[hellojesus]

This is going to make my grapheneos journey a bit more exciting. How wild to force users through an official google identification for web browsing.

Does the iPhone recaptcha app force you to login with a Google account? Seems we didn't need ID verification for the web to lose all anonymity.

[lucb1e]

I'd rather have to do ID verification at a government site that gives out blindable RSA signatures to browse the web with using open source software, than this overseas tech company needing to lock down the whole device and tech stack and not have to 'show ID' at all. One of these two holds elections...

Music/movie corporations and game developers must look forward to an age where people can't access the cache files or hook up a debugger to their apps anymore

[broken-kebab]

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

[handoflixue]

In this specific case, why fear the government?

My government has already seen my government-issued ID. If my government hasn't worked out my phone number, they can always ask the phone company. My address is required for the ID, voting, and filing taxes. I don't see how the government learns anything from this?

Conversely, I would like to believe most companies do not have my government-issued ID, nor a lot of the information on it.

[broken-kebab]

In this specific case your government can ban you from the web by refusing to verify. E.g. to punish dissidents abroad Belarusian dictatorship simply nullifies their IDs, and lists them as terrorists in public data. Apparently that's enough to ruin somebody's life worldwide. But at least they can use their browsers, which would be not that easy in a world where gov't-backed verification is norm on the net.

[wyldberry]

From an American perspective, i don't trust the government with the implementation details, nor do I trust our political climate, misaligned incentives, and general disinterest in good governance to implement something so sensitive.

If I lived in say, Sweden, I feel much more comfortable trusting their government to implement. In America, I feel I must always vote in a way that prevents giving any power to the government that I wouldn't want my political opponents to have over me.

[soco]

In said US of America, when the government wants to know something about you, they will get everything they want from the companies - it's even written clearly in the US laws. So I'm not sure why (or where) you draw that line...

[sterlind]

1. if they have to subpoena each site each time they need user data, it reduces mass surveillance risk. I'm okay with cops getting a warrant to access someone's gmail. I'm not okay requiring everyone to use email.gov.

2. I use a VPN and pseudonyms. they could unmask me if they cared to, but it'd be annoying. it'd be a lot more annoying if they wanted to unmask every VPN user all the time.

[slaw]

the grass is always greener on the other side

[AlecSchueler]

You think people in Nordic countries think they'd be able to trust their government more if they were American?

[AnthonyMouse]

> My government has already seen my government-issued ID.

If you have a government ID and all you use it for is voting and paying taxes, then they know that you vote and you pay taxes.

If you have to use it for accessing the internet then they know everything you do on the internet. What you read, who you talk to, what you post, when you sleep, where you are at any given time -- it's very much not the same thing as just having a picture of you and your name.

[ForHackernews]

No they do not. A properly designed government app that uses cryptography to generate a deniable token that can't be cross-correlated but proves your humanity/age to a consuming site is manifestly different than Google adtech hoovering up as much of your activity as possible.

[AnthonyMouse]

> A properly designed government app

Oof, that's not a great premise to take as a requirement right out of the gate. More counterexamples than examples for that one.

> that uses cryptography to generate a deniable token that can't be cross-correlated but proves your humanity/age

If it's actually deniable/anonymous then how would it work for rate limiting? If you can't correlate their activity then you don't know if the million requests are a million people or one bot with a million connections. If you can correlate their activity then it's not anonymous.

Moreover, it's a false dichotomy that we should be doing either of these things. The better alternative to corporate surveillance isn't government IDs, it's no surveillance.

[sterlind]

I have not seen any government adopt such a standard.

some EU countries claim to provide anonymous age verification services, but those only hide your identity from the relying party. the site you visited is logged to the government's database along with your identity, before you're redirected to the target site with an "anonymous" token.

[SturgeonsLaw]

They could do it like that, but they won't do it like that, because tracking the population is a feature not a bug

[a96]

In a general case, your own government can literally have a gun to your head if they happen to decide they don't like you. A foreign one needs some extra steps.

And governments change. Any one might look benign now, but one election away might be different.

[userbinator]

I'd rather have no ID verification at all. Give them an inch and they'll take a mile.

[realusername]

Same, I've never seen any app or website where an ID registration would make sense. No thanks.

[lucb1e]

What's the alternative though?

[xbmcuser]

one of these also rounds up people and sends them of to overseas concentration camps without due process. I think maybe white people still don't get what the rest of the world is living or experiencing.

[LorenPechtel]

One of them pretends to hold elections.

[xp84]

Does it only count as an election if one’s favorite side wins?

[achierius]

What if neither side represents your interests? What "election" is there in that case?

[lucb1e]

There's more than two sides here. None of the 14 parties with >1 seat in parliament fully represents my best understanding of how to improve the country and world on any time scale (long or short), but quite a few of them come reasonably close and I would vote for them without much hesitation

(Heck, I wish there were fewer parties, like if five single-topic good parties (bij1 against racism, pirate party for internet freedoms, volt for international collaboration, party animals for environmental welfare, etc., plus greenworkersparty as the current overarching big boy) would band together, it'd be a much easier choice!)

That not every country is so lucky (not all of them have free elections, or elections at all) is a shame indeed, but at least for countries like mine I'd be much happier to have a government arrange a system than a tech corporation and foreign laws. Presuming that the 2-party system you speak of is the USA's, at least both corps are governed by your own laws, that's something!

[UqWBcuFx6NV4r]

Simply live somewhere that doesn’t have a broken electoral system.

[zx8080]

Like the Moon or Mars? The power is not something for the people for free.

[g-b-r]

Can you candidate yourself in that election?

[xp84]

I'm sure many are tempted to dismiss this comment, but I think it's actually great. It's incredibly easy to complain about the options out there, really easy to vilify any or all of the parties as controlled by satan/evil corporations/communists/fascists.

What's harder?

Convincing enough people to matter (in some kind of election-based system) to get behind your platform - either with you as a candidate, or working to promote a candidate or party or movement that you do believe in.

People talk like their changemaking ideas are very widely held - the way people talk it's like they believe 75%+ of the country must actually agree with them - but then they don't run for office on such a popular platform that it should be a sure election win, yes even with countervailing forces such as electoral college, Senate, etc.

[lesuorac]

Which public corporation do you think doesn't hold elections?

[hn_go_brrrrr]

Google. The Class B stock setup means Class A shareholders are shouting into a void.

[lesuorac]

That's still an election.

It's not even Gerrymandering, a company you willingly bought stock from has always had this setup.

Contrast that to most American's experience of their vote just not mattering outside of a few swing states. Having to move across states is such a more drastic requirement than just not buying Google A stock.

[lucb1e]

Pardon but I don't remember the last time I was invited to vote for the tech corp's elections that gets a say in whether I am human

[batrat]

Sorry, I trust Google more than my government for my data. I mean I trust photos, youtube, music, gmail, wallet, keep, etc. what is that I have left anyway? It's sad that we started from open web, but we ended up in the hands of few. Apple/Samsung, Google, Microsoft, Amazon decide basically how I live my life. I don't want to (and sometimes I try to hard), but I don't want to give up the convenience also, but not only mine, also for my family is in the same pot.

[ForHackernews]

Given the chance, Google would kill you by accident.

"We're very sorry, your access to G-Pacemaker was accidentally revoked when your accounts were closed for suspicious behavior after watching a YouTube video without subtitles in a language we hadn't realized you were learning. Unfortunately, there no is appeals process as your heartbeat was terminated immediately."

[x______________]

Google will comply if your government needs information on you. Are you sure your trust isn't misguided?

[codethief]

Another GrapheneOS user here.

Does Play Integrity attestation require the user to be logged in? I wouldn't be surprised but technically it doesn't seem necessary.