Digital IDs - no on-line anonymity

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Tue Jun 12, 2018 7:25 pm

What do posters think of this proposal, reported in Saturday's Times? No more hiding "real world" identities when you post on "social" media.

Would this mb be a quieter place if this rule applied - and we all could only post under our real names?

I wasn't going to start this post, but there are so many threads where personal insults are thrown around without any thought.

Digital IDs to end online mob rule and anonymity

Digital IDs should be introduced to remove online anonymity and end internet “mob rule”, the security minister has told The Times.
Ben Wallace, a former soldier, said bullying and grooming occurred on social media because offenders believed they cannot be identified. “It is mob rule on the internet. You shouldn’t be able to hide behind anonymity as much as you can now,” he added.
He said that banks can authenticate their users’ identities online, so there is no reason other websites could not do the same.
“I remember going to see an undercover online [investigation] into child sex exploitation. There was a children’s chat room with a 45-year-old pretending to be a 12-year-old. It was like blood in the water with a shark . . . If we’re going to make the internet safer, and cut out the abuse, we’re going to have to do something more about some form of digital identification.”

The rest of the article (may be) accessible here:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/past-six-day ... -qq8lnwrcn" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Jun 12, 2018 9:04 pm

Initial reaction - get ******.

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Tue Jun 12, 2018 9:10 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Initial reaction - get ******.

I thought you would be all for it to be honest pal

Pstotto · Post by **Pstotto** » Tue Jun 12, 2018 9:13 pm

Well there's one, kicking and screaming by his initial reaction.

Why not have one's DNA recorded at birth and that is one's individual N.I.number?

Who wants it and who doesn't?

The government?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Jun 12, 2018 9:13 pm

Damo wrote:I thought you would be all for it to be honest pal

Spend a bit of time thinking about it and I'm sure you'll understand why a liberal would be fundamentally opposed to this.

Pstotto · Post by **Pstotto** » Tue Jun 12, 2018 9:20 pm

That's a cop-out answer. I am a liberal too, but not liberal-ness as a cover for those parasitic upon that value for other purposes.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Tue Jun 12, 2018 9:28 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Spend a bit of time thinking about it and I'm sure you'll understand why a liberal would be fundamentally opposed to this.

Hi IT, so it's "liberal" to "not disclose" your identity and post anything you like, pleasant, unpleasant, clever or not so clever?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Jun 12, 2018 9:37 pm

Paul Waine wrote:Hi IT, so it's "liberal" to "not disclose" your identity and post anything you like, pleasant, unpleasant, clever or not so clever?

No. It's liberal not to demand someone's identity before allowing them to share an opinion.

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Tue Jun 12, 2018 9:42 pm

Who is going to administer these IDs? What will happen if (when) they are compromised? Is the plan to ban all overseas internet users or is the plan that that the whole world will sign up to it? (I could see that some territories the government will be all for it). How are people going to prove they are who they say they are (Are we expecting a 15 year old to have a passport and two utility bills?)

That was from 30 seconds thought without even considering the liberal aspects. Like many technology suggestions it's a stupid suggestion when you consider the implications (remember when the government thought they could get rid of encryption, there's a large number of technical simpletons involved in this government).

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Tue Jun 12, 2018 9:44 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Spend a bit of time thinking about it and I'm sure you'll understand why a liberal would be fundamentally opposed to this.

I understand why a liberal may be opposed to this.
I also understand your reasons

Bin Ont Turf · Post by **Bin Ont Turf** » Tue Jun 12, 2018 9:47 pm

Turtle's just worried that all the people he's called an idiot will be tooled up and queuing up outside his house.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Jun 12, 2018 9:50 pm

Damo wrote:I understand why a liberal may be opposed to this.
I also understand your reasons

Lol. Guys. This is funny because Damo is implying that he doesn't believe I'm a liberal. He does this by separating the rationale behind liberals opposing this idea and the rationale behind my opposition to the idea as if they're different rationales. He doesn't explicitly express this opinion which gives it a subtle flavour but when you think about it more deeply then you start to realise the slightly hidden meaning behind his words. And that's why it's funny.

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Tue Jun 12, 2018 9:52 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Lol. Guys. This is funny because Damo is implying that he doesn't believe I'm a liberal. He does this by separating the rationale behind liberals opposing this idea and the rationale behind my opposition to the idea as if they're different rationales. He doesn't explicitly express this opinion which gives it a subtle flavour but when you think about it more deeply then you start to realise the slightly hidden meaning behind his words. And that's why it's funny.

Triggered?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Jun 12, 2018 9:53 pm

Damo wrote:Triggered?

No, a joke that flew over your head.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Jun 12, 2018 9:54 pm

Bin Ont Turf wrote:Turtle's just worried that all the people he's called an idiot will be tooled up and queuing up outside his house.

I wonder if they'll have to show their IDs before doing me in.

conyoviejo · Post by **conyoviejo** » Tue Jun 12, 2018 9:56 pm

Bin Ont Turf wrote:Turtle's just worried that all the people he's called an idiot will be tooled up and queuing up outside his house.

Thought he was living rough on the Stoops estate in a cardboard box .

conyoviejo · Post by **conyoviejo** » Tue Jun 12, 2018 9:57 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:I wonder if they'll have to show their IDs before doing me in.

Bin Ont Turf · Post by **Bin Ont Turf** » Tue Jun 12, 2018 9:58 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:I wonder if they'll have to show their IDs before doing me in.

Yes, they'll be the 14 eyelet Dr Martens boots.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Jun 12, 2018 9:58 pm

conyoviejo wrote:Thought he was living rough on the Stoops estate in a cardboard box .

Free WiFi though.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Tue Jun 12, 2018 10:05 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:No. It's liberal not to demand someone's identity before allowing them to share an opinion.

And the value of an opinion from someone who chooses to hide their identity is what?

Jess Phillips, MP at the Cheltenham Science Festival: “However, where it does worry me, and I think we have to do something about, is when it affects our democracy. I have come to the viewpoint that I don’t think people should be allowed to be completely anonymous online anymore.”

South West Claret. · Post by **South West Claret.** » Tue Jun 12, 2018 10:13 pm

Paul Waine wrote:What do posters think of this proposal, reported in Saturday's Times? No more hiding "real world" identities when you post on "social" media.

Would this mb be a quieter place if this rule applied - and we all could only post under our real names?

I wasn't going to start this post, but there are so many threads where personal insults are thrown around without any thought.

Digital IDs to end online mob rule and anonymity

Digital IDs should be introduced to remove online anonymity and end internet “mob rule”, the security minister has told The Times.
Ben Wallace, a former soldier, said bullying and grooming occurred on social media because offenders believed they cannot be identified. “It is mob rule on the internet. You shouldn’t be able to hide behind anonymity as much as you can now,” he added.
He said that banks can authenticate their users’ identities online, so there is no reason other websites could not do the same.
“I remember going to see an undercover online [investigation] into child sex exploitation. There was a children’s chat room with a 45-year-old pretending to be a 12-year-old. It was like blood in the water with a shark . . . If we’re going to make the internet safer, and cut out the abuse, we’re going to have to do something more about some form of digital identification.”

The rest of the article (may be) accessible here:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/past-six-day ... -qq8lnwrcn" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Doesn't on the surface seem like a bad idea.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Jun 12, 2018 10:13 pm

Paul Waine wrote:And the value of an opinion from someone who chooses to hide their identity is what?

Jess Phillips, MP at the Cheltenham Science Festival: “However, where it does worry me, and I think we have to do something about, is when it affects our democracy. I have come to the viewpoint that I don’t think people should be allowed to be completely anonymous online anymore.”

Not much, but what's that got to do with anything?

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Tue Jun 12, 2018 10:15 pm

aggi wrote:Who is going to administer these IDs? What will happen if (when) they are compromised? Is the plan to ban all overseas internet users or is the plan that that the whole world will sign up to it? (I could see that some territories the government will be all for it). How are people going to prove they are who they say they are (Are we expecting a 15 year old to have a passport and two utility bills?)

That was from 30 seconds thought without even considering the liberal aspects. Like many technology suggestions it's a stupid suggestion when you consider the implications (remember when the government thought they could get rid of encryption, there's a large number of technical simpletons involved in this government).

Hi aggi, I was given my name shortly after I was born. I guess if we have a truely liberal democracy that we can administer it ourselves.

What's there to compromise if we act like we would in the pub or anywhere else in the real world?

"Overseas internet?" - isn't it called the world wide web? Didn't the tech guys who "created" it all have good intentions when it started out?

What does it say if the "30 second thought" is "no, I don't want that."

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Tue Jun 12, 2018 10:19 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Not much, but what's that got to do with anything?

Oops, occasionally, I'm not paying attention to where the cursor is. Please don't read too much into the "like" - other than you know the person who "liked" your post.

I guess the answer is "nothing, or everything."

Bfcboyo · Post by **Bfcboyo** » Tue Jun 12, 2018 10:23 pm

Just bloody turn web off and have done.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Jun 12, 2018 10:25 pm

Paul Waine wrote:Oops, occasionally, I'm not paying attention to where the cursor is. Please don't read too much into the "like" - other than you know the person who "liked" your post.

I guess the answer is "nothing, or everything."

An opinion should be first based on it's merits. Then if it has no merit that's when you look at the person and try to understand why they express such an opinion. But even then it's still not the government's place to police the sharing of opinions.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Jun 12, 2018 10:25 pm

Bfcboyo wrote:Just bloody turn web off and have done.

You first

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Jun 12, 2018 10:25 pm

Paul Waine wrote:Hi aggi, I was given my name shortly after I was born. I guess if we have a truely liberal democracy that we can administer it ourselves.

...

Deed poll

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Tue Jun 12, 2018 10:28 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Deed poll

So Imploding Turtle is the name you've adopted by deed poll. Fair play to you, IT.

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Tue Jun 12, 2018 10:33 pm

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Tue Jun 12, 2018 10:34 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:An opinion should be first based on it's merits. Then if it has no merit that's when you look at the person and try to understand why they express such an opinion. But even then it's still not the government's place to police the sharing of opinions.

No. That's not how it often works for you, or many others on this board. The unfortunate style is to look at the poster's ID first and then the insults start to fly...

Why bring "the government" into this? I know that is how it worked in East Germany and similar regimes - and, to be politically unbiased, is how it most likely worked in the far-right regimes - but, why should we create a situation where we can't "police" ourselves in the opinions we share?

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Tue Jun 12, 2018 10:35 pm

Hi aggi, I was given my name shortly after I was born. I guess if we have a truely liberal democracy that we can administer it ourselves.

If we could be trusted to administer it ourselves then it wouldn't be necessary to have it

What's there to compromise if we act like we would in the pub or anywhere else in the real world?

Compromise as in someone gains access to your ID and starts posting everywhere as you

"Overseas internet?" - isn't it called the world wide web? Didn't the tech guys who "created" it all have good intentions when it started out?

It is. Would a Chinese poster to UTC need one of these IDs (I assume they'd have to or you'd just use a proxy and pretend you were from overseas and bypass it entirely). Would it be regulated by the UK or China, if the UK how are they checking who the Chinese poster is?

Are we expecting twitter, facebook, etc to implement this worldwide (as above it's a bit pointless otherwise). If so, who is administering this database with the identities of 4,000,000,000 users? Would you trust Facebook or Twitter with managing this info? Do you want the Russian or US government to have access to it if it's run by governments?

What does it say if the "30 second thought" is "no, I don't want that.

It says we desperately need politicians who understand modern day technology. However much they try to put things back in their box they are too late

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Tue Jun 12, 2018 10:39 pm

If it be your will wrote:A lack of anonymity on the internet is, to me, a vision of cyber-hell. A lack of anonymity in daily life is a vision of hell to me, too.

Over the last 20 years I've witnessed an inexorable slide towards hell. (And I don't even feel my personal security has improved in that time either.)

Hi iibyw, and when did "social" media start to develop with anonymous posters? Could we say that was approximately "20 years" ago?

You've got a great "nom de plume" - but a little ironic, maybe?

btw: are you going to "JezFest?"

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Jun 12, 2018 10:42 pm

Paul Waine wrote:No. That's not how it often works for you, or many others on this board. The unfortunate style is to look at the poster's ID first and then the insults start to fly...

Why bring "the government" into this? I know that is how it worked in East Germany and similar regimes - and, to be politically unbiased, is how it most likely worked in the far-right regimes - but, why should we create a situation where we can't "police" ourselves in the opinions we share?

When have i ever shot down a dumb opinion based on something other than its dumbness?

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Tue Jun 12, 2018 10:45 pm

aggi wrote:
1) Compromise as in someone gains access to your ID and starts posting everywhere as you

2) It says we desperately need politicians who understand modern day technology. However much they try to put things back in their box they are too late

1) Yes, I've experienced that - guy putting my name on his (fake) passport and stealing from my credit card.

2) Yes, we desperately need politicians who understand everything that politicians are involved in. Maybe, if we are open with our identities, we can be the politicians and make sure that these things are done "right."

EDIT - to place my two replies below aggi's two quotes.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Jun 12, 2018 10:45 pm

Paul Waine wrote:No. That's not how it often works for you, or many others on this board. The unfortunate style is to look at the poster's ID first and then the insults start to fly...

Why bring "the government" into this? I know that is how it worked in East Germany and similar regimes - and, to be politically unbiased, is how it most likely worked in the far-right regimes - but, why should we create a situation where we can't "police" ourselves in the opinions we share?

Why bring the government into this? The government would already be involved. Who do you think would be the ones policing those of us who don't reveal our identities, or sites that don't verify them?

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Tue Jun 12, 2018 10:47 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:When have i ever shot down a dumb opinion based on something other than its dumbness?

And, how often have you "shot down a dumb opinion" when maybe it wasn't dumb?

I don't know, but then I don't know who you are. Though, I do know that you are good at "information technology" (spelt out to avoid ambiguity).

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Jun 12, 2018 10:49 pm

Paul Waine wrote:And, how often have you "shot down a dumb opinion" when maybe it wasn't dumb?

I don't know, but then I don't know who you are. Though, I do know that you are good at "information technology" (spelt out to avoid ambiguity).

If i was able to shoot it down then it was pretty dumb to begin with.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Tue Jun 12, 2018 10:52 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:If i was able to shoot it down then it was pretty dumb to begin with.

But, who knows, you may have shot and missed....

and most times you wouldn't have known what you were shooting at.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Tue Jun 12, 2018 10:53 pm

Enough... work in the morning.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Jun 12, 2018 10:55 pm

Paul Waine wrote:But, who knows, you may have shot and missed....

and most times you wouldn't have known what you were shooting at.

Opinions and people are different. That's a problem on it's own. Too many people identify themselves by their opinions, so when their opinion is shot down they feel like it's an insult to them personally.

We need less of that, not more.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Tue Jun 12, 2018 11:35 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Spend a bit of time thinking about it and I'm sure you'll understand why a liberal would be fundamentally opposed to this.

Until the internet came along, there was no way for anyone to state their opinions without being identified. If you wanted a letter publishing in the paper, you had to give them your name and address, even if the letter was to be anonymous. If you wanted to talk on the radio or TV, the producer would know who you were, even if you put a bag over your head and had an actor do a voice-over. Where, apart from using spray paint on walls, do you think liberals or anyone else could give their opinions anonymously?

Whether some form of digital ID is strictly necessary is not that obvious - just our name and address is a valid and unique identifier. But the idea that the internet providers should know who you are? Of course they should.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Jun 12, 2018 11:51 pm

dsr wrote:Until the internet came along, there was no way for anyone to state their opinions without being identified. If you wanted a letter publishing in the paper, you had to give them your name and address, even if the letter was to be anonymous. If you wanted to talk on the radio or TV, the producer would know who you were, even if you put a bag over your head and had an actor do a voice-over. Where, apart from using spray paint on walls, do you think liberals or anyone else could give their opinions anonymously?

Whether some form of digital ID is strictly necessary is not that obvious - just our name and address is a valid and unique identifier. But the idea that the internet providers should know who you are? Of course they should.

Was any of that government mandated? That's my problem with this draconian suggestion. I don't care is a forum or company chooses to require the IDs of people who want to use their service, but i have a problem with the government mandating it.

Nor do i have a problem with companies firing employees for sharing their opinions publicly and them then being identified because they weren't careful enough to ensure their own anonimity. But what do you think will happen to people feeling free to express their opinions if they think their opinions are contrary to the values of their employer, but that they can only share them publicly if it would be against the law for them to do so anonymously?

You're allowed to walk into a bar, keep your name to yourself and talk whatever **** you like. The bar own might kick you out, much like a forum admin might ban you, but why should you be forced (by the government) to reveal your identity in one example but not the other? It's ridiculous. Something you'd expect to see in China with their Sesame Credit game - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHcTKWiZ8sI" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Wed Jun 13, 2018 12:49 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:You're allowed to walk into a bar, keep your name to yourself and talk whatever **** you like. The bar own might kick you out, much like a forum admin might ban you, but why should you be forced (by the government) to reveal your identity in one example but not the other? It's ridiculous. Something you'd expect to see in China with their Sesame Credit game - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHcTKWiZ8sI" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There are various laws about what you can legally say or print, and they apply to the publisher as well as the author. If the National Front Gazette were to publish names and addresses of people that they would like you to send letter bombs to, do you think they could get away with it on the grounds that they didn't write it, they only provided the vehicle for publishing it? That's the principle.

Internet sites ought to know who is using them to publish their views, just like all other publishers do. If the internet sites are too irresponsible to do that, then it's going to be forced on them.

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Wed Jun 13, 2018 7:37 am

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Jun 13, 2018 8:42 am

dsr wrote:There are various laws about what you can legally say or print, and they apply to the publisher as well as the author. If the National Front Gazette were to publish names and addresses of people that they would like you to send letter bombs to, do you think they could get away with it on the grounds that they didn't write it, they only provided the vehicle for publishing it? That's the principle.

Internet sites ought to know who is using them to publish their views, just like all other publishers do. If the internet sites are too irresponsible to do that, then it's going to be forced on them.

They can't get away with that online either. So why do we need a law for it online when we don't need a non-anonymity law offline?

But you're trying to muddy the issue. This isn't about issuing bomb threats. There are already laws against that and they work perfectly fine. This is about talking ****. You or I can walk into a pub, completely anonymously, and start talking ****. Why should I or you be forced to show our IDs before we're allowed to talk ****?

What problem do you believe this will solve that makes it worthwhile turning our society into a compliant, well behaved one that doesn't dare stray too far from political norms to protect itself from social and economic punishment?

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Wed Jun 13, 2018 9:15 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:This isn't about issuing bomb threats. There are already laws against that and they work perfectly fine.

It's not jut about bomb threats. It's about all sorts of criminal behaviour, many of them wrapped up in the name "cyber-bullying".

If a child writes an anonymous note to another child threatening all sorts of bullying behaviour, that is a bad thing and the authorities will attempt to find the child and stamp out the behaviour. I the child signs the note, then the authorities know who it's from and it can be stamped out more easily - in fact, the note won't be written.

Same on the internet. If a child uses facebook to threaten bullying behaviour - which some do - and the authorities go to Facebook and say "who wrote this", then what do Facebook do? At present, nothing. They don't care. They ought to care.

As you say, it is perfectly possible to go into a pub and threaten and bluster and use all the foul language you like. Judging from your attitude on this message board, it may be that you do that yourself. But you don't have the absolute right to do it anonymously, because if you go too far then they will get out the CCTV pictures, they will take statements, and they will try to find you and take you to court.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Jun 13, 2018 9:39 am

dsr wrote:It's not jut about bomb threats. It's about all sorts of criminal behaviour, many of them wrapped up in the name "cyber-bullying".

If a child writes an anonymous note to another child threatening all sorts of bullying behaviour, that is a bad thing and the authorities will attempt to find the child and stamp out the behaviour. I the child signs the note, then the authorities know who it's from and it can be stamped out more easily - in fact, the note won't be written.

Same on the internet. If a child uses facebook to threaten bullying behaviour - which some do - and the authorities go to Facebook and say "who wrote this", then what do Facebook do? At present, nothing. They don't care. They ought to care.

As you say, it is perfectly possible to go into a pub and threaten and bluster and use all the foul language you like. Judging from your attitude on this message board, it may be that you do that yourself. But you don't have the absolute right to do it anonymously, because if you go too far then they will get out the CCTV pictures, they will take statements, and they will try to find you and take you to court.

No one has a right to anonymity once they've commited a crime. But everyone has the right to anonymity until they've commited a crime.

The government has no right to demand that i reveal my identity before sharing my opinions. I can go onto a forum and share my opinions perfectly freely without giving my name. Why should that right be taken from me? I'm seriously asking, i want an answer. Tell me why that right should be taken away from me.

ablueclaret · Post by **ablueclaret** » Wed Jun 13, 2018 10:01 am

This has nothing to do with policing just putting an identity to the comments made. The problem will be like with so much in society that those who don’t wish to be identified for whatever reasons will find a way around it.
Just like ball the efforts to prevent me money laundering £50 are a waste of time because the real money launderers get away with millions.
No time for the ultra liberals who are frightened of being pried upon, surely one has the guts to stand by ones opinions.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Wed Jun 13, 2018 10:49 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:I can go onto a forum and share my opinions perfectly freely without giving my name. Why should that right be taken from me? I'm seriously asking, i want an answer. Tell me why that right should be taken away from me.

For the same reason as that right was never given to you in print or on tv/radio broadcasts. Because the potential harm that evil minded people can do outweighs the public benefit of total anonymity.

That's how the law works - swings and balances. That's why we have the law of libel, to balance between fair comment and unfair. That's why we have passports, to balance between giving most people free movement and making reasonable restrictions on others.