[FrostViper8]

> You would need the non-governmental agency to share the urls with the government agency for the activity to be tied directly which would undermine the entire purpose of that architecture.

Which would absolutely would happen. The authorities will ask the non-gov agency for the details and they will be provided.

[Quarrelsome]

that's like stating that there's no value in creating a financial regulator to set interest rates because the government will just tell them to set them to whatever they demand.

There's still value in it.

[FrostViper8]

Firstly, I didn't even mention what the value might be. I simply pointed out that the "independent organisation" would not really be independent. Which means it won't protect anyone's privacy. Which undermines the entire point of having it. Therefore it has no value.

Secondly, it is the central bank that sets the interest rate. In the UK that is the Bank of England. Secondly the government sets their mandate. They have a mandate of keeping the inflation at 2%. One of the mechanisms they to control inflation is the interest rate.

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/inflation

Moreover the "Chair of the Court of Directors" (the Chairman) of the Bank of England is appointed by the Crown (the King) at the advice of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The government both sets the mandate and effectively selects the Chairman. So while they don't directly set the interest rate, they do set the mandate and who runs the Central Bank.

BTW the Bank of England is failing to keep the inflation rate at 2% (and for some time) as it is currently 3.4%. So we can see how well that is going.

[Quarrelsome]

> Therefore it has no value.

We've not had a black wednesday since this change. It has value because governments cannot be trusted to directly control interest rates. The indirection has value, politicians are forced to spend political capital in order to wrest control.

> So we can see how well that is going.

Still better than black wednesday and Norman Lamont.

[FrostViper8]

I was actually directly addressing your comment about the your independent org for these identity tokens. There is no value because it cannot guarantee privacy. Therefore it has no value (at least not to me).

Secondly you seemed to not understand who set the interest rate but you are now confident in telling me about the perceived benefits of having a central bank set the interest rate. Which tells me that you just looked this all up about 10 minutes ago.

> It has value because governments cannot be trusted to directly control interest rates.

Neither can the central bank. As they are failing at their mandate of keeping inflation at 2%. The reported inflation rate is probably lower than the actual inflation rate due to CPI calculation wankery.

> The indirection has value, politicians are forced to spend political capital in order to wrest control.

To who does it have value? It doesn't benefit me (or most regular people) to have a 2% inflation rate and relatively low interest rates. It eats away the value of my savings. I now buy Gold (it hit a record high price today) and the value of my Gold and Silver has more than doubled in 3 years.

> Still better than black wednesday and Norman Lamont.

Saying it is better than a total crash isn't saying much.

Instead we have a gradual devaluing of the currency, many consumer goods are of far poorer quality (I repair my own vehicle and it is often better to get a reconditioned part than a new one), there is also "shrinkflation".

If we had a crash I actually think it would at least provide a wake up call and spur some real meaningful change.

[Quarrelsome]

It appears that you have not yet learned the lesson that perfect is the enemy of good. Just because a system doesn't meet your high expectations, doesn't mean it doesn't have value.

I'm also having trouble squaring your keen interest in the economic woes of inflation combined with your desire to have a stock market crash. Perhaps you are unaware of your bias given your portfolio, wishing to enact misery upon millions for your own personal gain. The last big crash was a major contributer the second world war, so be careful for the "meaningful change" you wish for.

> Which tells me that you just looked this all up about 10 minutes ago.

you should learn the etiquette round here, cos that ain't it. Either treat fellow commenters and their perspectives with a modicum of respect or go back to facebook. BTW, that was a swing and a miss, I lived through that period.

Don't misunderstand when I don't reply or even read your next response. Its because I don't want to talk to you anymore, because you're not interesting.

[FrostViper8]

> It appears that you have not yet learned the lesson that perfect is the enemy of good. Just because a system doesn't meet your high expectations, doesn't mean it doesn't have value.

That isn't what you are proposing. What you are proposing is something which has no value. I've told you why it is pointless. Saying it "has value" repeatedly doesn't change the fact that it is pointless.

> I'm also having trouble squaring your keen interest in the economic woes of inflation combined with your desire to have a stock market crash. Perhaps you are unaware of your bias given your portfolio, wishing to enact misery upon millions for your own personal gain. The last big crash was a major contributer the second world war, so be careful for the "meaningful change" you wish for.

I love it when people accuse me of wishing harm on others. I would prefer not to have to buy gold/silver and rather just put cash in my savings.

I told you why a big crash might be preferable (in the long term). Sometimes a bit of a reset and a big disaster will bring long term positive change as things will actually be fixed properly.

> you should learn the etiquette round here, cos that ain't it. Either treat fellow commenters and their perspectives with a modicum of respect or go back to facebook. BTW, that was a swing and a miss, I lived through that period.

You obviously didn't understand what you are talking about. It such a basic mistake. I pointed it out and then you pretended to understand how it worked. So it was obvious you looked up it up after my reply. Whether or not you lived through the period is irrelevant.

So complaining about my supposed lack of etiquette is simply a deflection. You could have just admitted you were wrong.

> Don't misunderstand when I don't reply or even read your next response. Its because I don't want to talk to you anymore, because you're not interesting.

So when you throw insults at people (calling me boring) it is okay, because you are doing it. Gotcha :D. I love double standards.

[iamnothere]

Yes, the “value” being centralizing identity and access so OFCOM and GHCQ can finger dissenters more easily.

[Quarrelsome]

the UK already forces ISPs to hold a database of the hosts you have visited in the last three years. By implementing the laws in the way they currently are doing undermines their own legislation by pushing UK users into having a tangible reason to hide their their browsing patterns from UK networks by funneling their traffic through VPNs or other proxies to avoid age gates.

Tin foil aside, my issue is that they're not even good at what they're trying to do. Their policy is inconsistent with their aims and lacks technical strategy. You think they're worried about dissenters when in practice they're more worried about elections in 2029 and whatever pearl clutching users post on mumsnet.

[FrostViper8]

> the UK already forces ISPs to hold a database of the hosts you have visited in the last three years. By implementing the laws in the way they currently are doing undermines their own legislation by pushing UK users into having a tangible reason to hide their their browsing patterns from UK networks by funneling their traffic through VPNs or other proxies to avoid age gates.

People had tangible reasons before having to avoid age-gates. You should not have people spying on your online activity.

> Tin foil aside, my issue is that they're not even good at what they're trying to do. Their policy is inconsistent with their aims and lacks technical strategy.

Good, I don't want them to be good at what they are doing.

> You think they're worried about dissenters when in practice they're more worried about elections in 2029 and whatever pearl clutching users post on mumsnet.

They can be be worried about both. They are capable of being concerned about two different things at the same time.