Top
Best
New

Posted by slowin 13 hours ago

The UK's war on anonymity has come to America(www.effort.news)
545 points | 560 commentspage 5
Barrin92 12 hours ago|
Didn't HN decide to not allow AI submissions? This is quite explicitly one in that the operator of the site declares to "automate investigative journalism" and launched the site with its five pieces of 'journalism' yesterday.

And to point out the obvious on the actual quality of the piece, The US has itself passed age verification laws in 20 states, such as Texas where it was driven not by the British but by domestic interest groups and decidedly state senators like Angela Paxton.

Also given the slant of the site it's pretty obvious was the political motivation here is, I guess yelling at the British always works

inigyou 3 hours ago|
It did, but moderation is based on outrage, and a bunch of nonsense outrage porn will always get to the top.
chungus_amongus 11 hours ago||
despicable
anonreeeeplor 12 hours ago||
It is very unlikely that “NGOs” have the funding influence and power to do this. The more likely source is state backed intelligence agencies. The NGOs are just there to create a buffer.

Ask yourself logically - who would pay these NGOs to do things like attempt to extort meta into a $500M+ settlement over “harming child mental health.”

This is all connected and intelligence agency backed. It’s far from innocent, it’s non corporate - some had suggested meta was behind it - but as we have seen meta is the one getting targeted.

wmf 11 hours ago|
There is Ashton Kutcher. And it's conceivable to me that some wannabe-Palantir private companies might back these ideas.
vancouvermatt 12 hours ago||
[flagged]
domeinhornMOT 9 hours ago||
[flagged]
EtienneDeLyon 11 hours ago||
[dead]
inigyou 12 hours ago||
[flagged]
walrus01 12 hours ago||
> I see you're putting "no internet access without scanning your ID"

Other countries have already implemented this or are making strenuous efforts towards it. In Pakistan right now you need to submit a copy of your national ID card and scan your fingerprints to get a live LTE data service SIM card. This is not hyperbole but is real practice in some places that is soon going to be imported to jurisdictions that traditionally have more "freedom".

https://www.pta.gov.pk/category/biometric-verification-77103...

https://www.biometricupdate.com/202607/pakistan-fast-tracks-...

inigyou 12 hours ago||
[dead]
iamnothere 12 hours ago||
> You should be banned.

Statements like this are inflammatory—basically a personal attack—and ironically are much more likely to violate HN guidelines.

inigyou 12 hours ago||
When the violation is so egregious, I think it's warranted. Posting this particular article should result in a ban from HN, and I stand by that.
iamnothere 12 hours ago||
I’m glad that the moderation team doesn’t share your position.
inigyou 12 hours ago||
[flagged]
braiamp 12 hours ago||
I clicked flag, then clicked to unflag. Nothing changed
llm_nerd 12 hours ago|||
Flagging on submissions deranks a submission after some count, making it fall off the first three pages. I think it's a much higher bar (like moderation involvement) to fully make it dead.
lern_too_spel 10 hours ago||
I also flagged the article. The first few laws that I looked at on the page had nothing to do with digital IDs. This article is the worst form of AI slop: rage bait.
AuthAuth 10 hours ago||
The day cannot come soon enough where every online user is tied to a verified person in a government database.
doctorwho42 10 hours ago||
Why? So we can have a government sanctioned credit score of sorts?
inigyou 3 hours ago||
You already have those.
BeaverGoose 12 hours ago|
I'm always surprised how defensive people get in here about privacy when so many corporations have vastly more information about you than the government does.
joenot443 12 hours ago||
The government has a monopoly on violence and companies do not.
walrus01 12 hours ago|||
(yet). Contractors for the government that will be happy to help implement the violence are coming soon. If they're not already here by some metrics.
joenot443 2 hours ago||
This is very true. There are a handful of countries, South Africa comes to mind, where the government lost that monopoly and security is a type of commodity which has to be purchased in the private sector.
autoexec 11 hours ago|||
That's not really true though is it. The Sackler family caused over 500,000 deaths. Nestlé has killed millions of babies. DuPont and 3M poisoned every living creature on Earth. Nobody spent even one day in prison for any of it.

Corporations all over the world routinely and knowingly poison, injure, or outright murder their employees and their customers. They spend massive amounts of money preventing the public from knowing about the harms they are causing. Even in the most egregious cases where there is well documented proof of what they've done the heads of these companies still get away with it. They profit from it. They're just happily living their lives in their mansions and on their yachts while graves are dug and families are torn apart.

joenot443 2 hours ago|||
From my perspective, the difference is that we societally condemn the Sackler family in the same way we societally condemn Robert Pickton or Ted Bundy.

It is absolutely failing of the government and the American legal system that nobody spent time in prison for Purdue's lies and poison, we're in full agreement there.

That said, this position alone doesn't suggest that otherwise law-abiding citizens should be more concerned about corporate surveillance than they are government surveillance.

autoexec 2 hours ago||
No, the reason that law-abiding citizens should be more concerned about corporate surveillance than they are government surveillance is that those corporations sell all your data to the government so that the government can get around the need for things like warrants and probable cause while at the same time those companies are also exploiting your data every chance that they get in any and every way that they think will make them more money or give them power and influence over you.

It wasn't until the current administration that the US government handed over the people's most sensitive private data in bulk to private corporations in exchange for bribes.

ColdStream 10 hours ago|||
Not that it makes it any better, those people were treated as just externalities to doing business. Government violence is a lot more targeted. Yes, it has the same result but the intention is very different. One is just careless, the other is malicious.
autoexec 9 hours ago||
When corporations knowingly kill people it isn't careless. What they do is entirely calculated. For example, it wasn't carelessness that caused the Philip Morris executives to hire a bunch of scientists who were then ordered to falsify reports saying that smoking wasn't harmful in an attempt to trick the public to keep smoking when the company was sitting on a mountain of evidence showing that their product was killing people.

Government violence is different though. When the government acts against the public they are generally required to follow long and complex procedures with multiple points of checks and accountability. A cop has to get enough evidence to convince a judge to issue an arrest warrant. A person is taken into custody and given access to a lawyer. A trial is held in court with a jury. At every step there are volumes of records detailing exactly what was done, by whom, and why. All of that information is public record and we can request those records to keep watch on what the government does. If the government abuses the power we give them we can vote them out of office and replace them.

Obviously there are a lot of problems with our legal system and places where all of that breaks down, but the goal was for there to be transparency and accountability and nothing stops us from improving the situation. With corporations on the other hand, they act in secret, they don't have to ask anyone for permission, they aren't required to keep records of everything they do, you have no legal right to examine the records they have, and even if you find out a CEO is responsible for murdering a bunch of people for profit you have no power to vote that CEO out of office.

It's pretty clear which of whose two entities is the larger threat. Which one of them has already repeatedly poisoned you and your entire family. Which one do you think was responsible for more violence done to your loved ones?

ColdStream 9 hours ago||
I completely agree.

The end results is they are two sides of the same coin but with very different mechanics. Neither should be accepted.

iamnothere 12 hours ago|||
This isn’t a “gotcha”. Many here take exceptional steps against this kind of thing and also advocate for restrictions on what kind of data corporations can collect.

Privacy doomerism is a form of complicity.

laughing_man 12 hours ago|||
Corporations can't arrest and jail me. The most they can do is file a lawsuit.
vachina 12 hours ago|||
Because most here works in said corporations.
HDBaseT 10 hours ago|||
Governments and Companies have different motivations.

Governments want control, Companies want money. Control typically comes from a reduction in rights, freedoms, money. When you fail to give those up "naturally" violence, worsened living conditions and abuse are the tools used.

choo-t 12 hours ago|||
More the reason to be defensive about it and fighting back corpo and government.
marssaxman 12 hours ago|||
"I'm surprised how much people hate this thing when this other thing, which they also hate, is even worse"?
0xbadcafebee 12 hours ago||
The corporations aren't going to throw you in jail if you cross state lines to get an abortion. The US government is already doing this when they get that data.
laughing_man 12 hours ago||
That isn't true. This is settle law -- states can not prevent people from going to other states to have abortions.
More comments...