[barrysteve]

Passwords are not about hiding data.

Passwords are legally the only thing that can't be forced out of you, to make you login into a computer system against your interests.

Passwords are the core foundation of keeping your internet life separate from your personal/private life. Biometric and hardware authentication make both your real life name/address/life history and your computer ID the same thing.

I didn't sign up for American globalism, and I don't want my iPhone's authentication systems to force me into being accountable to Twitter/Apple/Google credit score. If the Australian government forced this stuff on me and kept it within Australia, that's different.

IBM is moving to a "passwordless trend" on their server authentication, in favour of biometrics and iPhone auth. I bet my bottom dollar that will get spread everywhere in the universe, regardless of our protestations.

It's not agreeable. inb4 people say "it's always been that way/they could always do that". The last shred of internet-identity liberty is going to be dead in a new york minute.

Your religious identity, and your prayer life is going to get owned if you let go of passwords and ambigious identities.

[denton-scratch]

> Passwords are legally the only thing that can't be forced out of you, to make you login into a computer system against your interests.

Not in the UK, since RIPA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investigatory_Po...

It's been used:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7102180.stm

[barrysteve]

Guess my comment is surplus-to-requirements. Waves of 'sadge' aside..

Non-conformists are necessary to keep society progressing. The computing revolution is becoming oppressive. I guess the future rests with Men who have the willpower to keep valuable ideas out of the system long enough to for them to bear fruit.

Isaac Newton studied in private for 15yrs.. He also privately denied the Trinity and refused to take Holy Orders from the CofE. It's very questionable if that is at all possible to do again under constant 'supervision', when a fundamental difference between authority and truth happens again.

[denton-scratch]

> and refused to take Holy Orders from the CofE.

Did the CofE try to compel him to take Holy Orders?

As far as I'm aware, Holy Orders in the CofE amounts to becoming a priest (since the CofE has no monks or friars). I thought you had to ask for that, and then prove your worthiness.

Is there some order in the CofE that the church can ask you to join, when you don't want to?

[Edit] He was a Rosicrucian; I'm not really sure what that means in theological terms, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't align with any conventional doxy.

[barrysteve]

He lived in a very orthodox time in the UK. The country has previously had a state religion (1200s) and kicked out the Jews at the time. The Brits have previously severely restriced public services for all non-conformists after the Act Of Uniformity 1851. The Brits have murdered/killed/marytyred many people from European religions. Denying the Trinity is enough to invite severe negative judgement from the Archbishop of Cantebury. We live in Trinitarian times.

The Brits is a CofE country, even though it's 'going dark' (well less visible and more authoritarian) in our lifetimes and GAFCON will temporarily take the limelight.

It is trivial to silence people technologically today and with biometrics denying services is also trivial.

If a discovery like Calculus comes from people who wish to study and speak of non-orthodox ideas, then we should be careful about our technological lock downs. Social media manipulation of thinking is already a big danger to true innovative thought.

[denton-scratch]

Yes, I get it, he was a non-conformist. But in what sense did the CofE try to compel him to take Holy Orders?

> even though it's 'going dark'

Not sure what you mean. The CofE is a very different organisation from what it was 60 years ago, when I first rejected religion. I like the modern organisation a lot less than the one I left; it's become heavier, more intolerant of human diversity, with a much narrower range of views. Maybe that's what you meant.