UK security minister proposes "Digital IDs" to enforce online civility

[doctorow]

Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2018/06/11/authoritarian-britain.html

…

[ChuckV]

Fuck that.

[Papasan]

[RickMycroft]

@doctorow

If an authoritarian British government wanted to ban online services that refused to participate in a real-names policy, it could use the “great firewall” to block noncomplying services.

Their “great firewall” is built of straw and the urge to huff and puff is getting stronger.

[gracchus]

he has proposed that the UK follow China’s example and require that any place providing internet access use bank-account verification to affirmatively identify all the people who use the internet

Followed shortly by the introduction of a social credit scheme, also in the name of civility. Just as on issues of social welfare…

@gracchus

The U.S. has a default state of “screw you, I’ve got mine Jack” that the Tories have wanted to emulate by eliminating parts of the existing social safety net. Meanwhile, the UK (mostly the Tories but sometimes Blairite Labour) is constantly introducing individual awful new policies in this regard that conservatives in the States borrow to cut more holes in what remains of our social safety net

… on issues regarding surveillance the Tories want to emulate the Chinese default state of authoritarian control. Some of their individual awful policies in this regard might end up being borrowed by China at some point in the future.

[Glaurung]

Just which fucking tool was it who started the meme that trolling and bullying online is due to pseudonymity or anonymity rather than lack of fucking moderation?

Let me guess, it was Google of Facebook or some other company whose business model depends on lack of anonymity.

Clue hammer: bullying in the schoolyard has been going on forever and there’s no anonymity there. Requiring people to wear nametags does not stop bullying in the workplace (it’s called harassment, yo). So why the fuck do the tools in legislatures keep coming up with these harebraned schemes that we will make all this bad stuff on the internet go away if we just require everyone to wear nametags there?

[gracchus]

@Glaurung

Let me guess, it was Google of Facebook or some other company whose business model depends on lack of anonymity.

And whose business model also depends on spending the least amount possible on moderation, because with sites of that size you need to pay a bloody army of @orenwolfs to keep the peace.

[Mister44]

While I am sure anonymity promotes some bad behavior, join a public facebook group and you will see people with their face and name still being total shits.

[Grey_Devil]

[karl_jones]

@Glaurung

Clue hammer: bullying in the schoolyard has been going on forever and there’s no anonymity there.

“I found one day in school a boy of medium size ill-treating a smaller boy. I expostulated, but he replied: “The bigs hit me, so I hit the babies; that’s fair.” In these words he epitomized the history of the human race.”

– Bertrand Russell

A quote from Education and the Social Order

Update: removed redundant quotation marks.

[cannibalpeas]

@Glaurung

So why the fuck do the tools in legislatures keep coming up with these harebraned schemes that we will make all this bad stuff on the internet go away if we just require everyone to wear nametags there?

Because they know that’s not the actual intent. They don’t truly care about protecting the general welfare. It’s the eternal delusion that limiting people’s free choice also limits their ability to think critically, thereby creating recursive justification for marginalizing and eventually excizing all non-compliant people from society. It works remarkably well, but the delusion is that the method can be used to the degree that all undesirables are permanently eliminated. See: reproductive rights, homosexuality, Palestine. And on and on.

[anon30760835]

to enforce online civility

[HMSGoose]

@doctorow

follow China’s example

Yeah, let’s not sugarcoat it. You mean “Follow the example of EVERY piece of dystopian fiction written since man scratched dystopian fiction on cave walls with hand-crushed pigments” which China just happens to have also done.

[Boundegar]

The minister characterised this as a choice between “the wild west or a civilised society”…

The British upper classes have always done a smashing job instructing the rest of the world in the finer points of civilisation, wot? No football hooligans here, no sir, and no history of imperial brutality, either!

(Not to say the US is one bit better, but good job on the whitewashing!)

[anon62122146]

@doctorow

the ability to speak anonymously has been key to uncovering the historic sex abuse scandal, in which the most powerful politicians and businessmen in Britain were revealed to be rapists who preyed on children, women and men with total impunity.

Why do you think this politician wants to do away with anonymous speech?

[anon30760835]

@Boundegar

(Not to say the US is one bit better, but good job on the whitewashing!)

We did master the notion of gettin’ others to do our white washin for us. Whitewashin’ sure is fun!

[anotherone]

This has less to do with a civilized society than it does being able to identify people who speak out against tyranny.

[anon73430903]

It’s the UK, it should be two fingers.

[gadgetphile]

require that any place providing internet access use bank-account verification to affirmatively identify all the people who use the internet

Now people will need a bank account to be online. At least bank accounts can be closed, so it beats using social security numbers.

Not going to get hacked at all, nope. Malware on internet terminals/kiosks, or even public hotspots where you have to enter a bank account to get online? Never. Not even man in the middle attacks. /s

[anon73430903]

@gadgetphile

Now people will need a bank account to be online.

When I was homeless and couch surfing I had to open a bank account for disability benefits. Without documents (I think they wanted three), that was a near impossible task.

It’s just more disenfranchisement of the poor.