|
It is not wholesale false by any stretch of the imagination. Yes, there are cash-only businesses that don't take credit cards with your name on them and smaller operations which don't have any KYC requirements or loyalty programs or otherwise engage with you in any activity that would identify you. I am not disputing that... it really feels like you're deliberately cherry picking my points and only responding in a fashion that reinforces your stance rather than actually addresses the discussion. My point is that generally (not in all known cases) we are okay, in meatspace, (and quite familiar) with (and even require at times) exchanges that identify us whether it's putting our name on a coffee order, using a credit card to pay, signing a waiver, buying alcohol, visiting the hospital, opening a bank account, sending children to school, filing taxes, driving a car, etc. So to take the stance that anonymity is absolutely better to the point where it should be considered a fundamental human right and we should be worried about some company providing an identity verification api to online services because the whole shroud of pseudo anonymity of the internet is going to fall to pieces does require some supporting material, in the least. Otherwise it's just FUD. > You clearly think you know much more than everyone here already anyway. If I seem quip it's because I responded to a question asking if this API would mean we see more identity requirements because it possibly lowers the barrier to adding one with an affirmative "I hope so" and the tone of the responses has been "dude what a terrible thing to say this is hackernews doncha know anonymity is chic" followed by anectdotes about how sometimes you use an identity when doing business and sometimes you don't (so see! anonymity works). That's not a discussion it's just virtue signaling.. and it is certainly the responsibility of the virtuous (in this case those who are supporting the stance that my statement is terrible because anonymity is righteous) to back up their conviction (otherwise it is, simply, a virtue and nothing more). I've presented an argument that we needn't worry because meatspace society has figured out a good balance of security, privacy, and the occasional but rare anonymity, and it is perfectly functional so I don't think there's a qualified threat to the internet. I've described how strong identity backed security and accompanying privacy are not the same as anonymity and suggested that many people are conflating the two. And I've laid out rationale explaining that strong identity is better for security (this is not simply a "claim" if you know the first thing about security) and how if we want to see real privacy on the internet, not just the fake privacy that you get by being pseudonymous, then we need to fundamentally understand and legislate and engineer policies and systems that support such. So far nobody has presented an argument as to why anonymity is, specifically, better than strong identity with privacy rules beyond "well sometimes you don't need strong identity for things to work so it should be the default" which is talking past me because I never made a claim to the contrary. I've backed up my assertions with the as far as I know factual evidence that identity both enables better security and deters spam (which are problems that are worse on the internet relative to meatspace). I don't know what else you want. I'm sorry my responses are laborious. |