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...
The only way to enforce privacy is by keeping the ability to be anonymous, whether by paying cash or not having an "Internet ID."
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
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.
Firstly , it's "her", not "him". Secondly, I was one of those who repeatedly warned that claiming misogyny and racism where there was none is the thin end of the wedge.
Unfortunately people who challenge unwarranted claims of sexism, racism, etc get called sexists, racists, etc. Pointing out, for example, that the gender pay gap doesn't exist gets you lynched.
The problem the moderate left has is that the moderate left allow the hard left to use shaming language rather than arguments and then fail to distance themselves from that shit. It is far easier to call people who are against affirmative action racists than to find an argument to support it (I haven't seen a good argument yet).
The end result, of course, is this - monitoring everyone for their own good. Because most people are basically good people, calling them misogynists if they don't allow the state to read their private correspondence is probably going to work.
That's also the reason that the hard left uses insults int the first place - calling an actual racist a racist is pointless - why would they care if someone identified them correctly? Same with calling an actual sexist a sexist.
Insults only work on people who aren't correctly identified. Calling a non-racist a racist or calling a non-sexist a sexist "works" because it either aggravates them (shutting down the conversation) or causes them to remain silent about your excesses. Either result is preferable to having facts introduced into a conversation.
The next time someone says trump is racist because he hates immigrants, see what happens you you introduce a fact such as "legal immigrants are different from illegal immigrants". The next time someone says something about a gender pay gap try introducing a fact or two and see what happens. Or even better, when in company of a hard left (or even moderate left these days) point out that Islam is extremely hard right, more to the right than even the KKK - IOW relative to Islam, the KKK is slightly left (how insane is that?)
Everyone must be tracked to prevent misogyny? Sure, why not? We've already given everything else to the alternative-truth brigade and anyway if you object you must be a misogynist!
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
"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.
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.