A foreign one needs some extra steps. And governments change. Any one might look benign now, but one election away might be different.

I guess history made us different. Personally I have reasons to be equally distrustful to anyone who wants to know too much about me, but much more afraid of my gov't than overseas entities.

handoflixue 5mo ago

In this specific case, why fear the government? My government has already seen my government-issued ID. If my government hasn't worked out my phone number, they can always ask the phone company. My address is required for the ID, voting, and filing taxes. I don't see how the government learns anything from this? Conversely, I would like to believe most companies do not have my government-issued ID, nor a lot of the information on it.

wyldberry 5mo ago
From an American perspective, i don't trust the government with the implementation details, nor do I trust our political climate, misaligned incentives, and general disinterest in good governance to implement something so sensitive. If I lived in say, Sweden, I feel much more comfortable trusting their government to implement. In America, I feel I must always vote in a way that prevents giving any power to the government that I wouldn't want my political opponents to have over me.
- slaw 5mo ago
  the grass is always greener on the other side
  - AlecSchueler 5mo ago
    You think people in Nordic countries think they'd be able to trust their government more if they were American?
    - slaw 5mo ago
      OP never lived in Europe and is looking through rose-colored glasses.
      - AlecSchueler 5mo ago
        Sometimes your grass is just yellow.
      - wyldberry 5mo ago
        No, it's not rose-colored glasses. It's a position based on the level of trust certain societies have. As a person, i inherently distrust anyone who has state sanctioned authority over me and a monopoly on violence. Compared to the US, nordic countries are more homogeneous and higher trust overall. If I was living in those countries, I'd defer more, due to it's culture and small size. By small size I mean population. Sweden is less than 11 million, smaller than the LA metro area. My statement was not a ethical judgement that Sweden or Nordics are more trustworthy. Just that they are smaller with a more homogeneous, higher trust society. Thus if I were there I'd trust the government to more likely represent the will of the people broadly, as opposed to the US Congress.
- soco 5mo ago
  In said US of America, when the government wants to know something about you, they will get everything they want from the companies - it's even written clearly in the US laws. So I'm not sure why (or where) you draw that line...
  - sterlind 5mo ago
    1. if they have to subpoena each site each time they need user data, it reduces mass surveillance risk. I'm okay with cops getting a warrant to access someone's gmail. I'm not okay requiring everyone to use email.gov. 2. I use a VPN and pseudonyms. they could unmask me if they cared to, but it'd be annoying. it'd be a lot more annoying if they wanted to unmask every VPN user all the time.
    - NetMageSCW 5mo ago
      Being available as part of Google Cliud means subpoenaing Google is probably sufficient for most web sites.
AnthonyMouse 5mo ago
> My government has already seen my government-issued ID. If you have a government ID and all you use it for is voting and paying taxes, then they know that you vote and you pay taxes. If you have to use it for accessing the internet then they know everything you do on the internet. What you read, who you talk to, what you post, when you sleep, where you are at any given time -- it's very much not the same thing as just having a picture of you and your name.
- ForHackernews 5mo ago
  No they do not. A properly designed government app that uses cryptography to generate a deniable token that can't be cross-correlated but proves your humanity/age to a consuming site is manifestly different than Google adtech hoovering up as much of your activity as possible.
  - sterlind 5mo ago
    I have not seen any government adopt such a standard. some EU countries claim to provide anonymous age verification services, but those only hide your identity from the relying party. the site you visited is logged to the government's database along with your identity, before you're redirected to the target site with an "anonymous" token.
    - ForHackernews 5mo ago
      > the site you visited is logged to the government's database along with your identity Is that true, or are you spreading FUD? Because the system in question is not even live yet, it's only had experimental releases.
      - sterlind 5mo ago
        MitID has been active since 2024: https://www.nordicalcohol.org/post/id-now-required-in-denmark-for-online-purchases-of-alcohol-nicotine-e-cigarettes-and-tobacco https://www.nordicalcohol.org/post/id-now-required-in-denmar... https://idura.eu/blog/mitid-vs-age-verification-login https://idura.eu/blog/mitid-vs-age-verification-login
broken-kebab 5mo ago
In this specific case your government can ban you from the web by refusing to verify. E.g. to punish dissidents abroad Belarusian dictatorship simply nullifies their IDs, and lists them as terrorists in public data. Apparently that's enough to ruin somebody's life worldwide. But at least they can use their browsers, which would be not that easy in a world where gov't-backed verification is norm on the net.
a96 5mo ago
In a general case, your own government can literally have a gun to your head if they happen to decide they don't like you. A foreign one needs some extra steps. And governments change. Any one might look benign now, but one election away might be different.