Slashdot Mirror
Digital IDs Needed To End 'Mob Rule' Online, Says UK's Security Minister (independent.co.uk)
Digital IDs should be brought in to end online anonymity that permits "mob rule" and lawlessness online, the security minister of United Kingdom has said. From a report: Ben Wallace said authentication used by banks could also by employed by internet firms to crack down on bullying and grooming, as he warned that people had to make a choice between "the wild west or a civilised society" online. He also took aim at the "phoniness" of Silicon Valley billionaires, and called for companies such as WhatsApp to contribute to society over the negative costs of their technology, such as end-to-end encryption. It comes after Theresa May took another step against tech giants, saying they would be ordered to clamp down on vile attacks against women on their platforms. The prime minister will target firms such as Facebook and Twitter as she makes the pitch at the G7 summit this weekend, where she will urge social media firms to treat violent misogyny with the same urgency as they do terror threats. Mr Wallace told The Times: "A lot of the bullying on social media and the grooming is because those people know you cannot identify them. It is mob rule on the internet. You shouldn't be able to hide behind anonymity."
UK's security minister needs to go bugger a diseased goat, says anyone who's not an authoritarian skumbag...
His plan to make everyone who uses the Internet "show papers" aside, his commentary about the hypocrisy of Silicon Valley billionaires is to the point.
But the solution to this isn't LESS privacy, it's MORE privacy, if anything.
The only way to enforce privacy is by keeping the ability to be anonymous, whether by paying cash or not having an "Internet ID."
Provided this is coupled with significant privacy
Hahahahaha. You’re not that naive are you?
When it tries to claim that certain domestic politicians don't officially exist:
https://www.independent.co.uk/...
even to the extent of imprisoning people who mention his name, it has lost any authority to comment on what might be fake news.
Or at least that is what the people on the top want the rest of us to believe. An authoritarian's ideal structure is one with a small number at the top and the rest of the people on the bottom. Online communication is the most profound change to society in the last few centuries, perhaps in all of human history. So of course authoritarian-leaning people want to be the gatekeepers to it.
Fear mongering would be telling you that we'll have a lawless wild west if we don't quickly transfer authority to a central entity. As if this is an either or scenario.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Of course it will be funny when such a system turns into a circular firing squad resulting in the banning of feminists, SJWs, leftist political action committees, and the media from the internet for doing exactly what she is complaining about.
Some of the biggest trolls on the internet are not the kiddies on 4chan or the infamous "alt-right", but the leftists, progressives, and their minions.
Your activism is harassment, my harassment is activism.
"saying they would be ordered to clamp down on vile attacks against women on their platforms"
The thing with anonymity is that your gender and race do not need to be disclosed, you can claim anything or be anyone. Everyone is equal online and that's the whole point.
As for the word "attack", you can't attack anyone online, you can only throw insults at them, it's only words from random people who you don't know and who don't matter to you. Ignore them, respond in kind or better yet just laugh and ridicule their feeble attempts to insult you.
People need to take the internet for what it is and embrace the anonymity. You can be who you want to be online, if you feel that being a woman online makes you weak and opens you up to "attacks" then pretend to be a man and see what happens. If someone anonymous doesn't like you then so what? You can be just as anonymous as them, they can't do anything to you.
People troll because they get a response, by running away crying about being "attacked" you are giving them a response and making them feel powerful because they had the ability to affect you. If you laugh at them and show them that not only are you suffering no negative effects from their trolling, but you are actually finding their pathetic attempts to insult you amusing then they will soon give up anyway.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
So Francisco Franco was a leftist?
What'd be good for you would be a little knowledge of actual history.
Your claims regarding American politics are also highly suspect. The truth of the matter is that US Democrats would be considered "moderate right" in just any other Western country, and Republicans would be considered "far right". NO viable player on the US espouses anything like an actual leftist agenda, because, to begin with, not one of them presents any serious challenge to the 1% or the corporations. When there's a party, represented by candidates on national ballots, that has the balls to espouse things like nationalisation of industry, breakup and redistribution of large estates, universal free education at all levels, and universal free health care, then you'll know that the US has finally grown a left wing.
Placing or keeping the means of production in a few favoured private hands is a hallmark of right-wing régimes.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Some of the most virulent behavior I've seen online has been on Facebook, from people who are ostensibly using their real names.
Eat the rich.
Sort of... the Nazi Party's official abbreviation was "NsDAP" ("National socialist German Workers Party"). The "s" was lowercase, but they apparently still thought it was necessary to disambiguate their party's name. If "Nationalsocialist" were truly one monolithic, unique, and inseparable word, "NDAP" would have been sufficient. It wasn't.
A country can be totally socialist with respect to its own citizens, yet be completely awful to everyone else within its borders. Just look at Saudi Arabia. It's practically the DEFINITION of "socialist" IF you're a Saudi citizen... you're eligible for free money from birth until death, and get the world & your career handed to you on a gold platter... quite possibly, while working for a state-owned company. If you're a foreigner, though, you'll always be at best second-class & looked down upon.
You shouldn't spout hyperbole just because you can't accept the natural result of socialism in a resource-constrained economy.
You seem to somehow be under the impression that leftist don't support slave labor. I suggest you take a good look at both the old Soviet Union and China, particularly. That leftist are for 'the people' is a myth. One they've been very good at perpetuating, but then leftist are masters of propaganda, and always have been.
Socialism is bad. ANY monopoly is bad. Big anything is a problem. Large systems don't scale in general. It doesn't matter if the Robber Baron in question is a private citizen or part of government.
Socialism doesn't really work past the scale of a commune. If you really want to be a do-gooder then do so locally and step up yourself.
The American taxpayer is far too much of a deadbeat to trust with my cancer treatment.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
> the NHS can keep lid on the cost of medicines
You underpay doctors and nurses.
You don't have enough hospitals or A&E wards.
You ration cancer meds.
You ration and waitlist people for surgery including heart surgery.
You still need charities to pick up the slack (Teenage Cancer Trust).
You don't have enough diagnostic equipment and people flee to the private market (although you at least have one versus Canada).
The way you underpay your nurses is a national disgrace.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.