Protecting children online is crucial, but forcing every user to hand over their ID is a privacy nightmare waiting to happen, according to the head of the Swiss privacy firm
I mean, the fediverse that you’re already on already kind of is the ground floor. Most of these places are not going to be affected by age verification.
It actively divests itself from any centralized shit like SSL or DNS, it’s a raw HTTP only darknet that operates through its own peer-to-peer proxy network, totally anonymized and encrypted and segregated from any hint of open network traffic.
That makes no sense, when the age verification is being pushed to the OS and ISP levels.
Sure, you can connect to Lemmy, and not have to prove your identity to Lemmy, but Windows users will have to prove to microsoft, and also you’ll have to prove it to Verizon, or Comcast, or whomever your ISP is.
So before you even turn on your computer, you’ve already proved your identity twice.
The person you’re replying to is not a serious person. See below where they questioned whether we “need or are entitled to” a decentralized internet infrastructure…
They clearly don’t understand ISPs, and they seem to think their VPN and peer-to-peer networks would still work if the government decided to intervene by shutting down VPN and proxy servers, or if their ISP decided to throttle any connection it couldn’t fully analyze and link to a verified identity.
And then they told me that I should join the brownshirts… for… discussing the need for decentralized infrastructure? They seemed to assume I only want that so I can watch youtube and play games, which is kind of weird. But the weirdest part is that they were virtue signaling about “persecuted people” and “dissidents,” as if a decentralized infrastructure wouldn’t directly benefit those groups…
I don’t have to worry about my OS because it’s open source. Yours should be too. They can’t actually enforce age verification on an open source OS because my OS can lie, and I can use its source code to make it lie if I have to (which I won’t, because many other people will do it for me). For that matter they’ll find ways to make Windows lie too, but you still shouldn’t be using it, it’s shit.
I don’t have to worry about my ISP either because I live in a still-civilized country, but yeah, if they really lock it down at that level that’s going to be tough, you’ll probably have to identify someone for that if that’s the next place where they go to. There are countermeasures and workarounds though. VPN, mesh networking, borrowing somebody else’s wifi or mobile data hotspot, finding open networks. Maybe we’ll get to the point where we need point to point links, pirate satellites, datajacking ourselves into communication lines, who knows.
But we’re not there yet. We’ll continue to develop more countermeasures as these sorts of hostile police surveillance state measures encroach on our freedom as it becomes necessary. You don’t have to let your identity be associated with anything beyond your ISP if you’re only using your ISP to get to somewhere you do trust with a VPN. If they block VPNs, then we will find other ways around the blocks. Are you familiar with I2P? If you aren’t, maybe you should get familiar with it. We already have plenty of ways of sneaking information into and out of even more totalitarian of states like China, Russia, at least until there’s an absolute shutdown like in Iran. You should also consider not living in a totalitarian country, and doing what you can to stop yours from becoming more totalitarian, because it’s only going to get harder the longer you let them do this. Give them your ID in exchange for internet access for now if you absolutely have to and can’t find any other option, but you might not absolutely have to, yet. And if you do have to, do it with caution: start learning and planning what you’re going to have to do after that and how you’re going to get very active in your resistance to being monitored and observed.
You sound like you’ve got a little bit of learned helplessness, but people in shitty, scary countries have been dealing with this for a long, long time. Yes, it sucks, but it’s not the end of freedom. You have to learn how to fight it.
As far as I’m aware, mesh networks don’t have the bandwidth for large data transfers. They can send packets of a thousand or so bytes tops, so even with compression you’d barely be able to send/receive anything.
You might be able to do SSH and run a few commands remotely, but with really high latency.
For a decentralized replacement for the modern internet, you would need major infrastructure like cables and/or cell towers and satellites.
Who says we need or are entitled to a decentralized replacement for the modern internet? Communication can be accomplished with much less, and necessity is the mother of invention. We managed to communicate quite effectively by having computers intermittently screeching at each other through a phone line for several decades. This discussion is about the modern internet being cut off while they try to identify and root out persecuted populations and dissidents against the regime. Nobody said it was going to be fun and you will still be able to freely watch all the youtube your bored brain can handle while streaming video games on another screen. If that’s your expectation, you might as well go sign up for the brownshirts right now.
Who says we need or are entitled to a decentralized replacement for the modern internet?
This is a conversation about how to circumvent government surveillance and censorship. If you can’t see the connection to a need for decentralized internet structure, that’s on you.
Also, you said this:
I don’t have to worry about my ISP either because I live in a still-civilized country, but yeah, if they really lock it down at that level that’s going to be tough,
Wow, good for you, your government isn’t rapidly implementing a surveillance state like seemingly most of the world is right now. That’s not much of an argument for why other people don’t need decentralized communication, though. Check your freaking privilege at the door.
You also said this:
There are countermeasures and workarounds though. VPN, mesh networking, borrowing somebody else’s wifi or mobile data hotspot, finding open networks.
In case you didn’t know, mesh networking is decentralized communication. I merely pointed out that it isn’t robust enough at this time to fully replace an internet connection, meaning it would be impractical to implement the fediverse over one.
Furthermore, VPNs can increase anonymity, but they still rely on a connection to their servers. Which means, under the current infrastructure, that you’re still relying on your ISP. If the ISP decides to throttle all connections going through VPN servers, or if the government shuts down VPN servers, then you’re still fucked. So that’s not a workaround for the necessity of decentralized internet.
And, “borrowing somebody else’s wifi or mobile data hotspot, finding open networks” still means going through ISPs, and the point of “age verification” which we’re discussing is so that they can still identify you regardless. So that’s not a solution.
Lastly, you also said this:
Maybe we’ll get to the point where we need point to point links, pirate satellites, datajacking ourselves into communication lines, who knows.
In other words, you agree that there is a point which might necessitate decentralized internet infrastructure. Unless you fail to understand the topic entirely.
Communication can be accomplished with much less, and necessity is the mother of invention.
Yes, communication can be accomplished, but to what extent depends on your technological capabilities. Mesh radios work for simple text-based messaging with limited bandwidth. Ham radios work for voice. Both of which can be dangerous when a government is actively hostile to radio communications, but there are ways to minimize the risk.
But in the context of maintaining the fediverse when the government tries to eliminate anonymous web use, neither of those things are a replacement.
You might be able to extend a LAN-based intranet by daisychaining wifi receivers, but how far? It’ll probably be limited to a few houses or a neighborhood. It won’t enable global communication like the modern internet does.
You could pass around USBs to share wikipedia articles and similar databases, but there’s no real-time access/communication and this locks out anyone not in the “in-group,” so it’s not a full replacement either.
So in order to maintain the fediverse and anonymity, you still need some sort of internet infrastructure, which currently is dominated by ISPs and cell carriers. Which, if the government forces them to identify users through verification, will no longer be anonymous. Hence, the need for decentralized internet infrastructure.
We managed to communicate quite effectively by having computers intermittently screeching at each other through a phone line for several decades.
Okay, so you want to go back to using dial-up? Over landline? Is that what you’re proposing? Because even that goes through centralized carrier services which could easily be co-opted by an authoritarian government. Not a solution for the topic at hand.
This discussion is about the modern internet being cut off while they try to identify and root out persecuted populations and dissidents against the regime.
Get off your high horse. Yes, the discussion is about the modern internet being cut off. And you can’t see how that relates to necessitating a decentralized internet infrastructure to replace the one being locked down?
Those “persecuted populations and dissidents against the regime” can only benefit from a decentralized internet, and you’re throwing them out like some token virtue-signaling buzzwords to make yourself sound morally superior, when the argument you’re making actively hurts those people by making it easier for the government to root them out in the absence of decentralized communication infrastructure.
Nobody said it was going to be fun and you will still be able to freely watch all the youtube your bored brain can handle while streaming video games on another screen. If that’s your expectation, you might as well go sign up for the brownshirts right now
I can only assume this is projection on your part. Is the only use you can think of for a decentralized internet so you can watch youtube and stream video games? Really? Is your imagination that limited?
Funny that you should call me a brownshirt, when you’re the one who began your comment by questioning whether we’re even “entitled” to a decentralized internet. In the context of a discussion about the government’s assaults on anonymity. Do you not realize how fascist that sounds?
For now? Hope the government doesn’t ban VPNs, and ISPs don’t lock down “unverified” connections.
Contact your congresspeople and let them know how you feel about ID verification, and why it’s dangerous to democracy.
Maybe get a mesh radio and learn about nodes, so that you have at least some form of communication if they lock down the web. Maybe a ham radio too, but be aware than many jurisdictions require a license to transmit anything (passive receiving is usually fine).
Download a local copy of everything you think you would want post-internet. Wikipedia, project gutenberg, ifixit, etc.
If you like your neighbors, consider discussing a network of wifi repeaters or ethernet cables to build your own LAN/intranet in the hypothetical post-internet scenario.
If you still use streaming services, transition to self-hosting local copies of all the media you care about.
If you have millions billions of dollars, consider starting your own ISP or VPN server, building out your own fiber-optic infrastructure, maybe launching your own satellites into space, with a commitment to open-source, decentralized platforms and anonymity?
Or contribute to a tech co-op that might eventually be able to implement something similar.
Other than that, all you can do is raise awareness about how easy it would be for an oppressive government to shut down the internet, or even just lock it down to any “unverified”/unidentifiable users…
Wow, I guess I could say the same to you, huh? I’m not going to bother trying to explain the myriad ways you’ve misread and misunderstood my comment, go ahead and keep believing whatever it is you’re believing right now, it doesn’t bother me a bit.
I wasn’t being defensive, I was merely dismantling your argument piece-by-piece.
And you can’t be bothered to engage with my argument? I addressed yours in detail, and you can’t even come up with a response? Sounds like someone who knows they’ve lost the argument, if maybe only subconsciously.
the myriad ways you’ve misread and misunderstood my comment
What way did I misread or misunderstand? Was it when you told me to sign up for the brownshirts? Or when you questioned whether we “need or are entitled to” a decentralized internet infrastructure?
I don’t know, if you think I misread those things, then maybe the problem is that you didn’t elaborate them very well. Cause it seemed pretty clear that you were hostile towards the idea of a decentralized internet infrastructure.
go ahead and keep believing whatever it is you’re believing right now, it doesn’t bother me a bit.
Oh, so you didn’t read anything I said? Or you didn’t understand any of it? And you can’t be bothered to read something that might force you to reexamine your beliefs?
And then you tell me to keep on believing whatever I believe? As if I’m the one being obtuse. That’s more projection on your part.
You know, plugging your ears isn’t any way to win an argument. That’s what fascist sympathizers do. This is exactly like trying to explain climate change to a republican.
IoT can run on LAN, and anyone who uses it should be self-hosting.
That being said, most people just trade privacy for convenience by signing up for corporate services. And that gives the tech companies more leverage over those people because “upload your ID or else your alexa won’t work.”
Tech companies have no qualms with making your things non-functional unless you give in to their stipulations…
Ugh. That’s disgusting on a thousand levels. Even proposing such a bill should be considered a jailable violation of the constitution, as an example to the rest of the authoritarian bastards.
I mean, I agree with you, but this isn’t just a United States thing. China has had this since forever. They have something called a “social credit score”.
So if you litter, and cameras catch you littering, your social credit goes down. And you best believe they track and monitor every single online interaction.
The UK the past year has been really slamming hard on online verification.
This is a global thing that is seeping into the united states, but it’s by no means the only point of contention.
From what I understand, social credit score is mostly an invented bogeyman to demonize China in the west, and while many frightening “consequences” of low social credit score were imagined, none ever materialized and it was rarely even actually tracked. Yes, they could, in theory, but we imagine a massive level of administrative competence and effectiveness that I think serves both western interests and Chinese ones without necessarily being reality. As far as I can tell (granted, not very far as I’m not in China and haven’t been for a very long time) it actually had very little real impact in China itself and has already been mostly forgotten. China’s got lots of problems, but social credit score isn’t really part of any of them. They don’t need to have social credit score to genocide Uighurs. They didn’t need social credit score to massacre Tienanmen square. They don’t need social credit score to prepare the South China Sea for war and try to subvert Taiwan. They’ve got bigger fish to fry, and they’re frying them, and social credit score is a silly distraction that nobody there is taking seriously and neither should we.
It really sucks seeing supposed democratic nations having this forced on them. I really hate how little people understand the implications in practice.
China’s “cameras up everyone’s nose” approach should be a sign of failure and a caution to the world, not permission for other governments to “catch up”. :(
How would one HYPOTHETICALLY get in on this at the ground floor?
I mean, the fediverse that you’re already on already kind of is the ground floor. Most of these places are not going to be affected by age verification.
But if you want to climb a few floors up to where the blackjack and hookers are probably hanging out, there are things like I2P it’s delightfully sketchy. the best kind of sketchy.
It actively divests itself from any centralized shit like SSL or DNS, it’s a raw HTTP only darknet that operates through its own peer-to-peer proxy network, totally anonymized and encrypted and segregated from any hint of open network traffic.
That makes no sense, when the age verification is being pushed to the OS and ISP levels.
Sure, you can connect to Lemmy, and not have to prove your identity to Lemmy, but Windows users will have to prove to microsoft, and also you’ll have to prove it to Verizon, or Comcast, or whomever your ISP is.
So before you even turn on your computer, you’ve already proved your identity twice.
The person you’re replying to is not a serious person. See below where they questioned whether we “need or are entitled to” a decentralized internet infrastructure…
They clearly don’t understand ISPs, and they seem to think their VPN and peer-to-peer networks would still work if the government decided to intervene by shutting down VPN and proxy servers, or if their ISP decided to throttle any connection it couldn’t fully analyze and link to a verified identity.
And then they told me that I should join the brownshirts… for… discussing the need for decentralized infrastructure? They seemed to assume I only want that so I can watch youtube and play games, which is kind of weird. But the weirdest part is that they were virtue signaling about “persecuted people” and “dissidents,” as if a decentralized infrastructure wouldn’t directly benefit those groups…
I don’t have to worry about my OS because it’s open source. Yours should be too. They can’t actually enforce age verification on an open source OS because my OS can lie, and I can use its source code to make it lie if I have to (which I won’t, because many other people will do it for me). For that matter they’ll find ways to make Windows lie too, but you still shouldn’t be using it, it’s shit.
I don’t have to worry about my ISP either because I live in a still-civilized country, but yeah, if they really lock it down at that level that’s going to be tough, you’ll probably have to identify someone for that if that’s the next place where they go to. There are countermeasures and workarounds though. VPN, mesh networking, borrowing somebody else’s wifi or mobile data hotspot, finding open networks. Maybe we’ll get to the point where we need point to point links, pirate satellites, datajacking ourselves into communication lines, who knows.
But we’re not there yet. We’ll continue to develop more countermeasures as these sorts of hostile police surveillance state measures encroach on our freedom as it becomes necessary. You don’t have to let your identity be associated with anything beyond your ISP if you’re only using your ISP to get to somewhere you do trust with a VPN. If they block VPNs, then we will find other ways around the blocks. Are you familiar with I2P? If you aren’t, maybe you should get familiar with it. We already have plenty of ways of sneaking information into and out of even more totalitarian of states like China, Russia, at least until there’s an absolute shutdown like in Iran. You should also consider not living in a totalitarian country, and doing what you can to stop yours from becoming more totalitarian, because it’s only going to get harder the longer you let them do this. Give them your ID in exchange for internet access for now if you absolutely have to and can’t find any other option, but you might not absolutely have to, yet. And if you do have to, do it with caution: start learning and planning what you’re going to have to do after that and how you’re going to get very active in your resistance to being monitored and observed.
You sound like you’ve got a little bit of learned helplessness, but people in shitty, scary countries have been dealing with this for a long, long time. Yes, it sucks, but it’s not the end of freedom. You have to learn how to fight it.
As far as I’m aware, mesh networks don’t have the bandwidth for large data transfers. They can send packets of a thousand or so bytes tops, so even with compression you’d barely be able to send/receive anything.
You might be able to do SSH and run a few commands remotely, but with really high latency.
For a decentralized replacement for the modern internet, you would need major infrastructure like cables and/or cell towers and satellites.
Who says we need or are entitled to a decentralized replacement for the modern internet? Communication can be accomplished with much less, and necessity is the mother of invention. We managed to communicate quite effectively by having computers intermittently screeching at each other through a phone line for several decades. This discussion is about the modern internet being cut off while they try to identify and root out persecuted populations and dissidents against the regime. Nobody said it was going to be fun and you will still be able to freely watch all the youtube your bored brain can handle while streaming video games on another screen. If that’s your expectation, you might as well go sign up for the brownshirts right now.
Damn dude, you don’t have to get so defensive.
This is a conversation about how to circumvent government surveillance and censorship. If you can’t see the connection to a need for decentralized internet structure, that’s on you.
Also, you said this:
Wow, good for you, your government isn’t rapidly implementing a surveillance state like seemingly most of the world is right now. That’s not much of an argument for why other people don’t need decentralized communication, though. Check your freaking privilege at the door.
You also said this:
In case you didn’t know, mesh networking is decentralized communication. I merely pointed out that it isn’t robust enough at this time to fully replace an internet connection, meaning it would be impractical to implement the fediverse over one.
Furthermore, VPNs can increase anonymity, but they still rely on a connection to their servers. Which means, under the current infrastructure, that you’re still relying on your ISP. If the ISP decides to throttle all connections going through VPN servers, or if the government shuts down VPN servers, then you’re still fucked. So that’s not a workaround for the necessity of decentralized internet.
And, “borrowing somebody else’s wifi or mobile data hotspot, finding open networks” still means going through ISPs, and the point of “age verification” which we’re discussing is so that they can still identify you regardless. So that’s not a solution.
Lastly, you also said this:
In other words, you agree that there is a point which might necessitate decentralized internet infrastructure. Unless you fail to understand the topic entirely.
Yes, communication can be accomplished, but to what extent depends on your technological capabilities. Mesh radios work for simple text-based messaging with limited bandwidth. Ham radios work for voice. Both of which can be dangerous when a government is actively hostile to radio communications, but there are ways to minimize the risk.
But in the context of maintaining the fediverse when the government tries to eliminate anonymous web use, neither of those things are a replacement.
You might be able to extend a LAN-based intranet by daisychaining wifi receivers, but how far? It’ll probably be limited to a few houses or a neighborhood. It won’t enable global communication like the modern internet does.
You could pass around USBs to share wikipedia articles and similar databases, but there’s no real-time access/communication and this locks out anyone not in the “in-group,” so it’s not a full replacement either.
So in order to maintain the fediverse and anonymity, you still need some sort of internet infrastructure, which currently is dominated by ISPs and cell carriers. Which, if the government forces them to identify users through verification, will no longer be anonymous. Hence, the need for decentralized internet infrastructure.
Okay, so you want to go back to using dial-up? Over landline? Is that what you’re proposing? Because even that goes through centralized carrier services which could easily be co-opted by an authoritarian government. Not a solution for the topic at hand.
Get off your high horse. Yes, the discussion is about the modern internet being cut off. And you can’t see how that relates to necessitating a decentralized internet infrastructure to replace the one being locked down?
Those “persecuted populations and dissidents against the regime” can only benefit from a decentralized internet, and you’re throwing them out like some token virtue-signaling buzzwords to make yourself sound morally superior, when the argument you’re making actively hurts those people by making it easier for the government to root them out in the absence of decentralized communication infrastructure.
I can only assume this is projection on your part. Is the only use you can think of for a decentralized internet so you can watch youtube and stream video games? Really? Is your imagination that limited?
Funny that you should call me a brownshirt, when you’re the one who began your comment by questioning whether we’re even “entitled” to a decentralized internet. In the context of a discussion about the government’s assaults on anonymity. Do you not realize how fascist that sounds?
So, uh… then what are we gonna dooooo?! *pulls out hair*
For now? Hope the government doesn’t ban VPNs, and ISPs don’t lock down “unverified” connections.
Contact your congresspeople and let them know how you feel about ID verification, and why it’s dangerous to democracy.
Maybe get a mesh radio and learn about nodes, so that you have at least some form of communication if they lock down the web. Maybe a ham radio too, but be aware than many jurisdictions require a license to transmit anything (passive receiving is usually fine).
Download a local copy of everything you think you would want post-internet. Wikipedia, project gutenberg, ifixit, etc.
If you like your neighbors, consider discussing a network of wifi repeaters or ethernet cables to build your own LAN/intranet in the hypothetical post-internet scenario.
If you still use streaming services, transition to self-hosting local copies of all the media you care about.
If you have
millionsbillions of dollars, consider starting your own ISP or VPN server, building out your own fiber-optic infrastructure, maybe launching your own satellites into space, with a commitment to open-source, decentralized platforms and anonymity?Or contribute to a tech co-op that might eventually be able to implement something similar.
Other than that, all you can do is raise awareness about how easy it would be for an oppressive government to shut down the internet, or even just lock it down to any “unverified”/unidentifiable users…
Wow, I guess I could say the same to you, huh? I’m not going to bother trying to explain the myriad ways you’ve misread and misunderstood my comment, go ahead and keep believing whatever it is you’re believing right now, it doesn’t bother me a bit.
Um, he put up some pretty good rebuttals… How did he misunderstand you, exactly?
I wasn’t being defensive, I was merely dismantling your argument piece-by-piece.
And you can’t be bothered to engage with my argument? I addressed yours in detail, and you can’t even come up with a response? Sounds like someone who knows they’ve lost the argument, if maybe only subconsciously.
What way did I misread or misunderstand? Was it when you told me to sign up for the brownshirts? Or when you questioned whether we “need or are entitled to” a decentralized internet infrastructure?
I don’t know, if you think I misread those things, then maybe the problem is that you didn’t elaborate them very well. Cause it seemed pretty clear that you were hostile towards the idea of a decentralized internet infrastructure.
Oh, so you didn’t read anything I said? Or you didn’t understand any of it? And you can’t be bothered to read something that might force you to reexamine your beliefs?
And then you tell me to keep on believing whatever I believe? As if I’m the one being obtuse. That’s more projection on your part.
You know, plugging your ears isn’t any way to win an argument. That’s what fascist sympathizers do. This is exactly like trying to explain climate change to a republican.
They can’t really do that or else their “Internet of Things” won’t function.
IoT can run on LAN, and anyone who uses it should be self-hosting.
That being said, most people just trade privacy for convenience by signing up for corporate services. And that gives the tech companies more leverage over those people because “upload your ID or else your alexa won’t work.”
Tech companies have no qualms with making your things non-functional unless you give in to their stipulations…
Ugh. That’s disgusting on a thousand levels. Even proposing such a bill should be considered a jailable violation of the constitution, as an example to the rest of the authoritarian bastards.
I mean, I agree with you, but this isn’t just a United States thing. China has had this since forever. They have something called a “social credit score”.
So if you litter, and cameras catch you littering, your social credit goes down. And you best believe they track and monitor every single online interaction.
The UK the past year has been really slamming hard on online verification.
This is a global thing that is seeping into the united states, but it’s by no means the only point of contention.
From what I understand, social credit score is mostly an invented bogeyman to demonize China in the west, and while many frightening “consequences” of low social credit score were imagined, none ever materialized and it was rarely even actually tracked. Yes, they could, in theory, but we imagine a massive level of administrative competence and effectiveness that I think serves both western interests and Chinese ones without necessarily being reality. As far as I can tell (granted, not very far as I’m not in China and haven’t been for a very long time) it actually had very little real impact in China itself and has already been mostly forgotten. China’s got lots of problems, but social credit score isn’t really part of any of them. They don’t need to have social credit score to genocide Uighurs. They didn’t need social credit score to massacre Tienanmen square. They don’t need social credit score to prepare the South China Sea for war and try to subvert Taiwan. They’ve got bigger fish to fry, and they’re frying them, and social credit score is a silly distraction that nobody there is taking seriously and neither should we.
Oh yeah, 1000%.
It really sucks seeing supposed democratic nations having this forced on them. I really hate how little people understand the implications in practice.
China’s “cameras up everyone’s nose” approach should be a sign of failure and a caution to the world, not permission for other governments to “catch up”. :(
Well, are you a blackjack dealer or a hooker?
For the right money, either!
I’m probably a better hooker. I feel like I’d just let you down as a blackjack dealer.
So, as far as sex goes, you WOULD give it up, and as a blackjack dealer you WOULD let me down…
Guys, I don’t think this is Rick Astley.
How about a regular dealer?