16 ms·

The UK's war on anonymity has come to America

• deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
• matheusmoreira 2mo ago
  > These NGOs have converged upon a unified strategy: use the rhetoric of ‘child safety’ to advocate for digital ID laws that would prevent adults from using the internet anonymously. Of course. Anyone who brings up kids is trying to manipulate you into giving up your freedom for security. Whatever argument they make should be simply ignored and dismissed.
  • nzeid 2mo ago
    Worth noting that there's no security in a system that abusively collects your data. That goes for children as well.
    • walrus01 2mo ago
      Or guarantee that even if you provide such data to a nice, friendly, democratically run and ethically managed administration, that some future regime change to a completely different group of people won't result in catastrophic misuse.
      • King-Aaron 2mo ago
        Which is no longer a hypothetical
      • switchbak 2mo ago
        This is the issue I have with most of my well meaning but somewhat politically uninformed friends. The idea of “wouldn’t it be good if …” (idealized scenario), is never followed up with a “yes, but …” (realistic evaluation of how politics actually works). Yes it might actually work out ok if a mythical benevolent dictator could manage things with infinite precision and unlimited compassion. I would imagine that has never happened at any reasonable scale. The Conservative folks seem to phrase this as a desire to “keep government small” - which always seemed a little clunky given the stakes and track record of these governments.
        • spawarotti 2mo ago
          > is never followed up with a “yes, but …” (realistic evaluation of how politics actually works). OK, but following this logic, shouldn't we disband the government altogether and have mafias rule us all? When is it acceptable to hope that something is actually going to work well enough when handed over to the government?
          • paulryanrogers 2mo ago
            > OK, but following this logic, shouldn't we disband the government altogether and have mafias rule us all? Conservatives seem to be fine with mafia rule, so long as the don has the correct party affiliation. > When is it acceptable to hope that something is actually going to work well enough when handed over to the government? Mob rule doesn't with very well as a defacto government, or oligarchy. Nor food and drug safety or national defense. Some things just have to be tackled by society as a larger group. Ideally as locally as possible, but not so locally that minorities are crushed or rule becomes petty and micromanaged.
            • kraken_cult 2mo ago
              US is currently recovering (fever breaking) from the petty and micromanaged stage. We haven't been coherent as a nation for like 20+ years.
              • Finbel 2mo ago
                Seen from the outside, the US seemed a lot more coherent pre-Trump.
          • Terr_ 2mo ago
            > OK, but following this logic, shouldn't we disband the government altogether and have mafias rule us all? Only if "following this logic" means "extrapolate to an unreasonable extreme." Compare: 1. "Just eat healthy food and you'll be healthy!" 2. "Yes, but [things are complex]" 3. "Following that logic, we should just eat trash."
      • andsoitis 2mo ago
        > Or guarantee Not possible. You can strengthen defenses but you cannot guarantee it can withstand any possible, dynamic and adaptive attack strategies. So what you say is impossible to do.
      • spwa4 2mo ago
        That's partly because congress, including state congresses and judges/dept of justice just don't care about that. They are totally unable to see either the consequences of their own imperfection or even just limits to their power. A LOT of damage is done that way.
    • matheusmoreira 2mo ago
      He who gives up freedom for security ends up with neither.
      • inigyou 2mo ago
        So does he who gives up security for freedom. All things must be balanced.
        • matheusmoreira 2mo ago
          "Kids are being harmed, so let's end privacy online and force everyone to ID" is not balance, it is the panopticon. Hilariously, even the baroness cited in the article believes it's extremism. I've even seen her defend privacy and VPNs. She claims she's backing deanonymization because nobody is doing anything else. The ones who want a surveillance state are only too happy to oblige. Balance is expecting parents to actually parent their children instead of offloading all the responsibility to the state.
    • account42 2mo ago
      There is security for those in control of the government.
  • hatsix 2mo ago
    rhetoric all the way down
  • like_any_other 2mo ago
    Note how they always ignore parental controls, and skip straight to deanonymize everyone.
    • anigbrowl 2mo ago
      Tech people keep ignoring the fact that many people a) find the parental controls too hard to use and b) have no confidence that their kids won't find a way to circumvent them. If parents felt in control of technology they wouldn't be calling on governments to regulate it in the first place. I know a lot of tech people like to assume that government wants to control everything and these parents are fake front groups established to manufacture consent, but this is infowars-type conspiracy thinking. Most people are just not that facile with technology and people who have kids are atavistically opposed to anything that could harm their kids. Tech people's unwillingness to even engage with concerns about harm to children (eg the GP) more or less guarantees more aggressive regulation. IT's a self-defeating position.
      • walrus01 2mo ago
        I recently put some thought into what I would have done if I had encountered "parental controls" to use the Internet when I first encountered it as a young teen in 1992. I would have made it my personal mission in life to circumvent everything and anything possible. I feel fortunate that no such controls existed and the adults in my life knew significantly less about the technology than I did. Was I exposed to some clearly adult content? Yes. But I didn't find it particularly compelling, the video games I could download and other things I could explore were more interesting. It is also concerning to me that gen-alpha (or whatever the age bracket is called) people are increasingly being pushed into walled garden, app-based social media platforms instead of actually learning what the Internet really is, and what it's capable of.
        • Forgeties79 2mo ago
          I have a feeling we had a similar experience growing up. I generally agree, but also, we got QAnon/Alex Jones and such which have quite directly screwed up my country. So I don’t know, my opinion is often contradictory and fluid. I don’t know where I stand anymore. I believe in an “open internet,” but also, there’s people like Andrew Tate who have ruined the minds of people I care about. We can debate if these systems and people existed before (they did), but the reach and scale is different now. My most controversial opinion these days is that not everyone should be allowed to upload to YouTube if it’s public facing. We need basic screening and filtering.
  • donw 2mo ago
    [flagged]
    • undersuit 2mo ago
      No, we're not going to do anything about climate change.
      • bdangubic 2mo ago
        it is ok, the climate change will do something about us
    • King-Aaron 2mo ago
      Conflating these two things is honestly astonishing.
    • ColdStream 2mo ago
      I suspect that the blow back from climate change and resource depletion IS why they are much more interested in added surveillance. When things start to get rough, they want to ensure compliance where possible. This is why they tend to come down hard on climate change protestors.
  • shimman 2mo ago
    Sounds like a good way to cede the argument to the opposition and let those that do believe them make up the rules.
    • Gigachad 2mo ago
      Especially when there are very obvious and tangible harms from modern social media. Either you participate and help drive privacy preserving methods to solve the problems, or someone else will solve it in a way less desirable to you.
      • matheusmoreira 2mo ago
        Bringing attention to their methods is much better than dignifying the "think of the children" nonsense with a response. You just posted the answer: > Especially when there are very obvious and tangible harms from modern social media. The addictive and manipulative dark patterns of the big techs are harmful and should be banned straight up for everyone. No need to spare the children and let adults get abused. No need to verify age at all. So why don't we just ban it? Because that'd eat into profits so much it could actually kill their business models. All this "children" bullshit is just them trying to preserve their business models. It's them saying "year we're harmful and addictive and gambling tier but look we're adult only now". This is why Meta's among the corporations lobbying for this stuff. Manipulation stops working when the other party is aware of it. Bring their manipulation out into the light.
        • Gigachad 2mo ago
          I mean yes, we should just ban it all, but I'll take banning it for kids as a first step rather than an all or nothing where we will get nothing.
          • matheusmoreira 2mo ago
            Banning it just for kids requires identification and is strictly worse.
  • zamadatix 2mo ago
    In the inverse, none of the opposition matters until it can solve the problems the universal surveillance approach doesn't even solve anyways. Whatever argument they make should be simply ignored and dismissed. It's a tradeoff situation and nobody wants to leave it as such to find an answer which serves the best balance. Instead, we are doomed to discuss the absolutes of freedoms vs the absolutes of child safety. I'd really like to see something like a required parental controls architecture products had to support (but not every device had to force universally). These kind of solutions only goes as far as the problem is a technical one, e.g. a kid on their dad's office computer they weren't supposed to access can still see things they shouldn't, but such is the truth with any pure technical approach to the problem which is not actually fully technically bound.
  • txrx0000 2mo ago
    We should not ignore it, but firmly dismiss it with reason. The recent Illinois law that applies to all Internet-capable operating systems is blatantly unconstitutional. People should not be forced by law to disclose their age (or anything) in order to engage in digital communication. That forced utterance of your own age is compelled speech, a violation of the First Amendment. For parents who are genuinely concerned about child safety, you are being used to push an agenda. If we want to solve the digital parenting problem, we have to understand how the problem came to be in the first place and why there isn't a good solution at the moment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49118578 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49118578
    • inigyou 2mo ago
      You don't have to disclose your age. You have to disclose the age that you want your device's parental controls to work at. Doesn't have to be yours.
      • txrx0000 2mo ago
        That doesn't change the fact that you're being forced to utter an age bracket in order to communicate digitally. It's the digital equivalent of having your mouth, eyes, and ears taped shut unless you utter "I am x years old" because the law wills it so. Of course, it's well-established that human beings are capable of making stuff up, and you can claim to be whatever age, but that's not the point.
        • inigyou 2mo ago
          I also need to utter my device's PIN code, is that compelled speech too? And to drive to a protest I need a driver's license which requires me to answer questions about the road rules. Compelled speech?
  • dionidium 2mo ago
    > Whatever argument they make should be simply ignored and dismissed. This makes very little sense. People sometimes appeal to the safety of children cynically, but it's very often sincere, since parents genuinely do worry a lot about their kids. You can tell people to ignore these appeals, but it won't work, and you'll be leaving better arguments on the table.
    • cobbzilla 2mo ago
      Yes it’s normal to worry about your kids. It’s normal for family and friends to worry about your kids. When a politician is worried about your kids, you should be worried about your rights and freedoms. Not only for your own sake but for your kids too!
      • slg 2mo ago
        >When a politician is worried about your kids, you should be worried about your rights and freedoms. Not only for your own sake but for your kids too! What rights and freedoms should I worry about when a politician wants to make sure my child is fed by supporting food stamp programs or free hot lunches at school? The idea that any attempt to help a child is inherently suspect honestly says something distrubing about your own worldview. You can't imagine someone genuinely caring for a child that isn't there own?
        • GiorgioG 2mo ago
          Politicians don’t care about your kids, they only care about your vote.
          • slg 2mo ago
            This level of cynicism is only possible if someone has never interacted with people on a local political level. Once again, it's more a reflection of your own worldview than an accurate reflection of all of humanity. There are some people who genuinely have empathy for others and want to do good. The way some of you refuse to believe that is truly disturbing.
  • ColdStream 2mo ago
    Comes down to something I have said for a long while. Anyone that wants power, who is saying it, why are they saying it and why do people believe them. That one can get deep really quick.
  • anonreeeeplor 2mo ago
    [dead]
  • samsin 2mo ago
    There's an ongoing debate in Australia to ban gambling advertisements. One of the arguments that is supportive of a ban says that children shouldn't be exposed to gambling advertisements during sports broadcasts, as they should be family friendly. Should that argument be ignored too?
    • andrew_lettuce 2mo ago
      Kids can't gamble so yes we should enforce laws and ignore that one too. We can then debate if sports gambling itself should be legal or advertised at all.
      • samsin 2mo ago
        The laws you want enforced to prevent kids from gambling were the subject of debate too.
    • deleted 2mo ago
      [deleted]
  • switchbak 2mo ago
    “Anyone who brings up kids is trying to manipulate you” Any argument with such blatant oversimplifications is almost certainly lacking in nuance and can be ignored and dismissed. I get what you’re pointing at: politicians regularly abuse these arguments, but that doesn’t mean it’s 100% of all arguments involving children.
    • andrew_lettuce 2mo ago
      If they use blatant, binary positions and you try to be subtle and nuanced you've already lost.
      • switchbak 2mo ago
        [dead]
    • matheusmoreira 2mo ago
      Go ahead. Play their game. Be nuanced. Argue in good faith. Then watch as they accuse you of supporting pedophilia.
      • switchbak 2mo ago
        You said "Anyone who brings up kids is trying to manipulate you" - that's clearly not always true. Now it's OFTEN true, and in politics it's almost always used in bad faith. But that's still not everything, and your simple rule eliminates the well intentioned discussions, and that's throwing the baby out with the bath water. Now if they are clearly acting in bad faith, then absolutely it's not worth treating that as a legitimate discussion. Now it's "kids", but yesterday it was "terrorists", way back it was "heretics" - there's always a magical word that ill intentioned people will use to bludgeon you with. But you shouldn't let them erase your ability to have honest discussions.
        • matheusmoreira 2mo ago
          > You said "Anyone who brings up kids is trying to manipulate you" - that's clearly not always true. Then let's sharpen the statement. "Anyone who brings up kids is either trying to manipulate you or is a useful idiot for the manipulators." > But you shouldn't let them erase your ability to have honest discussions. Tell that to them, not me. I've found that I'm perfectly capable of having honest discussions about pretty much any topic, no matter how controversial, except this. When children are involved, even perfectly well intentioned people get whipped up into an emotional frenzy and are ready to double down on literally any half baked "solution" to whatever problem is placed in front of them. They cannot be argued out of such a state, and will lash out at anyone who tries. Your "heretic" comparison is apt.
  • onetimeusename 2mo ago
    > Anyone who brings up kids is trying to manipulate you into giving up your freedom These are NGOs not parents. And "child safety" is often a euphemism. The point is it's hard to argue against child safety. For example, if opaque NGOs demand deanonymization to stop CSAM, I am assuming most people would not want to seem like they are in favor of CSAM. So you need an organized effort to argue in favor of privacy and even then anyone who does it can easily be smeared as a CSAM user. So child safety can backdoor something else.
  • 6r17 2mo ago
    The worse is - we say it's about child safety - but that same rhetoric is actually defending kids to have a smartphone.
  • ulnarkressty 2mo ago
    "The government says all children need to show an ID when browsing the internet in order to be safe" "The government says all children need to be vaccinated in order to be safe" I'm not saying these arguments are equivalent, but they seem equivalent because they induce the same feeling of loss of agency. And one cannot simply ignore and dismiss something like this.
    • matheusmoreira 2mo ago
      > loss of agency That's exactly what this is. They want to build an internet where it is structurally impossible for children to be harmed in any way. This requires the destruction of the very concept of agency. You can't just do things. You need government approval.
      • inigyou 2mo ago
        No they don't? Laws can't really make anything "structurally impossible" unless they criminalize a lot more - such as hosting a website without full government review (this is illegal in China). These laws are quite clearly targeted at the harm that is happening today and not at locking down the entire internet. You do have to take enforcement into account when evaluating these laws. Some HNers interpret this as you go to jail for not scanning an ID (which makes sense to programmers because it's a simple if/then), but most of them are actually written as product safety laws, so the government can order you to comply or take your product off the market.
        • matheusmoreira 2mo ago
          > Laws can't really make anything "structurally impossible" Require age verification. Kids lie and claim they are 18. Require better age verification, implemented at the operating system level so that only the parent's administrator account can override it. Kids install a live Linux operating system on a USB drive and boot it, and now they have full access to the web. Require computers to be cryptographically locked down so that only approved child-protecting operating systems may ever run. For the sake of the kids. Computing freedom has now been destroyed. It is now structurally impossible for you to be free. It's not your computer anymore, it's the government's, and you better believe they are going to do a lot more than just prevent kids from accessing harmful content.
  • ycombinator_acc 2mo ago
    In the modern discourse and context, 99 times out of 100, indeed they are, and indeed it should be.
  • TacticalCoder 2mo ago
    > These NGOs have converged upon a unified strategy ... Not just for the war on anonymity. NGOs, often funded by government money (so missing two third of their name), have unified on other topics. One example that comes to mind is teaming up to organize the biggest influx of migrants into the EU following the arab spring movements: there have been hidden camera recording NGO employees explaining how to dodge controls, how to answer questions (by lying), and they've been actively helping sneaking people illegally in the EU. A good question one could ask itself before downvoting me is this: if it's a fact that NGOs are teaming up, worldwide, to lie using the rethoric of "child safety" [1]... On which other topics did NGOs lie? Or are we to believe all NGOs are good and well-meaning, except those working to end anonymity? And before I forget: in Africa for example it's fully well known that NGO typical means "DGSE": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directorate_General_for_External_Security https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directorate_General_for_Extern... There are french "doctors" in some of those NGOs who know less about medicine than what I know about medicine by having ex-girlfriends that were doctors. By squinting one's eye just a little it look like NGO is not that far from a synonym of "shady undercover gov op". And btw why should any of my taxpayers dollars go to even a single NGO if it's non-governmental? And another big one: while some of those NGOs have been hard at work passing legislation which as a a result gets people arrested for "hate speech" (or even just for saying "christian prayers in their heads") in the UK, other NGOs are even harder at work making sure that the absolute most horrible of all hate speech cannot ever be criticized "because it's religious". The double standards are literally insane. If I was in the UK, I'd GTFO. And not to the EU. [1] speaking of which, btw, there are serious allegations about NGOs participating in child trafficking, for example in the Haiti SNAFU
    • Try1275 2mo ago
      > If I was in the UK, I'd GTFO. And not to the EU. Where would you go?
  • seizethecheese 2mo ago
    Same for the environment and construction. And there’s a correlate for rhetoric too, such as comparing people to Hitler or Stalin.
  • mianos 2mo ago
    > Anyone who brings up kids is trying to manipulate you into giving up your freedom for security. The immediate reply is the accusational: "why are you trying to trying to prevent safety for kids". It's a simple next step to accuse you of hiding your own child abuse ring. This sounds like hype, but it's the normal path here in Australian.
    • matheusmoreira 2mo ago
      Which is precisely the point. Children are political weapons. Precisely crafted to shut down any opposition to whatever it is you're pushing. Oh you're against this? Pedophile. You don't argue with these people. You summarily dismiss them. You recognize the game they are playing and you refuse to play it. Call attention to their methods instead: they are exploiting and weaponizing children to push their big tech friendly surveillance agenda.
      • mianos 2mo ago
        The flaw in 'calling attention to their methods' is that you rarely have a meaningful opportunity to argue against a bureaucratic system that operates this way. Whether individuals inside the system are true believers or cynical operators, the response to calling out their methods will be identical: If they genuinely believe the rhetoric: They will simply double down and say, 'Yes, and protecting the children makes this absolutely necessary.' If they know it is a manipulation tactic: They will still reply with, 'It is for the children,' because they know it is an impenetrable PR shield that gets them their way. In either scenario, the bureaucracy is entirely immune to the criticism. Exposing the game might help persuade third-party observers, but it does absolutely nothing to stop the bureaucratic machine from using that exact same line to steamroll the agenda forward.
    • nickcox1 2mo ago
      Yep. And if not child abuse then terrorism.
      • matheusmoreira 2mo ago
  • Der_Einzige 2mo ago
    This but unironically.
  • somenameforme 2mo ago
    You're straw manning most people by trying to insist upon this, as most Americans support a ban on social media for children. [1] That turns into the overwhelming majority if you consider only Americans with children. And the percent of Americans that oppose things like age verification for the usage of social media sites is in the single digits. So it will most likely happen especially because you are certainly right, in part, that no government has ever said no to actions that'd give them more power, let alone ones that are widely supported. But the point of this is that rather than having this as some sort of red-line no, I think it'd be much more pragmatic to try to argue for identity verification regulations that would be most palatable. [1] - https://yougov.com/en-gb/articles/54969-eight-in-ten-parents-say-social-media-use-has-a-negative-impact-on-children https://yougov.com/en-gb/articles/54969-eight-in-ten-parents...
    • intended 2mo ago
      Conversations on age verification tend to split into 2 streams. Conversations where the root submission talks about failures at social media firms and the evidence of harms, or evidence from trials. Conversations on the attacks against freedom and privacy. I see very little hope that an actual rebuttal or alternative to the desire to muzzle tech will be forged, because the two conversation streams seem to rarely intersect. We are not in the 90s anymore. Tech as most people experience it is not the new new thing, and most parents are tired of tech. A more recent pew survey showed that nearly half of teens think that social media is bad for teens. We know that Meta went ahead with features even after their own internal research told them it was bad for teen mental health. How in hell, is there any effective response created, if the social pressure parents and children are driving, is being dismissed as a conspiracy? This should be the time that the business models and incentives that allow loot boxes and addicting design mechanisms should be discussed. There needs to be an actual solution that addresses the issues users are facing, or else they are simply going to choose to sacrifice freedoms for the hope of gaining some control.
      • somenameforme 2mo ago
        In general I would agree with you, but one issue I have here is that I think social media even done fully responsibly would end up being very undesirable for children. Even if we have no algorithm and just 'friend on friend' stuff, social media tends to significantly amplify a lot of the nasty stuff that happens at every school - bullying, rumor milling, conspiratorial stuff (like kids falsely reporting somebody else to try to get them in trouble), and so on. There's also the typical image crafting stuff that drives envy, insecurity, and so on - kids aren't sharing when they eat left overs mashed up in a bowl, but they are sharing when they go eat at an expensive steak restaurant. That bias already significantly affects adults perceptions of others' life/lifestyle, let alone children. And even without 'the algorithm', there's going to be FOMO and the general addictiveness of updates that's going to leave kids as zombies to their phones rather than interacting with each other as much in real life. So I'm not really sure it's viable to try to 'fix' social media. You can certainly make it better than it currently is, but I think the issue is that we have horrible companies managing a horrible product.
  • red_admiral 2mo ago
    > Anyone who brings up kids is trying to manipulate you into giving up your freedom for security That argument loses you most of the population in a vote, myself included. Parents may disagree, for a start; I reckon most women (especially outside of tech) read that and mark you down as "creepy man I don't want near kids". It's also wrong, as there are lots of rules that are in fact designed to protect children. I recommend reading up on the history of child abuse in the Boy Scouts of America (now Scouts BSA), FBI agent Kenneth Lanning's investigation, and the safeguarding and leadership training that scout leaders must take today. The UK has a system, I think it's called the DBS, which depending on the level of check ranges from "is this person a convicted sex offender?" to "non-crime hate incidents". One can argue a lot about what the correct level should be, no-one has yet convincingly explained to me why specifically "non-crime" actions should be in a secret police record. But I am on board with someone convicted by a court for child sex offences not being allowed to become a schoolteacher.
  • jiaosdjf 2mo ago
    No, do not ignore them, do not dismiss them and do not underestimate them. These people are the enemy, they are smart and resourceful and they have managed to do the unthinkable - convince 2 of the most pro-free-speech nations in the history of the world to start censoring the internet. The idea that I would ever need a VPN to view adult content in the UK would have been laughable 5 years ago and now it's a fact that puts us in the same basket as literal authoritarian hell holes. I guarantee they will come for the VPNs, that is 100% certain, these traitors will stop at nothing. Only Luigi can save us.
• Havoc 2mo ago
  The whole think of the children angle is so cursed. Used to push surveillance meanwhile actual harm against children goes ignored. See Epstein files and the grooming gangs in the UK If it actually did anything to protect the children it wouldn’t be so objectionable
  • newspaper1 2mo ago
    Epstein is real, the “grooming gangs” are not, unless you’re talking about Jimmy Saville.
    • kraken_cult 2mo ago
      This is flagrantly untrue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploit...
      • thin_carapace 2mo ago
        so the grandparent commentor has broken UK law by knowingly sharing false information. over here officer, a thoughtcrime has taken place!
      • andix 2mo ago
        First sentence: "From the late 1980s until 2013..."
      • newspaper1 2mo ago
        [flagged]
        • butterlesstoast 2mo ago
          This is clearly an AI bot. Watch it automatically respond to my comment.
          • newspaper1 2mo ago
• Analemma_ 2mo ago
  On this topic, have people noticed the sudden coordinated media push for Flock Is Your Friend? The Free Press, The Atlantic, and Axios have all churned out pro-Flock articles in the last week. Clearly someone (I assume A16Z, but it could be multiple groups) is panicking about the mounting bipartisan backlash to Flock cameras and is starting to write checks to try and head it off.
  • cosmic_cheese 2mo ago
    Pro-Flock bots come out in droves in the replies to any Xitter post that’s even mildly negative towards them too. It’s not the least bit subtle.
    • walrus01 2mo ago
      basically: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/wont-somebody-please-think-of-the-children https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/wont-somebody-please-think-of...
  • iamnothere 2mo ago
    My theory is that the establishment sees the oncoming economic crisis and is desperately trying to plan for managing the fallout. They don’t like Flock or its backers, but they feel they have no choice. Same as why Palantir is gradually being rehabilitated in the mainstream press. You’ll also notice that Anduril is quickly being accepted now that we’re expending munitions faster than our replacement rate.
    • walrus01 2mo ago
      > trying to plan for managing the fallout Put in a less polite way, they're preparing for the metaphorical pitchforks and torches held by mobs of the common people which might manifest themselves in a more kinetic format.
      • iamnothere 2mo ago
        Yes. My hope is that the rare earths shortage, memory shortage, and current focus on munitions will delay the era of drone-based policing until after the crisis.
• BeaverGoose 2mo ago
  I'm always surprised how defensive people get in here about privacy when so many corporations have vastly more information about you than the government does.
  • marssaxman 2mo ago
    "I'm surprised how much people hate this thing when this other thing, which they also hate, is even worse"?
  • choo-t 2mo ago
    More the reason to be defensive about it and fighting back corpo and government.
  • vachina 2mo ago
    Because most here works in said corporations.
  • 0xbadcafebee 2mo ago
    The corporations aren't going to throw you in jail if you cross state lines to get an abortion. The US government is already doing this when they get that data.
    • laughing_man 2mo ago
      That isn't true. This is settle law -- states can not prevent people from going to other states to have abortions.
  • joenot443 2mo ago
    The government has a monopoly on violence and companies do not.
    • walrus01 2mo ago
      (yet). Contractors for the government that will be happy to help implement the violence are coming soon. If they're not already here by some metrics.
• tbrownaw 2mo ago
  Several states have already had this for a while now.
• drivebyhooting 2mo ago
  Like it or not, there is a large constituency who wants to “protect the children”. By demonizing them and failing to engage with the worries over social media and pornography We have brought it on ourselves. Is it to be wondered at that many people are angry when tech companies have polluted the commons with their effluvium?
  • sicktriple 2mo ago
    Fair play. This should 100% be viewed as a logical extension of that same effluvium. This is not a bug but a feature for them, many of these laws allow companies like Meta to offshore the responsibility of not harming children onto individuals while continuing to melt the brains of anyone unfortunate enough to still have a Facebook or Instagram account. edit: sp
  • an0malous 2mo ago
    > Like it or not, there is a large constituency who wants to “protect the children”. Is there, though? The push is coming from lobbyists who seem to be largely funded by wealthy elites, corporations, and other opaque organizations. One of them seems to be Meta. It doesn’t look like a grassroots effort.
    • inigyou 2mo ago
      It's voters who actually want to protect children and then tech offers something protecting-children-shaped to politicians.
  • josh_p 2mo ago
    I agree with the other commenter who replied to you. I don’t think this comes from actual parents. And the article suggests this latest push is from right-leaning groups whose goals are surveillance and censorship. That said, I’m a father of 3. I’m a millennial and tech worker. I have the digital literacy to teach my kids about the internet and its horrors in a safe way. Not every parent does, so passing this off as a “parent better” issue doesn’t solve anything either. I dunno if you can legislate “better parental control ux”, but I’m open to similar ideas so parents can get some support without compromising on privacy.
• deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
• doginasuit 2mo ago
  HN has this guideline for comments: > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says. If the same standard were applied for posts, this one would fail. I recognize that it is a popular perspective that these measures are essentially a war on anonymity, but that is not what they intend to fix, although it is quite possible that anonymity is a casualty of whatever war is at hand. I believe efforts to resist these measures would be more effective if they engaged with the problem: the modern internet is a harmful experience for young minds, beyond what any society should consider acceptable. I personally don't think shocking content is the worst of it. Algorithms that maximize engagement over enriching experience are a curse for any age group, and developing brains face the worst of it. Is age-gating the internet the right answer? Will it even help? Are there ulterior motives? Those are open questions that need discussion. Dismissing a genuine problem is choosing not to engage in the discussion.
  • walrus01 2mo ago
    > the modern internet is a harmful experience for young minds Because of the goal of advertising revenue as the ultimate driver as to build an addictive permanent scroll of slop on tiktok or instagram, and the desire of social media companies to build walled gardens where someone's entire online experience stays in their "app.". As you say, this affects young and old alike.
    • blackqueeriroh 2mo ago
      Capitalism. Your problem is capitalism. The so-called vaunted “free market.”
      • inigyou 2mo ago
        "free market" and "capitalism" are antonyms.
  • Computer0 2mo ago
    [dead]
  • 2mo ago
• deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
• inigyou 2mo ago
  [flagged]
  • walrus01 2mo ago
    > I see you're putting "no internet access without scanning your ID" Other countries have already implemented this or are making strenuous efforts towards it. In Pakistan right now you need to submit a copy of your national ID card and scan your fingerprints to get a live LTE data service SIM card. This is not hyperbole but is real practice in some places that is soon going to be imported to jurisdictions that traditionally have more "freedom". https://www.pta.gov.pk/category/biometric-verification-771039280-2023-05-30 https://www.pta.gov.pk/category/biometric-verification-77103... https://www.biometricupdate.com/202607/pakistan-fast-tracks-digital-identity-as-digital-nation-act-takes-effect https://www.biometricupdate.com/202607/pakistan-fast-tracks-...
    • inigyou 2mo ago
      [dead]
  • iamnothere 2mo ago
    > You should be banned. Statements like this are inflammatory—basically a personal attack—and ironically are much more likely to violate HN guidelines.
    • inigyou 2mo ago
      When the violation is so egregious, I think it's warranted. Posting this particular article should result in a ban from HN, and I stand by that.
      • iamnothere 2mo ago
        I’m glad that the moderation team doesn’t share your position.
• inigyou 2mo ago
  [flagged]
  • braiamp 2mo ago
    I clicked flag, then clicked to unflag. Nothing changed
  • llm_nerd 2mo ago
    Flagging on submissions deranks a submission after some count, making it fall off the first three pages. I think it's a much higher bar (like moderation involvement) to fully make it dead.
  • lern_too_spel 2mo ago
    I also flagged the article. The first few laws that I looked at on the page had nothing to do with digital IDs. This article is the worst form of AI slop: rage bait.
• anonreeeeplor 2mo ago
  It is very unlikely that “NGOs” have the funding influence and power to do this. The more likely source is state backed intelligence agencies. The NGOs are just there to create a buffer. Ask yourself logically - who would pay these NGOs to do things like attempt to extort meta into a $500M+ settlement over “harming child mental health.” This is all connected and intelligence agency backed. It’s far from innocent, it’s non corporate - some had suggested meta was behind it - but as we have seen meta is the one getting targeted.
  • wmf 2mo ago
    There is Ashton Kutcher. And it's conceivable to me that some wannabe-Palantir private companies might back these ideas.
• Barrin92 2mo ago
  Didn't HN decide to not allow AI submissions? This is quite explicitly one in that the operator of the site declares to "automate investigative journalism" and launched the site with its five pieces of 'journalism' yesterday. And to point out the obvious on the actual quality of the piece, The US has itself passed age verification laws in 20 states, such as Texas where it was driven not by the British but by domestic interest groups and decidedly state senators like Angela Paxton. Also given the slant of the site it's pretty obvious was the political motivation here is, I guess yelling at the British always works
  • inigyou 2mo ago
    It did, but moderation is based on outrage, and a bunch of nonsense outrage porn will always get to the top.
• windex 2mo ago
  I think we need to counter surveil those in power and their relatives.
• areoform 2mo ago
  For the first time in human history, the cost of surveillance has dropped below the cost of privacy. It is more expensive today to maintain your privacy and anonymity than it is to surveil you. The collective surveillance grid makes it possible to track people's movements, whereabouts, their predilections, political views, personal images and more for a few cents every day. It's a bargain. And in this new world, the eye watches everyone, all the time, forever. Most people, including people on HN, are still stuck in a human-first world. The new surveillance state isn't going to be thousands to hundreds of thousands of humans sitting in a shadow-y room going over pictures and videos. Today, a bunch of vectors and a large multi-modal model will do just fine. Servers are cheap (for a nation state) and never need to eat or sleep. And they will be used to watch you. Especially if you're attractive. Or, valuable. Or, blackmail-able. After all, NSA employees routinely abuse multi-billion dollar surveillance assets to stalk women. It's so common that the NSA calls it LOVEINT. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOVEINT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOVEINT In the world to come, people are going to wish they were being surveilled by the NSA. Because at least the NSA punishes these people. Occasionally. When this kind of technology becomes this cheap and this pervasive, then the end of anonymity means unaccountable sheriff deputies stalking their former spouse and family. Or, prospective romantic interests. https://www.firstalert4.com/2026/08/03/brentwood-officer-accused-using-license-plate-reader-stalk-ex-wife/ https://www.firstalert4.com/2026/08/03/brentwood-officer-acc... https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/cops-using-license-plate-readers-161200228.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/cops-using-license-pl... https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/rogue-officers-turned-nationwide-camera-122127787.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/rogue-officers-turned... https://www.newsweek.com/flock-camera-police-arrests-12263782 https://www.newsweek.com/flock-camera-police-arrests-1226378... https://ij.org/police-have-reportedly-used-license-plate-readers-to-stalk-romantic-interests-at-least-14-times-in-recent-years/ https://ij.org/police-have-reportedly-used-license-plate-rea... https://edition.cnn.com/2026/07/26/us/flock-cameras-surveillance-abuse https://edition.cnn.com/2026/07/26/us/flock-cameras-surveill... With this new oracle, these people will be able to set up alerts for when their spouse is thinking of leaving them. To catch their child accessing support for abuse or something more ephemeral like being an atheist, having different political views or LGBT+. Anyone who doesn't see the forest for the trees, or who embraces this because "parental controls are too hard to use" will doom themselves and future generations to a world that's materially worse than our hyper-surveilled present. I can't believe I'm saying this, but at this rate I'm going to miss the days when it was just the NSA reading my emails (and they still do! Howdy!). I know the track record. But at least the NSA has some sense of institutional responsibility and control. Most institutions in your life, including your HOA don't. https://ktvz.com/cnn-regional/2021/07/22/arnold-residents-celebrating-change-of-leadership-after-hoa-ran-out-of-control/ https://ktvz.com/cnn-regional/2021/07/22/arnold-residents-ce...
• vancouvermatt 2mo ago
  [flagged]
• EtienneDeLyon 2mo ago
  [dead]
• lingwu05 2mo ago
  This faced a huge backlash when first introduce in the UK, there's even a infamous meme with a children saying face the wall lol.
• Buttons840 2mo ago
  It seems to me the intrusiveness of age verification will continue to grow. They want the OS to report the user's age. People will use this to claim whatever age they want. For instance, if companies cannot advertise to children, they might find that almost every computer is reporting that the user is a child--turns out adults want the protections kids receive as well--sometimes. Eventually they will have to enforce a system intrusive enough that no lying or abuse of the system is possible. We might even approach "Verification Can" levels of verification.
  • ColdStream 2mo ago
    I will go back to DOS before I hand over this information. I already have my setup for it when this comes down the line. Can also just lie about your age, "I am as old as the fjords, as young as a newborn lamb" - Thor - GTA Vice City radio ;)
    • skinfaxi 2mo ago
      They will require you to use device attestation to access government sites/services next.
    • zappb 2mo ago
      You should look into https://collapseos.org/ https://collapseos.org/ along those lines.
• mrmckizzle 2mo ago
  It never came, it has always been here.
  • ColdStream 2mo ago
    Someone I used to associate with was always really switched on with these things. Many things he said in the past that sounded a bit extreme or conspiratorial, turned out to be the real deal years later. Always interesting in retrospect. The one thing he always said is, they have always been watching and know who is who, what these things do is allow it to be entered into the court of law. Now they can act on these things.
    • mrmckizzle 2mo ago
      I mean, I wasn't even thinking at that level. It's been about 10 years since Facebook forced everyone to verify their identity. The only difference now is there is a push to codify it into law.
• Pxtl 2mo ago
  Honestly I wouldn't be so cranky about this if it were proper government based ID instead of creepy Thiel companies doing it. And if it was mostly about posting content anonymously instead of even reading these sites.
  • wmf 2mo ago
    Yeah, the US is getting the worst version. We can't have federal digital ID because "mark of the beast" but you have to show ID to watch porn so a bunch of private ID verification gatekeepers have shown up.
• kajaktum 2mo ago
  Having privacy necessarily means that it will also make conversation between any adult and child private. This is simply a risk that I am willing to make. Just fuck off already.
• 6r17 2mo ago
  Fight this shit off. We do not need this. Digital Privacy has tools coming up - we are all loosing on this because of a few monkeys I wish some people had to courage to deal with. I'm honestly exhausted by this shit. Let all of it rot.
  • ColdStream 2mo ago
    It is imbalance of power at play. They can keep floating this stuff and we have to put in a thousand times as much energy to shoot it down. We get worn down quicker than they can. It only has to work once for them, we have to keep pushing back. My very pessimistic take is one out of Taoism. If you wish for them to fail, let them grow. Eventually the weight of the whole system collapses itself, the question is just on what time frame. The way out is to go through. I don't like this framing but it seems to be the most accurate.
    • iamnothere 2mo ago
      You don’t even have to “let them” grow, they will do it regardless, as they hold the seats of power. But that doesn’t mean that silent acquiescence is the right path, either. Speaking up attracts like-minded allies. It’s also a good idea to maintain your own private means of communication, as there will be some hard times ahead.
      • ColdStream 2mo ago
        Pretty much. It is a narrow path between, pushing back and ensuring safety. It can be done but you have to be careful.
• jaimex2 2mo ago
  "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin
  • missedthecue 2mo ago
    The funny thing about this quote in context was that Ben Franklin was using it to argue for MORE state power, not less. Remember, Ben was the guy that would steal private letters and publish them in his newspaper.
    • rightbyte 2mo ago
      Specifically, it was about the need to tax the rich and not grant them exemptions for favours like nobles.
  • inigyou 2mo ago
    applies no matter what words you substitute for Liberty and Safety.
• cuoder 2mo ago
  UK government (and the rest of Europe) has had a very easy time implementing strict administrative regulations due to public acceptance. And the children argument is like the easiest angle to attack, you can use it for almost any cause and win.
  • slopinthebag 2mo ago
    1984 was based in London and the UK.
  • 6r17 2mo ago
    [flagged]
    • ColdStream 2mo ago
      My issue with the whole move out of country X is that, where would you move to? It seems like everyone is moving in lock-step globally.
      • 6r17 2mo ago
        War is coming to Europe. At this point I'm even thinking about moving to China - at least they don't accept Zuckerberg checks. Tbf in my case I'm also a tech holder - so i'm just getting robbed.
        • soueuls 2mo ago
          I lived in China for a while a decade ago, studied at Tsinghua and did some research as well. IMHO you have more freedom in China than in Europe. Can you walk on the street and say "Fuck Xi Jinping" like you would in France with Macron? Probably not. But it's a completely useless freedom to have. At least in China you get relative safety when you walk on the street at night. And when the government decides to restrict some liberties you don't have to pay tens of thousands of politicians and lobbyist to do it. If you have to choose your poison pill, you might as well pick the cheap one that does bring a semblance of harmony and not complete polarization and chaos.
• mrcwinn 2mo ago
  We should copy nothing from the UK on topics of technology, privacy or air conditioning.
• jaimex2 2mo ago
  What can the average person do to try and dismantle these NGOs?
  • mikestorrent 2mo ago
    The goal behind these efforts, fundamentally, is to make it impossible to organize efforts to dissent against whatever comes next. We still have the tools for mass organization but we lack unifying charismatic leaders who could use them in time.
    • ColdStream 2mo ago
      Nowadays that seems to be almost by design. This is something I have noted with Trump, he seems to be one of the last names that made it really big in pre-social media era and had a somewhat unified presence in peoples minds. Making it to that level nowadays is actually really difficult, heck I would argue that even people like Mr Beast hasn't hit that level of awareness due to the fragmented nature of media and fame. You can build movement in an echo chamber, it just depends if that is enough.
  • fedpost 2mo ago
    Delay the legislation whenever possible, call your Congress critter and make their lives a tiny bit worse. Deny them at every level of government including local and state assemblies where you have a bigger voice. Defend your communities by actually showing up to city council meetings. That kinda stuff... https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/data-centers/protesters-haul-a-guillotine-to-city-council-meeting-about-a-potential-ai-data-center-company-rep-cornered-by-protestors-it-no-longer-felt-safe-to-stay-developer-escorted-out-by-police https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/data-centers/prot...
• chungus_amongus 2mo ago
  despicable
• AuthAuth 2mo ago
  The day cannot come soon enough where every online user is tied to a verified person in a government database.
  • deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
  • doctorwho42 2mo ago
    Why? So we can have a government sanctioned credit score of sorts?
    • inigyou 2mo ago
      You already have those.
    • AuthAuth 2mo ago
      No. So we can have confidence that our online discourse is by humans and by humans in our country.
  • deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
• deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
• tangotaylor 2mo ago
  > A joint statement by Buffy Wicks, the lead author of AB 2273, Jordan Cunningham, another AB 2273 author, and 5Rights Foundation states, “The Bill is practicable and realistic, drawing as it does on the UK’s Age Appropriate Design Code (AADC).” How is Buffy Wicks so damn gullible with tech legislation? Her AB 1043 and AB 1856 (Digital Age Assurance Act), intended to protect children online and regulate Big Tech (but unintentionally criminalizing open source), was sponsored by a dark money influence operation from Meta. https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1rshc1f/i_traced_2_billion_in_nonprofit_grants_and_45/ https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1rshc1f/i_traced_2_b... She is actually well-respected with housing and transportation bills but I don't know what's going on with her tech bills.
  • StanislavPetrov 2mo ago
    Well-respected by who? >(but unintentionally criminalizing open source) Why do you assume this was unintentional? Because she said so?
    • boomlinde 2mo ago
      > Well-respected by who? She was elected to the California State Assembly, so presumably by her constituents.
    • inigyou 2mo ago
      Why do you assume it actually happened? The DAAA doesn't criminalize open source.
  • stuaxo 2mo ago
    We have dark money in the UK too and linked to the same orgs it just arrives via different channels.
    • expedition32 2mo ago
      You cannot make anonymous donations in my country so we know who the Israeli and American agents are.
• a2ff6eeb0 2mo ago
  Is anyone that cares going to put on a suit and talk to the people passing laws?
  • tangotaylor 2mo ago
    Yeah we definitely have. Here's me and another dev opposing AB 1856 (would have criminalized open source in the name of age assurance): https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/hearings/279266#t=1092&f=7b87059bf53b0b4642282c875e6bd43c https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/hearings/279266#t=10... And here's like ~120 of us who showed up to oppose AB 2023 (the 3D printer spyware bill). It was incredible. https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/hearings/279741#t=1946&f=ce96e722e9ac8cb843434b0df2ea31cc https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/hearings/279741#t=19... I think the easiest way to get involved is to become an EFF member. They'll keep you up to date on all the censorship and surveillance bills. Then you can contact your legislator, sent letters to the CA legislature committees, or show up to the hearings in Sacramento.
    • brushfoot 2mo ago
      This was inspiring to watch. Thank you for your work.
  • dyauspitr 2mo ago
    What you don’t realize is most people want this. The social media bans across Western Europe, and Australia are heavily supported by the vast majority of the population.
    • speedstyle 2mo ago
      You could make it easy to ban on children's devices, rather than having websites do it. At the moment you either have a small set of allowed applications, which is fine for younger kids, or domain-list filtering which is unreliable, hard for parents to set up (and not that hard for kids to get around). There are many ways to improve the situation – I think websites should have to attach metadata about the content being served, browsers should use this to apply a device policy, and devices should make it easy to configure basic rules on first setup. People aren't asking specifically for hardware-attested facial scanning
• dools 2mo ago
  All this talk starts from the assumption that anonymity is something to which anyone in a society should have a right.
• domeinhornMOT 2mo ago
  [flagged]
• chr15m 2mo ago
  The right people to protect children are those responsible for them - their parents and guardians. If there is a problem with children not being sufficiently protected, that is the level at which to solve it. Give families tools and information to do so.
  • hedora 2mo ago
    I’ll just add that age verification schemes serve no purpose—-and are actively harmful—-unless there is some reasonable policy that’s applied after the enforcement. The companies pushing age verification make their money monetizing access to children. They are exactly the sorts of groups I’d like to keep my kids away from. Forcing the kids to label themselves as minors just makes them more vulnerable to online exploitation.
    • chr15m 2mo ago
      Yes, it is an egregious attack on the privacy and safety of minors.
  • dyauspitr 2mo ago
    Totally disagree. If you want to stop kids from using cell phones and social media, you are not going to achieve that at the family level. It is just not possible because if your peers are on the platforms and are using smart phones, no amount of family level restrictions are going to stop kids from using them. It has to be at the state or higher level so that everyone is prevented from using social media or smart phones at the same time so that is the norm. It has to be alcohol tier regulation if you actually want it to be effective
    • ColdStream 2mo ago
      Pretty much. As soon as kids start going to school, there is a large amount of time where they are out of the supervision of the parents. This is when they end up being dragged to the general flow of society for better and worse.
• hliyan 2mo ago
  There's a better network layer solution than trying to block visitors at every host or at the endpoint devices' OS/application layer. I know because a company in my country is already testing such a thing in private beta. A router firmware that provides two wifi endpoints per home, one for adults and one for minors. You only share the minors' password with your children. The firmware maintains a whitelist of sites (it periodically downloads from a central server, I think). There is nothing to be installed on endpoint device, and no gatekeeping is necessary at the host. Apparently this can be extended to mobile networks as well, but I haven't looked at it in detail.
  • awakeasleep 2mo ago
    That sounds like a great solution for when your child is in your house using your wifi.
    • hliyan 2mo ago
      Yes, if it's to provide full safety coverage, it has to be rolled out at telco level including mobile connectivity, which is where this solution runs into red tape.
  • CFI_Initiative 2mo ago
    It also provides addiction control features and network level integration to google safesearch, youtube, bing and duck-duck-go providing fool proof 24x7 protection. In fact any social media service could be integrated at network-level as long as that service facilitates child-friendly environment. Also when integrated with mobile core network solution, the child safety and usage policies follow the child in cellular data and home wifi data. Also it’s more than a whitelist. It maintains a list of over 130 million websites which are not suitable to children. Including malware sites. And this list is growing daily as they are classifying websites on the fly.
• StanislavPetrov 2mo ago
  I can't be the only one who will never comply with these draconian, anti-privacy laws, nor the only one with the technical prowess to bypass them. Never used social media (unless you count HN as social media, which is a stretch), so perhaps it won't be as great a loss as it will be to many. I have no doubt there are many like-minded people (in number if not in population %) that feel the same, and will undoubtedly repopulate newsgroups and message boards that are not subject to this authoritarian nonsense.
  • inigyou 2mo ago
    You won't make your website respect the child safety header? Does it already have porn on it or Wil you add a bunch to become noncompliant?
• podocarp 2mo ago
  > Talk shit about China and communism and dictators and shit > Proceed to do the same things Today's America in a nutshell
• zkmon 2mo ago
  Technology helps, but it also enabled increased 'toxicity' in general, across the global ecosystems, including social, human relations, trust, digital crime etc. It's not just about child safety. No one is safe from this increasing levels of toxic environment created by digital/online ways. A lot of types of people will be extinct, who are unable to deal with technology driven media onslaught, complexity, online crime and content manipulation. There is no scope for trust and assumptions. One need to be on their toes in every engagement with others and these systems, or hire an agent/expert even for simple tasks in life. The tech-savvy people here might argue for freedom and anonymity at any cost. But think of other social classes, laws and the way the nations and societies came to be what they are today. The world doesn't just belong to tech nerds only. People need safety from all this tech. That may against the wishes of a tiny minority of the people. But a nation, by nature, enforces generic policies that benefit those most of the people.
• freakynit 2mo ago
  I love such cases... because "almost" all of them have hidden political agendas... so, as usual, I let my investigative agent run over this and prepare me detailed connections graph between prominent personnel, orgs, funding, and political connections... https://5rights.stupidlabs.lol/ https://5rights.stupidlabs.lol/ Disclaimer: this project of mine is still in development, and not quote 100% accurate.. so, take it with a bit of salt.. do your own research... Also, this is running on a cheap server... please don't hammer it..
  • gfrecvh 2mo ago
    Yo this is an excellent use of LLMs... Is there any connection with the 5rights foundation?
    • freakynit 2mo ago
      Search for "5rights foundation" in that "search graph" box on left side, then click on relevant search result from below (dont click on + icon.. thats for finding routes) ... and the graph will adjust to this node and show all connections.. btw, one of them most powerful feature is finding connections between any nodes... just search for them one by one, click "+" on searched entity, do this for both, or more.. then click: "shortest path" ... you can investigative how anyone is connected to anyone else For example: "Center for American Progress" is connected to "UK House of Lords" through this long chain::: Center for American Progress -> [has former fellow] -> Simon Clark -> [board chair of] -> Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) — US -> [lobbied for] -> KOSA / KOSPA (Kids Online Safety Act / Kids Online Safety and Privacy Act) -> [engaged with] -> 5Rights Foundation <- [founded] <- Baroness Beeban Kidron (Beeban Tania Kidron, Baroness Kidron) <- [has member] UK House of Lords Graph: https://ibb.co/tTL0cGjm https://ibb.co/tTL0cGjm
  • throwitaway222 2mo ago
    We need this for everything.
  • commanderj 2mo ago
    Sorry, I feed stupid to ask, but what does the graph tell us in that particular case?
• mrweasel 2mo ago
  It might just be me, but when the US decides to do something like requiring age verification on porn sites it feels half-hearted, sort of stupid and mostly annoying. When the EU does it, it feels naive, overreaching, bureaucratic, mostly harmless (but annoying and misguided). When it is the UK that attacks privacy it feels incredibly dystopian, at least to me. It's somehow darker, compared to the US or the EU and I don't understand why.
• drumhead 2mo ago
  We know what this is really about, its to give the UK intelligence services the ability to spy on US citizens and then pass the information on to US intelligence. We'll probably get similar laws in all the other five eyes as well.
  • weberer 2mo ago
    That's not what this is about at all. Its British NGOs lobbying US states to pass state-level digital-ID laws. The end goal seems to be to make anonymous posting on the internet illegal. Its more about mass censorship than surveillance.
    • account42 2mo ago
      Mass censorship and surveillance go hand in hand - you use one to enforce the other.
  • asdff 2mo ago
    Isn't that what mossad is for?
• BiteCode_dev 2mo ago
  Since 9/11, the war on anonymity was always strong in the US.
• stuaxo 2mo ago
  If you're going to take an aspect of UK law it would be better to take some aspects of the police training: how long they are trained, how to do de escalation, the idea of policing by consent. (I realise UK police are far from perfect).
  • akimbostrawman 2mo ago
    don't think so, mate
    • testfrequency 2mo ago
      Always makes me chuckle when brits believe their law enforcement is anywhere near as toxic and corrupt as america’s.
      • akimbostrawman 2mo ago
        I think getting arrested over online posts, buying a baseball bat or butter knife while they refuse medical aid to a victim that is bleeding out because the foreign attacker with the open carry bloody ritual knife called them racist, could be called "toxic". Not even mentioning there part in covering up grooming gangs on national level for being political inconvenient.
        • testfrequency 2mo ago
          You know, I really wanted to say in my original comment I guarantee someone will bring up grooming gangs - and sure enough. Now imagine grooming gangs, in addition to police shooting and killing civilians, on top of political corruption going unchecked, police stalking, in addition to every other terrible thing you could imagine. The UK isn’t perfect, but the never ending sentiment that it’s the worst in the world because there’s an issue with grooming (which is an issue nearly everywhere sadly) is foolish. Brits have such high standards that you don’t even realise how much of a privilege it is to be annoyed about only a small handful of systemic global issues. You’re not afraid to walk to your local for a pint and be shot in the head by a cop or kidnapped I suppose, right?
• gib444 2mo ago
  It's cute people think the UK has this level of influence over the USA Like, pick a side: are we the tiny backwater micro state on the verge of bankruptcy with no standing in the world, or are we a hugely influencial world power directing US law?
  • tim333 2mo ago
    I think it's more they may copy the idea. Kinda like the US version of The Office.
• happymellon 2mo ago
  Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but the war on anonymity was first (just) passed in the US at a state level as porn laws before it passed in the UK. Are we pretending that the porn id laws weren't a first attempt at getting forums like Reddit that might "accidentally" have naked pictures liable and therefore profile everyone? Because this is leaning on blaming to UK for everything the US is doing to itself an awful lot.
  • GoblinSlayer 2mo ago
    This, it boomeranged.
  • xienze 2mo ago
    > Because this is leaning on blaming to UK for everything the US is doing to itself an awful lot. Hasn't the UK had a culture of surveillance (the famous CCTV cameras) and arresting people over online wrongthink for quite some time though? Who inspired who?
    • foldr 2mo ago
      No, not really. This is a narrative that is pushed by certain segments of the American right (and some of their UK allies). It easily dominates online discussion in an environment where the majority of people posting have no direct experience of life in the UK. Actual life in the UK is very unlike what you would imagine on the basis of reading HN threads, or Elon Musk’s twitter feed. I suspect that most people with first hand knowledge have simply given up trying to contribute to HN threads about the UK. There is plenty of legitimate criticism to be made of the UK, but here (as you can see from the title) the discourse has degraded to such an extent that the mythically awful UK is held responsible even for bad laws passed by American legislature.
      • flir 2mo ago
        No disagreement here, but I suppose it's a useful rhetorical trick. Paint something you don't like as "foreign". I've certainly seen Brits use a comparison with the Great Firewall of China to argue against various state surveillance projects.
• tim333 2mo ago
  I'd dispute there is a UK war on anonymity just because they've tried to stop showing kids porn and the like. The UK has always been kind of pro anonymity - there was ID during WW2 but it was scrapped after. There have been revolts against ID cards, you don't have to carry a driving license to drive and things like that. We've always had child protection though - film certificates, over 18 to buy porn mags etc. The new internet stuff seems like a half hearted child protection effort. I'm a Brit who wastes time web surfing and the total impact on me so far is reddit asked for a selfie. It's very different from areas where they did have a war on anonymity like bank accounts and investments where you have to scan passports and stuff. I've heard no one at all suggest that for general web surfing.
  • fluxusars 2mo ago
    If you really believe the UK is a privacy-friendly and anonimity-friendly country then you have definitely been brainwashed. I can't think of a first-world country that's worse than the UK in this.
    • KaiserPro 2mo ago
      The nuance here is that only the state can deanonymise you[1], in the USA you can just pay a data broker. Sure the UK is the boogeyman here, but the reason why the federal government isn't making a fuss is because they already have the legal rules to force a backdoor. [1] there are caveats, but the crucial point is its a legal process, rather than bidding war.
  • BenFranklin100 2mo ago
    Yeah buddy, asking for a backdoor to all my private files on iCloud is just a noble attempt to protect children. What else are you selling?
  • pipes 2mo ago
    You are measuring only the inconvenience you have directly experienced. Not the impact on wider society. Whistle blowers, journalists, religious apostates, people unsure about their sexuality all rely on annonimity on the internet. I can't find the Times article but government officials have clearly stated that this isn't about protecting children, it's about controlling political discourse online. They are now floating the idea of forcing YouTube to give "trusted" public service news sources prominence. Again to control the discourse. That includes the BBC, which I personally have completely lost trust in. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/plans-for-prominence-of-trusted-news-sources-on-social-media-alongside-measures-to-reform-public-service-media-in-the-uk https://www.gov.uk/government/news/plans-for-prominence-of-t...
• fyredge 2mo ago
  I simply do not understand the optaphobia of the tech literate. Social media already tracks it's users with or without laws. The general populace simply will not wish to anonymize themselves on the internet. So ID Laws only serves as a benefit by restricting children. Regarding pornography, the demand will always be there. Adding ID tracking will just shift the business model to be more covert, which is also a net benefit to children. And for the adults who seek it, they will find it, with or without ID laws. So again, I do not understand the rejection of ID law. Either you are known on the internet, of which ID law is just a confirmation of your identity (less bots maybe?), or you are anonymous, and you will skirt any ID laws and not participate in the known identity space. What ends up is ID law straight up does not materially affect you, unless you are a literal child. And on the day the government decides to ban social media for adults, I say good riddance to it too. Anonymous internet may even thrive because of it.
  • Scaled 2mo ago
    One of the lobbyist organizations is backed by the data broker industry (AVPA). And it's well known several privacy rapist corporations (Meta) are also backing these bills. So yes, it absolutely affects us, and that should be obvious. I'm convinced the pro comments are astroturfing. They've been caught doing it already on Twitter for these bills.
    • fyredge 2mo ago
      Is this [AVPA](https://avpassociation.com/ https://avpassociation.com/)? As far as I can tell, they are a group that benefits from age verification because they directly provide the service. This is typical lobby behaviour? I was not aware that Meta is backing the bill, but based on how they already fingerprint each of their users, I don't see how an additional ID number affects their business model. I'm still left wondering how it affects us? Is my insurance rate going to change because of this? Because if they can sell the data after ID laws, they can definitely sell it before ID laws too. I suppose there will always be some astroturfing for such an issue, but I'm not convinced that it is the majority voice. I don't use Twitter anyways, don't plan on giving my data to them. In fact, with anonymous websites like HN, you would never know either way. So to me, we can either eliminate astroturfing with identification, or consider every anonymous voice in good faith.
• KaiserPro 2mo ago
  UK person here, and someone who has been lobbied and lobbied the government on tech regulations. firstly the amount of money that the "UK lobby" are pushing is a drop of sand in the ocean.[1] secondly, and most importantly, the USA has no (federally robust) legal protection for citizens to guard against data collection and aggregation. So whist this is being presented as a war on anonymity lead by the dirty British, this is basically "think of the children" play for protecting anonymity. There is nothing wrong with this, its a good argument, even though its obviously flawed. If you want to dox someone, you just need to pay the right broker. That is, in the UK really difficult. (for example flock cameras are largely illegal in the UK, certainly no council or HOA can just install them. sure you can put in CCTV, but you cannot process that CCTV to track bystanders) There are no useful controls for citizens to limit the collection and processing of personal information. so whilst in theory you can be anonymous in america, as soon as you use a phone, or any ISP you are effectively de anonymised. I can as a company, buy your location data, tie it to your IP, then cross check with various ad networks to get usernames. (the civil legal route here is file a john doe and ask for metadata in discovery. Higher legal bar, but I don't think thats something that can be done simply in the UK) TLDR: Contrary to popular belief there are greater protections to anonymous behaviour in the UK. Yes they have been greatly eroded, but the difference here is that there are no legal ways for companies to unmask you for money[2]. In the USA there is no legal protection for someone to share your ID for money. [1]musk is currently spending millions propping up convicted criminals. [2] not without your permission, or without a robust legal proceeding.
  • Tangurena2 2mo ago
    > the USA has no (federally robust) legal protection for citizens to guard against data collection and aggregation. In the US, laws and court rulings have held that the person/company that aggregates the data owns the data. In the past it was based on phonebook authoring, but has since become "whoever owns the computer owns whatever data is in that computer". The EU has the opposite - you own the data about yourself. We need to move to that standard.
  • bothers 2mo ago
    > If you want to dox someone, you just need to pay the right broker. The data is going to leak so quickly, the first dump will only contain a fresh empty database.
• miohtama 2mo ago
  Here is a 2-minute tutorial video on how to turn on parental controls on an iPhone. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/tv6vxRBEa2o https://www.youtube.com/shorts/tv6vxRBEa2o Instead of asking parents to do this, you get these laws where you need to show your id to unlock your own device. Clearly.
  • jackvalentine 2mo ago
    Famously these controls basically don’t work.
  • codedokode 2mo ago
    This is a garbage UI and it looks like it was designed using "dark patterns" to ensure that nobody uses it. Look how many clicks (18 clicks, I counted) one needs to do in the correct sequence without a single mistake, and how many distracting and misleading options are there. It is a sabotage, it is a rebellion. Technically, yes, Apple can claim that they have "safe mode", but in practice it is unusable. Apple clearly doesn't want parents to enable restrictions, for reasons I do not understand, probably they just hate children or people having a family. Your video actually has the opposite effect: it shows that there are no (easy) ways for parents to protect the children and government regulation is necessary. The UI should be a single checkbox named "child mode" and small, gray link "configure" that opens the menu from the video. The parent just clicks the checkbox, and sets up a password, a fingerprint or paired device to unlock the mode. That's all. After this only government-approved apps and websites can be opened (parent may edit the white list if they are ok with navigating through a maze of ten thousand menus) and children are perfectly safe. Government may white-list only apps and sites that implement measures for content safety and may not add non-compliant apps. Also I hate watching vertical videos on a laptop.
    • lipbetfox 2mo ago
      I use Apple's parental controls daily and it is complete garbage. Unfortunately it's also the best (less bad?) of everything I tried. My kids' devices consistent get confused about how long the device/specific apps has been used, and changing things is a lot of work, and at the same time not granular enough. > Apple clearly doesn't want parents to enable restrictions Hard not to come to the same conclusion.
• codedokode 2mo ago
  Here's my idea how "safe mode" might be implemented without selfie, passport and without every app or website owner having to spend money on compliance. The mobile and desktop OS should have a checkbox "child mode" in the onboarding stage. Switching device to "child mode" allows only installing white-listed apps from the government list and opening white-listed websites from the government list. Parents may edit the white lists but not required to do anything other than checking a box and setting a password, or registering a fingerprint, or a paired device. The white-listed apps and websites (who volunteered to be included into the white list) must implement measures to ensure safety. Another option for a website to opt-in is to add a HTTP-header claiming safety. White-listed sites may be subject to additional regulations. Non-white listed apps and websites are not required to implement anything, including checking age, asking for selfies etc. If the parents add a website to the white list, it becomes their responsibility to ensure that it does not contain any harmful content. For example, if parents allow their child to use Telegram, Telegram is not obliged to do any age checks and content restrictions. My proposal achieves safe environment for all ages, but at the same time: - based on liberal principles of voluntary participation rather than on totalitarian principles like most other proposals - doesn't require any age checks, selfies or passports - doesn't require adult websites to do anything and spend money for compliance, unlike most other proposals which assume that every business must spend money on moderation and compliance - only those sites and apps that want to be in the white list, have to spend resources - doesn't require banning VPNs as VPNs will not be approved for inclusion into a white list
  • GoblinSlayer 2mo ago
    Browsers already support safe browsing - a service that checks opened urls for fishing, so safety can be provided as a mode of such service (app store can check app url there). Also it doesn't really need to go through government, AFAIK DuckDuckGo and some DNS providers implement such feature independently.
    • codedokode 2mo ago
      No. SafeBrowsing is a black list, and it doesn't provide the necessary level of safety. I propose to use the white list. Also, SafeBrowsing works only within a browser and my proposal is to implement child mode system-wide.
• sph 2mo ago
  The fact that the vast majority of comments here are engaging with these campaigns policies on the level of 'protecting the children', is proof enough that the propaganda effort has worked beautifully. It was never about the children, but as long as people discuss as if it were, they have won.
  • tokai 2mo ago
    I can't find a single comment here that does that.
    • sph 2mo ago
      Ctrl-F, ‘children’, 131 results.
• janpeuker 2mo ago
  It's interesting that 5Rights focus shifted completely from rights to surveillance and control. Back in 2017 they still thought about a rights framework [1], the website has since been taken down. 1) https://www.leeds.ac.uk/news-society-politics/news/article/3985/young-people-call-on-government-for-greater-digital-rights https://www.leeds.ac.uk/news-society-politics/news/article/3...
• xyzelement 2mo ago
  It's shocking to me how Americans can easily go for this kind of stuff. A few years ago an otherwise enlightened community leader here in the US told me how he admirer European anti hate speech laws. It didn't occur to him that such laws could so easily be used to silence him in the near future. I think it's a bit of labor/left wing thinking that "we are so obviously good and smart and right" that any restrictions would only apply to others.
• stemlord 2mo ago
  We need marketing for working class laypeople, esp on the right, to understand what's happening on our web, our devices and on our streets and why they should care. I don't think I've seen this type of marketing for this demographic land in any meaningful way yet
• shevy-java 2mo ago
  The UK laws are indeed, oddly enough, much more restrictive than the US laws here. If there is one country with worse police powers than the USA it is the UK. The UK people always complain about BREXIT now (which they themselves decided to go through via majority vote), but I am glad they can no longer sabotage the EU now.
• jiaosdjf 2mo ago
  I knew this was about money and censorship and not just "saving the kids" but I didn't know about all these NGOs, good article. In the world they want to impose on us, atrocities like Gaza and Epstein would be virtually unknown. We are already seeing clampdowns and police sent to doors as a scare tactic, it only gets worse from here. We have to be extremely conscious of groups like these, they are enemies of the people and they are actively working to remove our freedoms and rights. Do not underestimate them, do not let them get away with it.
• jlos 2mo ago
  UK has two competing governance models: The Round Table (decentralized, king as "first among peers") and the Tower of London (Centralized autocracy, originally imposed by the Norman conquerer William I). The Star Chamber, as an extension of the Tower of London, served as an administrative tool to avoid trial by peers, lower the standards of evidence, while eliminating privacy and the spread of "libel" in favor of public stability. "The truth is no defense" in the Star Chamber model because libelous claims that were TRUE were more damaging to public stability. There's a strong precedence in common law for supression of privacy and speech if it threatens the legitamcy of the administrative state.
• bigbuppo 2mo ago
  They think a watched pot doesn't boil.
• mannyv 2mo ago
  That the internet is anonymity-preserving is an artifact of where it was invented. In most other countries the state is mother and father.
• CFI_Initiative 2mo ago
  [dead]
• muddi900 2mo ago
  The wild west era of the internet was an anomaly and we were naive to ever believe it will go on forever. State actors and Big Businesses have mostly put the genie back in the bottle.