Top
Best
New

Posted by slowin 11 hours ago

The UK's war on anonymity has come to America(www.effort.news)
508 points | 450 commentspage 2
tim333 1 hour 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.

pipes 1 hour 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-t...

tim333 1 hour ago||
>Whistle blowers... all rely on anonymity

Sure - open an email not in your name, write to papers not in your name, whistle blow away. It still works. I've got various anon accounts - no problems so far.

Not sure about the trusted source bit although the likes of x and youtube seem to do that anyway a bit - give more prominence to medical experts than antivax cranks for example.

fluxusars 1 hour 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 1 hour 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.

yuumei 1 hour ago|||
What country have you been living in? The UK is most certainly at war with anonymity: one of the highest CCTV countries in the world, key disclosure, OSA, KYC means yes you do need to scan your passport/ID now for any financial institution, Apple stopping full device encryption, the only thing left is ID cards and we will have no anonymity at all.
BenFranklin100 1 hour 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?
cuoder 9 hours 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 5 hours ago||
1984 was based in London and the UK.
6r17 9 hours ago||
[flagged]
onetimeusename 8 hours ago|||
Some state-resistant technology (idk if this term is in general use) like Signal planned for a lot of contingencies that could happen caused by governments. Tor is kind of like that too. So I have more optimism for building tech that is state-resistant than I do for any kind of constitution, or movement, or law. That's not to say give up but I think it's hard to argue against a state.
ColdStream 8 hours 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 8 hours 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 7 hours 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.

gabaix 6 hours ago|||
You will be prosecuted in some cases in France. This is a law named “insult to a representative of public authority”

If you shout insults at Macron, you will be prosecuted. If you display insults about Macron, you will be prosecuted.

https://www.rue89strasbourg.com/insulte-macron-selestat-mani...

https://www.ouest-france.fr/societe/justice/un-homme-de-77-a...

ColdStream 7 hours ago||||
I will update an old Yakov Smirnoff joke.

You see, China and the US aren't that different you know. In the US, I can go up to Donald Trump and say "I don't like Donald Trump. The policies of the republican government are rubbish!"

In China, I can go up to Xi Jinping and say "I don't like Donald Trump! The policies of the republican government are rubbish!"

trashb 1 hour ago|||
I think the difference is that in China the public are aware of the policies and they know how it will affect them if they say something dangerous. This keeps the power in check in a way since they can mostly only act on policies they have made clear before. In the US there is a false sense of freedom which makes the reasoning of power opaque and unchecked.

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." – Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

inigyou 1 hour ago||||
This joke worked for previous presidents. You can't do it any more.

Also it's never been true you could just approach the American president or the Chinese one

TacticalCoder 7 hours ago|||
[flagged]
dyauspitr 7 hours ago|||
I actually think sustained adherence to the goal of deanonymizing the Internet to basically get kids off of it in the face of significant minority opposition, actually portrays strength. I care deeply about privacy and surveillance in the real world, but who cares about the Internet, it’s an optional virtual space. For anything that’s not optional like banking, commerce etc. I’m completely OK with being not anonymous because that’s the status quo.
6r17 6 hours ago||
There are many people who have voiced this topic already. If you don't care about your privacy why do other people have to give it up ? It's a non-argument - nobody cares about your opinion.
a2ff6eeb0 7 hours ago||
Is anyone that cares going to put on a suit and talk to the people passing laws?
tangotaylor 7 hours 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=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=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 1 hour ago||
This was inspiring to watch. Thank you for your work.
dyauspitr 7 hours 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 6 hours 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
dyauspitr 6 hours ago||
There’s no such thing as children’s devices. Everyone uses the same smartphones. Optional on device restrictions don’t matter as long as your peer group is on the platform, kids will not stop using it. People are not asking for biometric scanning, but I believe the vast majority would be OK with some sort of ID based authentication system. Now there are ways we can do that in a decentralized way where neither of the parties have total information and I fully advocate for that.
speedstyle 5 hours ago||
Are you saying parents would choose not to block it, or children would get around it? Like you say people want to block it, but currently it's very hard while allowing access to Google and other resources, or it's easy to get around. Why does this require server verification?

For example, all devices could require your ZKP ID attestation to be usable unfiltered. Then the relevant apps/sites would be equally inaccessible to children. And then you remove the ZKP ID attestation because the device owner (parent, school, etc) already knows when the user is a child.

dyauspitr 4 hours ago||
The on the ground reality is that now most social interactions at schools and the content for those interactions happen on social media and apps/private chat rooms. If you don’t have a smartphone or not using those platforms, you’re just left out. There’s going to be serious social cohesion issues for the kids that don’t have access to them. It’s also going to cause continuous pressure throughout your schooling years to circumvent whatever restrictions your parents are putting on and to be in constant conflict with them because of that pressure. That’s life altering stuff.

ZKP ID would work but that’s essentially deanonymization because you have to provide your ID to someone though no one has total information. Also just checking for its absence doesn’t work because that’s opt in and less than 5% of parents would do it. Every individual, irrespective of age would have to have a valid one.

ColdStream 6 hours ago|||
Yep, here in Australia you almost never hear anyone mention it. The silence is deafening, especially with how quickly people just rolled over on this stuff "For the children".

That said it was funny, yesterday Microsoft said I had to age verify my account. I went in basically with the intention of backing out of it at the first sign of over reach.

First step was, 'provide you email for this account'. So I did that and then... approved! You are certified over 18+. That is the flip side of this, some of these companies will put up some of the weakest barriers on this stuff.

areoform 9 hours 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

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-acc...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/cops-using-license-pl...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/rogue-officers-turned...

https://www.newsweek.com/flock-camera-police-arrests-1226378...

https://ij.org/police-have-reportedly-used-license-plate-rea...

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-ce...

ColdStream 8 hours ago||
It is a great example of how difficult it is to anticipate the N-th order effects of things. 79 years ago the transistor was invented, in less than a century it ended up being the back back of a global surveillance system. Not many people could have foreseen this.

Cheaper computer technology has been great for the average persons uses but it cuts both ways. It also means much cheaper surveillance. I suspect that governmental/corporate surveillance now costs less than 1% of their spending, something that simple couldn't have been done even a few decades back.

I do wonder what the world would have been like is say computer technology peaked at 486 level performance/memory. Much of what we have today simply could not have happened in terms of surveillance and social media damages. Alas, this is the world we didn't get.

slowin 8 hours ago||
> 79 years ago the transistor was invented, in less than a century it ended up being the back back of a global surveillance system. Not many people could have foreseen this.

George Orwell was pretty on the mark.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Brother_(Nineteen_Eighty-F...

Llamamoe 4 hours ago||
The question I would really like the "people" pushing so hard for surveillance to ask themselves is:

How would the Nazi Germany and Hitler gone if they had this system in place, telling them who and where every single Jewish, gay, gypsy, disabled, or just ideologically opposed to them person was, 24/7?

What about other insane rulers? What do you think they would - or rather, will - do with these systems?

lingwu05 9 hours 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.
tbrownaw 10 hours ago||
Several states have already had this for a while now.
mrweasel 3 hours 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.
mrmckizzle 9 hours ago||
It never came, it has always been here.
ColdStream 9 hours 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.

KaiserPro 1 hour 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.

drumhead 3 hours 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 2 hours 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.
More comments...