Slashdot Mirror


Browser Firm That Required Users To Confirm Their Real Life Identity Shut Down After Its Employees Were Threatened (xconomy.com)

New submitter nleskovic shares a report: When Authenticated Reality launched last year, it seemed that the company had struck gold in terms of market demand and fit. The Austin-based startup had developed a Web browser that would require users to prove they are who they say they are. Users would have to sign up for an account -- scanning their driver's license and taking a photo -- in order to download the browser, which would sit "on top" of the Internet, said Chris Ciabarra, Authenticated Reality's co-founder, in an interview last year. "Everybody knows who everybody is," he said. So, when Facebook announced this week that its site was, once again, home to inauthentic pages and accounts designed to influence the outcome of the upcoming midterm Congressional elections, I contacted Ciabarra to find out how the company was doing. But, he said Wednesday that he had shut down the startup just a month after its debut. He said people who had heard about Authenticated Reality from media reports were visiting the firm's offices in California and threatening employees. (The addresses were listed on the website.) "It was getting kind of scary," he told me. "They were thinking we were taking their freedom away because they had to sign up using a driver's license. They thought we were trying to follow them."

207 comments

  1. Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The day that I have to use my real, legal name on the Internet no matter what it is I'm doing, and no anonymity allowed, will be the LAST day I ever use the Internet, and I know I'm FAR from being alone in this.

    1. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by ole_timer · · Score: 4, Funny

      bye

      --
      nothing to see here - move along
    2. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 0

      He thinks Rick is my real name

      Seriously?

    3. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well Rick, it is complicated problem.
      A lot of sites, we really should be able to preserve our identities, at least internally so there is actual repercussion on what we say and do. There are other sites where anonymity is key. Because you get to say whatever you feel like without a personal repercussion.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    4. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      Because you get to say whatever you feel like without a personal repercussion.

      Like Twitter.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    5. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given that soon enough you won't be able to do anything without internet access, good luck. Eventually they will roll out a mandatory digital identification system and we will all be living in the forever prison.

    6. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by sinij · · Score: 1

      A lot of sites, we really should be able to preserve our identities, at least internally so there is actual repercussion on what we say and do.

      You do understand that standard for repercussions is "whoever is the craziest to act out against you", and by that standard there is absolutely nothing that is safe to say?

    7. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by AntronArgaiv · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Because you get to say whatever you feel like without a personal repercussion.

      Like Twitter.

      "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog."

      I think people were far more worried that the company would be selling their browsing histories, attached to their real names.

    8. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by The+Original+CDR · · Score: 2

      If you have ever filed any paperwork with the city, county or state government, third-party data brokers already have your legal name and contact info on the Internet.

    9. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You already do in many cases. Even if you're anonymous, your IP reveals your identity, or at least the identity of whomever is paying for your connection.

    10. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. Straight from 'ole_timer'. Whose parents insisted on using the underscore for all official documents.

    11. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >he thinks he's using greentext

      Seriously?

    12. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you use Internet banking or e-commerce sites?

      So you are the one buying books under the Mr. Fancypants alias again?

    13. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this wisdom comes from 'jellomizer', whose parents said "what is a good, retarded name for this child borne of purest irony?"

      jellomizer

    14. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A lot of sites, we really should be able to preserve our identities, at least internally so there is actual repercussion on what we say and do.

      Bullshit. If something on the scale of Equifax can happen without consequences, then granting access to the power to track every tin-plated webmaster with delusions of godhood while simultaneously having swiss cheese for security is to grant such a level of oppression on the internet that is beyond fathomable. Nothing about any software solution somehow magically removes the issue of bots hacking others accounts. The actual repercussions of most people on most sites is linked to each identity they create and removal of such is sufficient without affixing it to a single, unchangeable one. For the rest? That's what good moderation/reputation systems are for.

      Honestly, what you suggest only makes sense if you presume that all 4 billion plus people on the internet can/will be properly managed within any framework to such a degree that there is such a thing as an actual solution; that's just patently absurd when scaling to handle millions properly is a near insurmountable task. It's always going to be band-aid work. The sort of deterrents to include (captchas, ip bans, email verification) are sufficient to block anything but sufficiently crafted bots, and there's nothing that can stop bots either way--bots just are a lot worse when they're tied to a specific id and then suddenly you have to have regular unban services or you fuck people over for life and unban services will be gamed by bots.

      Put in the most simple terms, do you believe it is alone sufficient to require ID be presented to stop all crimes off the internet? Even if the ID were unforgeable and unusable to the wrong holder, sufficiently motivated evil people will disregard the consequences just like plenty of people--*cough*Trump*cough*--already say whatever they feel like in the real world. And just like the real world, the actual meaningful enforcement is often more social than legal and with something on the scale of a city/country/world, often the social pressures are near meaningless.

    15. Re: Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There will be no such "eventually."

      "They" missed the mark on getting that far.

      Tables are already turning.

    16. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm guessing you don't do online banking or purchase anything on the internet with a credit card. No doing the taxes or paying utility bills online either. Probably no netflix or similar services. Cellphone data plan is out of the question, too. Or do you think "the internet" is just reddit, twitter, and facebook?

    17. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      I think people were far more worried that the company would be selling their browsing histories, attached to their real names.

      Yikes! I hadn't thought of that, thanks.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    18. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why wait?

    19. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      SHITCOCK!

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    20. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

      It's still a lot better than Robert'); DROP TABLE Students;

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    21. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Z00L00K · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In most of the life you live you don't have to expose your identity, it's only if you are doing specific things - like purchasing liquor - and even then your identity data is rarely used except to prove your age.

      The "need" to prove who you are on the internet on many sites like facebook far exceeds the actual need. A lot of sites don't really require more than an email address to provide your account, and as long as you behave it works good enough.

      Here on Slashdot we have ACs and on 4chan most are anonymous. It works mostly aside from a few troublemakers like APK, racists and similar.

      Too much control and too little freedom means that development stalls.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    22. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

      The worst part is when you have to explain to your wife what "3dFurryFutanariTentacles.com" means.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    23. Re: Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 4, Funny

      Tables are already turning.

      I'd agree with you, but let's remember that tables should only be used to represent tabular data. For presentation, use CSS.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    24. Re: Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "forever prison"? The 'forever' will last as long as the shitbag despots' heads remain unlopped from their bodies, and their torsos remain free of bullet holes.

    25. Re: Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Dumbass you missed the memo yesterday, you need ID to buy groceries!!!

    26. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Post-Snowden revelation a few years ago, I don't think you can reasonably claim you have any anonymity if you live in US, as least anonymity from the US government. Maybe if you used TOR but they still can routinely get you. I am posting this anonymously but I am not ignorant enough to think that the NSA won't able to track me if they wanted to.

    27. Re: Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing the idea was to address the issue of anonymity in things that do not benefit from such.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    28. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Why the hell do you sound like you're explaining the Internet to someone who has never seen or heard of it before? Please GTFO.

    29. Re: Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by datavirtue · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well then don't use the stupid browser.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    30. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 5, Informative

      See, this isn't about 'stalling development', it's about freedom of speech and freedom of expression and anonymity on the Internet serves to facilitate that, not just here in the United States, but everywhere around the world where there is the Internet. Do you really want to live in a world where someone has to be afraid to speak the truth about, say, their government on the Internet, because they have to use their real name to do it and they know they'll get arrested and incarcerated or maybe killed outright for it? Why do you think things like TOR exist? I know damned well that the anonymity the Internet provides us all with can and is abused but I'd rather put up with trolls and other abuses of of it rather than have that ability taken away. It's already been leveraged quite enough as a surveillance and data-collection platform by ISPs, we don't need people being required to use their real name on it, too, making every gods-be-damned thing you say and do there a matter of public record.

    31. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Trollolololololol.

    32. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 0

      Yes, but are they requiring you to use Facebook to do that, and does Facebook require valid government ID and you showing up somewhere to have that verified and your picture taken in order to have a Facebook account, and then does the city/county/government look through your Facebook page because you filed some paperwork with them? No? That's because we don't now and don't EVER want to live in that dystopia. 'Official' business requires you to use your 'official' name, and by the way all the 'paperwork' you speak of doesn't require the Internet, you can show up in person to do it. But what ever else you do on the Internet shouldn't be anyones gods-be-damned business unless you want it to be their business.

    33. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Unless you use TOR or a VPN or some other means of obfuscation. You could go to a coffeeshop and use their free wifi and no one would know it was you.

    34. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Gesundheit? O_o

    35. Re: Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by markdavis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >"Well then don't use the stupid browser."

      Easy to say until:

      1) The banks suddenly require it
      2) Your DMV suddenly requires it
      3) Amazon suddenly requires it
      4) etc....

      And this is over and above the fact that the browser might not work on your platform of choice. So we go from an open web to a proprietary web, just like in the days of IE.... except worse because we somehow expect some company putting out a closed-source binary to be trustworthy.

    36. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I notice your real name isn't listed.

      Hypocrite.

    37. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by markdavis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >"In most of the life you live you don't have to expose your identity, it's only if you are doing specific things - like purchasing liquor - and even then your identity data is rarely used except to prove your age."

      And that is dead wrong too. You should NOT be required to expose your identity when purchasing liquor or such. You should only be required to PROVE YOUR AGE. And that does NOT mean a retailer should capture/store ANY information about you (name, address, license number, hair color, race, anything), just that they look at your date of birth. And, yet, retailers are, more and more, thinking it is acceptable to "scan" your license or whatnot. Unacceptable.

      I had a Target try to do that when I was buying freaking canned air (yes, AIR, you know, dusters for computers) and insisted on scanning my license. I was paying cash. I flatly refused and escalated all the way up to the store manager, who finally admitted there is no law requiring such tracking and let me purchase it anonymously, like it always should be.

      People, please stand up for your rights, before you lose them all...

    38. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Mikkeles · · Score: 1

      Well, they discovered that there are reasons for anonymity on the interwebs.

      --
      Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    39. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1
      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    40. Re: Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by aliquis · · Score: 0

      Just a you socialists want things.
      Buy one just have to find some way to enforce freedom.

      By digging down socialists & rulers if necessary.

    41. Re: Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 2

      >"Well then don't use the stupid browser."

      Easy to say until:

      1) The banks suddenly require it
      2) Your DMV suddenly requires it
      3) Amazon suddenly requires it

      My guess is that people are more worried about pornhub requiring it.

    42. Re: Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by WCMI92 · · Score: 1

      This is why I don't use my real name online.

      --
      Corporatism != Free Market
    43. Re: Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If was like having a virtual stroke
      The kitty shoes it the litterbox again

      Whooo caaan say where the road goes? where the day flows? s

    44. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 0

      In some cases, yes. But that's the price you pay for enjoying your freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Or would you rather have every single word you ever say on the Internet subject to scrutiny and judgement and be crucified and have your life ruined because you, for instance, made a joke someone took offense to? Can't have it both ways buddy.

    45. Re: Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Without anonymity no freedom of speech and without freedom of speech no democracy.

      It doesn't really matter that some people are fine with it. They are limiting the freedom of others if that have any consequence. In general the only people who are fine with it are those who don't feel limited by it because it doesn't happen to interfere with their ideas.

    46. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      I'm not your buddy, pal.

      My post above was to prove the point you just made. If I had to post under my real name, I couldn't post stupid shit like "SHITCOCK!".

      Share and enjoy!

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    47. Re: Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by aliquis · · Score: 1

      I'm not talking politics when I pay my bills.

      Retards.

    48. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how pray tell do you prove your age WITHOUT exposing your identity? even with trees cutting them in half and counting the rings doesn't actually work...

    49. Re: Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by aliquis · · Score: 1

      I'm not talking politics when I do.

      Tracking could be outlawed. Or you could at least try to avoid it.

      A law of identifying yourself online + broken cryptos not so much.

    50. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Calydor · · Score: 1

      The thing about exposing your identity when you prove your age is that there is, to the best of my knowledge, no age-ID card you can get. You're stuck using what you could call an all-purpose ID like a driver's license, passport or the like.

      Never heard of stores scanning and saving a picture of your license, though. Sounds to me like that's just begging for a hacked database and massive identity theft.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    51. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Calydor · · Score: 1

      One subpoena to various ISPs and your 'anonymity' is gone. The anonymity we need to fight for is the exact one the employees of the startup didn't have - upset people could show up IRL to punch them in the face.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    52. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 0

      Fuck you too, shitcock. xD xD xD

    53. Re: Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Easy to say until

      Easy to make up situations, until ... you finally have a way to explain why some company with no marketshare folded instead of admitting there was no market.

    54. Re: Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do we make sure that its actually being used? My work only allows webmail logins from Windows machines. I login from my Linux PC, by changing the user agent String. I do the same from my Android phone. My bank account apps work fine on my rooted / unlocked Android phone as well, thanks to a work around. Why should we not assume the same fixes would not end up appearing even if Amazon, banks, etc started requiring "said" browser.

    55. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by hdyoung · · Score: 1

      You... you... actually think that you're anonymous on the web nowadays? Try making some sort of threat against an important figure and count the seconds that it takes for the cops to kick down your door. Doesn't matter if you actually enter your real name or not. People can find out who you are. It's just a matter of time and effort.

      Your ideas about anonymity on the web are about 15 years out of date.

      Oh, and just in case you actually think I'm serious - NO DO THREATEN OTHERS, IN PERSON, OVER THE WEB, OR OTHERWISE.

    56. Re: Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Khyber · · Score: 2

      "until X company requires it"

      At that point you sue their asses for violating the anti-tying provisions of the Magnusson-Moss warranty act.

      Oh, wait, you'll just sit on your ass and gripe. Carry on.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    57. Re: Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you do when your groceries include alcohol or cigarettes.

    58. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Khyber · · Score: 1

      " And, yet, retailers are, more and more, thinking it is acceptable to "scan" your license or whatnot."

      More like states are requiring this for the purchase of controlled items.

      "I had a Target try to do that when I was buying freaking canned air (yes, AIR, you know, dusters for computers)"

      No, it is NOT air, since you obviously don't know. Tetrafluorethane is NOT fucking a breathable mix of oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon dioxide. It is also used to get people high, so of course it will get tacked onto the controlled items ID scan list.

      "People, please stand up for your rights, before you lose them all..."

      Hard to stand up for our rights with morons like you talking and confusing so much shit.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    59. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      This was never going to be a required service. You could always just use a different browser.

    60. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by antdude · · Score: 1

      I am an ant.

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    61. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by markdavis · · Score: 1

      ">The thing about exposing your identity when you prove your age is that there is, to the best of my knowledge, no age-ID card you can get. You're stuck using what you could call an all-purpose ID like a driver's license, passport or the like."

      Which all have your DOB printed on them. So yeah, they can LOOK at it with their human eyes, see the DOB is OK to buy, and finish the transaction. The same way it has been done for eons.

      >"Never heard of stores scanning and saving a picture of your license, though"

      They don't save a picture of it, they scan the 3D barcode on the back, which contains all the information about you and it gets instantly stored in their computer system. Which is why I intentionally cover the barcodes with a sticker so they can't. I tell them, look at the information on the front for what you need (while I hold it), but I will not allow them to enter it into anything.

      At some point, it might be necessary to replace the barcode with a sticker of a different one that has fake info on it, since they seem to not care to LOOK at the ID at all to see it is, indeed, valid.

    62. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      At which time the ID cards are becoming useless.

      Try to add some really insane data on the sticker and see what happens.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    63. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by AC-x · · Score: 1

      Erm, doesn't your ISP / phone company know your real name and address?

    64. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... an email address to provide your account ...

      New email accounts require a phone number, which is linked to a real name in many places.

      Remember Microsoft Passport? That failed, to be replaced by 'Log-in with Facebook', which requires an email address; a single identifier that can track someone across the internet, plus Facebook subscribers happily link their home and work addresses to it. Worse, people use Facebook messenger on their phone, thus linking that email address to a cell-phone number and list of associates (contacts). BTW, Facebook and others use location-tracking for delivering adverts to the device; wi-fi (IP address) alone tends to identify a 20 metre square.

      Or, someone can log-in using their phone number instead of their email, an identifier that is directly linked to his/her name and inconvenient to change.

      Even without a browser history, Facebook and others know a lot about their subscribers.

      Someone can use Facebook to log-in to Ebay which automatically logs into PayPal. Take note that Paypal complains when it isn't always 'on'. That arrangement allows continuous tracking and 2FA is is replaced by 'something you have' (the phone).

    65. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe if you used TOR

      Who do you think runs most of the TOR nodes? The CIA, NSA and foreign intelligence agencies, that's who. There are some universities and altruistic idiots in the mix too along with criminals hoping to redirect financial sites to fakes and such, but there's a pretty good chance that if you use TOR the US government can monitor the plaintext exit node traffic at least some of the time and maybe more if they really focus on specific users. Also, if they control all of the nodes on your TOR circuit, maybe because they control a good fraction of the TOR network out there, then they can connect your session back to your entry node too. TOR can be a useful tool, but like most security tools effective use depends upon knowledge of its limitations.

    66. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

      That anonymity you argue for was abused by Russians to put their puppet Trump in office. The disaster will be far reaching and the damage will go on for decades.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    67. Re: Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      There is only one really sound reason to not use you real name online. Idiots all over the internet and more importantly psychopaths. 1% of the general population, 15% of the prison population and 50% of violent crimes. Use you real name and one of those fuckwits is very likely to fixate on you. So forum where I used my name, within a month, some fuckwit psychopath is rigging me and sending me a goodbye message via a machine, not that I give a fuck but it's just boringly annoying.

      The reason why anonymity is required on the internet because some people will do stupid things for what ever triggered them on the internet and take that shit to the streets. You know the type, the gutless fuckwit bullies from high school, they never change and they often become shite law enforcers.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    68. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Yes, even when it is you that are using my WiFi.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    69. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by fafalone · · Score: 1

      A lot of sites, we really should be able to preserve our identities, at least internally so there is actual repercussion on what we say and do. There are other sites where anonymity is key. Because you get to say whatever you feel like without a personal repercussion.

      I don't know how anyone who has spent 5 minutes reading about the history of government retaliation against whistleblowers and civil rights leaders, or corporations against whistleblowers, could make such a batshit insane statement. Anonymous speech is critical to advancing freedom and exposing crimes by the powerful, and this outweighs the downsides by so much it's shocking that anyone could be so naive about what the actual consequences would be. Just as critical is the ability to have the message seen by many, making limiting anonymity to presumably obscure non-mainstream sites just as bad.
      I think our current system is reasonably close to good; where the effort required to avoid being identified by warrant/subpoena deters it from being a common practice, but is still available when its important.

      For a personal anecdote, there's some worry about law enforcement retaliating against witnesses to police abuse, since they (the local ones) have a well documented history of doing precisely that. Should I have had to put myself and family at risk of that when I captured a video of a serious rights violation by an officer? (obviously this account is not truly anonymous so I won't be more specific other than to say it was a clear use of force violation). Or should it have not been released? Relegated to an obscure platform where no one would see it?

    70. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is your license scannable? The first thing I do with my license is bring it home and demagnetize it. None of the stores can swipe it. Easy fix, they try a few times and give up, and type in my birth date.

    71. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Cederic · · Score: 1

      a batshit insane statement

      A pseudonym is an identity.

      If you leak NSA secrets using a pseudonym we still don't know who you are and the Government can't (necessarily) find and hurt you. We can however ascertain the likelihood of your leaks being accurate based on your history of leaking.

      Some people on Slashdot disregard everything I say, because they're aware of my identity here and dislike things I've said in the past. That's a form of repercussion; my behaviour has lessened my influence with them. That doesn't mean that they know who am I, where I live, who I work for, what I stuck my cock into last night.

      Should I have had to put myself and family at risk of that when I captured a video of a serious rights violation by an officer?

      No, but it would be lovely if you could share that video using some form of identity that lets lawyers, journalists and others contact and engage with you to verify its validity and provide support in pursuit of justice.

    72. Re: Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Nah. Maybe if you look young and innocent. I don't get asked for ID when I buy alcohol and you can buy cigarettes from vending machines.

      I think I did get asked for ID once. Ever. But I didn't start buying alcohol until I was 16.

    73. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Cederic · · Score: 1

      You... you... actually think that you're anonymous on the web nowadays?

      If I want or need to be? Fuck yes.

      Buy second hand device, war drive to find open hotspot, instant anonymity and I haven't even bounced via VPNs, TOR, Amazon AWS or the Chans yet.

    74. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      In most of the life you live you don't have to expose your identity

      That's not true at all. In most of life you actually expose your identity, just not necessarily your name, and that's where a lot of people get the comparison to real life wrong. You can't walk down the street without your very personal face being recorded on a camera somewhere. Everyone can see you, that means people can identify you again. Any partially important transaction is referenced to your actual name and SSN. Your visual appearance will be attached to your name in a number of databases.

      You are NOT anonymous.

      That is quite unlike the internet where you can at best identify an endpoint network connection, and potentially a piece of equipment behind it.

    75. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Theo C. Cupier - I don't know who this French guy is, but his mail keeps coming to my address.

    76. Re: Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With mobile services, in France you have to provide a passport picture before you get a SIM card.

      IN the early days of the Internet you needed an ID card and password to activate the Ethernet adapter on your PC.

    77. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But your PC may be sending out SSDP broadcasts or some other tracking information across the internet.

    78. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >"Why is your license scannable? The first thing I do with my license is bring it home and demagnetize it. None of the stores can swipe it. Easy fix, they try a few times and give up, and type in my birth date."

      Exactly. Although ours has no mag strip any more. I put a sticker over part of the 2D and now the 3D barcode so it can't be scanned. Back when they were stupid enough to put SSN on the card, I would "accidentally" damage a few digits to prevent someone from reading that, too. If it was actually needed, I would just tell them or produce the SSA card.

    79. Re: Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What banks are going to require you to use a browser that only 0.001% of the population are using? Your slippery slope fallacy isn't very convincing, is it?
      The entire article is FICTION, nobody visited their offices and 'threatened' them, and there obviously are NO threatening e-mails, otherwise they would have printed some of them in the article, wouldn't they? Rather like the entire mainstream media hasn't printed ONE example, EVER, of a Facebook post that is apparently 'meddling with the election'... Gee, why is that? It's almost like they're trying to say "We know that 90% of you voted for Trump, but we weren't able to steal enough of the votes for Clinton with our ELECTRONIC voting machines, so we're going to make it so it's unacceptable to even talk about voting for Trump, and make it acceptable to physically attack people who support Trump, and then we'll get OUR candidate in at the next election."

    80. Re: Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "No one listens to things said anonymously." Idiots like you might not - never heard of the 'appeal to authority' fallacy?
      Most people listen to anonymous things - when you read a website, do you know the name of the author of every article you read? Of course not.

      If no one listened to things said anonymously, then the Jews wouldn't be putting people in prison all over Europe, for merely questioning their 'Holocaust' lie...

      www.nazigassings.com
      www.codoh.com

    81. Re: Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >"Well then don't use the stupid browser."

      Easy to say until:

      1) The banks suddenly require it
      2) Your DMV suddenly requires it
      3) Amazon suddenly requires it
      4) etc....

      And this is over and above the fact that the browser might not work on your platform of choice. So we go from an open web to a proprietary web, just like in the days of IE.... except worse because we somehow expect some company putting out a closed-source binary to be trustworthy.

      You know you can use more then one browser and for diffrent things too.
      Eg:
      1> Authenticated Reality: Banks, DMV, Amazon and anyone else that requires it.
      2> Edge/IE: Anything Microsoft
      3> Chrome: Anything Google
      4>: Firefox: Facebook, Twitter
      5> Seamonkey: Pornhub, FoxNews, Xvideos, Breitbart, Spankwire, Dailycaller, KeezMovies, Bill O'Reilly, Slutload, Hotair, MadThumbs, NewsBusters, DeviantClip, Teapartytribune, PornerBros, Redstate, ExtremeTube, The Weekly Standard, BDSMstreak, Politico, Heavy-R, The Daily Stormer, SpankingTube, Stormfront, Kinkyfamily, Vanguard News Network, TabooPorns, VDARE, Identity Evropa, IncestVidz, National Alliance, PooPeeGirls, Nationalist Front, Scatrina, Imperial Klans of America, Kinkyfarm ...

    82. Re: Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by mjwx · · Score: 2

      >"Well then don't use the stupid browser."

      Easy to say until:

      1) The banks suddenly require it
      2) Your DMV suddenly requires it
      3) Amazon suddenly requires it
      4) etc....

      And this is over and above the fact that the browser might not work on your platform of choice. So we go from an open web to a proprietary web, just like in the days of IE.... except worse because we somehow expect some company putting out a closed-source binary to be trustworthy.

      1. Switch to a competing bank that doesn't. They'll get the message when they're bleeding customers.
      2. Pay by post or in person (I highly doubt the DVLA would require this, existing measures are sufficient and if anyone else wants to pay my VED, I'm not going to stop them).
      3. Switch to Amazons competitors. They'll get the point when they start bleeding customers.
      4. There's always an alternative.

      Not even Microsoft in the height of it's power had the capability to force companies to support AND ONLY SUPPORT one browser. Today a some random company has no chance.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    83. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If an idiot in office is the price I pay for my right to anonymity, I say "Money well spent".

    84. Re: Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >"Well then don't use the stupid browser."

      Easy to say until:

      1) The banks suddenly require it
      2) Your DMV suddenly requires it
      3) Amazon suddenly requires it
      4) etc....

      And this is over and above the fact that the browser might not work on your platform of choice. So we go from an open web to a proprietary web, just like in the days of IE.... except worse because we somehow expect some company putting out a closed-source binary to be trustworthy.

      I agree completely...

      first they came for the people that liked foo, I said nothing,
      then they came for the people who liked bar, I still said nothing,
      now they come for me and there is nobody left to speak for me.

      unfortunatly, millennials are convinced that they have nothing to hide

    85. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone that "needs" to find out who you are can do it, face it, this is scotch tape privacy...

    86. Re: Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one listens to things said anonymously.

      Beyond "Anonymous Coward", no one really knows who "nonBORG" is. That leaves you incredibly anonymous if not in name at least in identity. Well, that'd be entirely removed with what the browser firm was working on.

      If you want to stand up for something you wont have influence without identity. The reason people want to hide their identity seems to be

      Why don't you sign your name to your posts? Why don't you put your email address on your memebers page? Gee, I guess you must be a criminal spy pornography coward. Could it be that people rely upon identity for things like loans and giving out your email address creates an added hassle of dealing with more spam? Perhaps people don't like being tracked when it's made explicitly clear that advertisers are constantly following you around trying to manipulate you into buying things? When they fail it's effectively spam.

      If everyone's identity was known it would be better probably but having the option to be known should be available to anyone,

      The only real way to prevent rampant spoofing if everyone's identity was known would be to mandate everyone be constantly tracked to have a trace of who is doing what to monitor and retroactively reverse spoofed identities. Meanwhile, spoofing would still manage to occur and all the real world mechanisms to slow down identity theft would be absolutely broken with the power of computers. This doesn't even get to the sort of abuse that could occur on the administrator side.

      this company has a great idea but do they have to try again anonymously? Doing so is kind of defeatist to their whole mission.

      "[D]efeatist to their whole mission" indeed. Were their whole mission based on something other than rampant stupidity without any sort of real thought to the consequences, maybe their idea would be "good". Identity is a construct. Trying to go so far to try to cement it to reality is yet another example of the many pretty incomprehensible steps people and companies have taken over the years in their misguided quest to fix an unfixable problem: people can lie about who they say the are. Figure a way to prevent lying and/or general deception and you might actually meaningful get somewhere.

    87. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      An I would lose my anonymous stalker around slashdot. What a shame that would be.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    88. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A pseudonym is an identity.

      A pseudonym can be an identity. Anonymous is a pseudonym. Meaningfully though it's not an identity, even if some people use it that way.

      If you leak NSA secrets using a pseudonym we still don't know who you are and the Government can't (necessarily) find and hurt you. We can however ascertain the likelihood of your leaks being accurate based on your history of leaking.

      That only works if you assume an identity and no one else can/does usurp it. Often though that's really not an option. If you leak NSA secrets, the last thing you likely want is a history because that trail of a pseudonym will likely lead back to yourself if used enough. For less powerful entities without the resources to pervasively track you, then a pseudonym might be a wise compromise for a time. The key part about a pseudonym* is the ability to drop and deny the identity at some future point without having to throw out your real life identity.

      No, but it would be lovely if you could share that video using some form of identity that lets lawyers, journalists and others contact and engage with you to verify its validity and provide support in pursuit of justice.

      Wouldn't it be lovely if serious rights violations by an officer wasn't a thing? Yea, that's as much a fantasy as believing that pseudonyms are some sort of panacea to the issue of anonymity vs identity. We don't live in such a world.

      * A small point but in the past pseudonyms were chiefly used more as an alternate name to somewhat, but not fully, hide the identity of a person (not unlike companies and their many brand names) with the degree of risk involved being from entirely benign (an author using multiple names for different genres) to the same sort of whistleblower catastrophic we're discussing now. So, this grouping really does blur the point precisely because the only good sort of pseudonym in a democracy has to be one that's effectively unlinked to their real life persona. Without that, the risks are simply too high to ever risk outing people in power.

    89. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please stop capitalizing the word internet like it's a proper noun. That shit is SO 2016.

    90. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no such thing as anonymity.

      This is just violation of our rights.

      Wanna prove me wrong? Go tell someone on a site you're going to rape their parents and murder them, bypass account bans keep doing this, keep harassing them.

      Guarantee the cops show up at your house.

      How do I know? This has happened many times. Ergo, there ARE repercussions.

      It's just that the site administrators are the ones not doing anything in most cases.

      "They" love to tell you that we need this to keep the peace. Meanwhile "this" is already in existence, what they really need is THAT in the shadows over there. The dark looming threat they want to impose.

    91. Re: Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by aliquis · · Score: 1

      BS.

      It's all about the socialist rats wanting to hush the opposition.
      Since there's threats of jail, losing your job and so on they want to hush people with consequences.

      Anonymity doesn't mean what's said carries no value and shouldn't be listened too.

      I guess by that logic leaked videos of US helicopters shooting journalists in Iraq carries no value either because the sender was anonymous? If the sender was. I don't know. The purpose of Wikileaks is of course to enable to provide the information anonymously at-least.

      "Criminals" and "Spies" is the rest I guess. Here in Sweden there's seriously been discussions about whatever one should make it illegal to have said things which would portray Sweden in a bad light. For real. That's how far away from sanity and democracy we are at the moment.

      "You talk about criminality in the suburbs! You traitor! Jail for you!" Just because something is a crime doesn't make it wrong. As far as my moral goes preventing someone to live like they want is wrong.

      I don't know where you got the "but do they have to try again anonymously? Doing so is kind of defeatist to their whole mission" from. That's nothing I've said at-least.

      However as soon as anonymousness die so do freedom of speech and free expression of opinions and sharing of information and with that any actual way to claim of being a democracy or open or free society.

    92. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who are you hiding from? The advertisers that already know your porn habits? The NSA? The Chinese? The Russians? The rest of us retards?

      Fucking crackpot.

    93. Re: Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The FBI could have you killed, right now, and made it look like an accident or "you were reaching for a gun".

      If you don't want to live in that world, fucking move out of the US.

      Slashdot, 7 years ago, didn't have as many fucking crackpots with 5 score insightful posts. I feel like this is a tour of New Hampshire wannabe racist sexist old white medcare moochers. God damn I hope you guys die off sooner rather than later.

    94. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by hdyoung · · Score: 1

      Maybe I'm getting old, or crotchety, or cynical, but you sound like a 21 year old who has some real skills, but you think that your invulnerable (you're not) and you're probably not nearly as good as you think you are. (note - I'm not saying that I'm superior)

      Skilled professionals have tried to run all sorts of anonymous stuff over the web (some lawful and some not). They generally manage until someone with real power takes notice and has the motivation to smoke them out. When that happens, their identity usually doesn't stay secret for long.

    95. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Or maybe I'm old, crotchety and cynical too, and also aware just how big a pain in the arse achieving more than one-off anonymity would be.

      But shit, one-off? Fucking hell, just catch a train into London. They'll know it's one of the 11 million people in the city that week, so I guess it's not truly anonymous, but it's close enough.

    96. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by hdyoung · · Score: 1

      Ok, you got me there. Yes, if you only need anonymity once, and are willing to make the effort, you can achieve a high probability of success :)

    97. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People showing up *in person* and threatening violence. Not showing up pseudonymously and threatening violence. I think this demonstrates that denying anonymity does not have the effect people want it to have, and that shutting down the business was better done sooner rather than later.

    98. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cmon, at least link to bobby tables https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://xkcd.com/327/&ved=2ahUKEwjK7MDar9PcAhVk3IMKHXJOAoIQFjAAegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw0n_9VFh_1CF8JASrAo9Ni9

    99. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some of the wifi systems in public places are now able to triangulate your physical location (meraki is one). It's not much of a step to tie a camera to that data and get a few pictures of each user.

    100. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by RatchetDriver · · Score: 1

      The worst part is when you have to explain to your wife what "3dFurryFutanariTentacles.com" means.

      That link doesn't work for me - did they take it down? Awww...

      --
      Nothing to see here. Move along.
    101. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just tried to got to "3dFurryFutanariTentacles.com" and I get a "server not found" message. Can anyone help find it.

    102. Re: Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      personally I am far less concerned with pornhub requiring it, porn is not illegal where I live and regardless pornhubs whole business model would fall apart if they could not adequately secure the information and it isn't like you need to communicate with others on there.

    103. Re: Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) This is like ISP 'choice' when they all do it.
      2) Always one for convenience, amirite?
      3) This is similar to why sellers put up with eBay. Fallacy of ignoring network effect.
      4) Korean banking syndrome before everyone abandoned crazy plugins and IE 6. XD

    104. Re: Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *starts singing*
      "You're in the Army, now!"

      No, seriously, that's probably because this is basically just a repeat of the old Reagan barcodes story. Guy's likely never even been into a grocery store other than maybe some commissary on-base, in the last 40 years.

    105. Re: Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well. they learnt quickly what your real name and address can lead to. hehe.

      and they were trying to follow the users.

    106. Re: Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahaha, good luck with that strategy. I hope it works for you. It's not like we'll ever run out of alternatives or that people will collude to remove the choices.

    107. Re: Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On-base, you do, for the commissary. This is sounding a lot like that old Reagan barcode story. Never shopped in his life.

    108. Re: Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was George H. W. Bush and about as true as other campaign propaganda masterpieces such as, "evil republicans want old people to eat cat food".
       
      https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bush-scanner-demonstration/

    109. Re:Yeah, no, fuck them and that shit by EmptyHead · · Score: 1

      I wish we could trust our civil servants not to be political hacks and weaponize their positions of trust to further their personal political views. Authenticating doesn't have to mean you're DOXing yourself to the planet. What you post wouldn't have to be attributed to you for the masses, it could be a temporary identifier that only a secured site would be able to reference to you. Law enforcement could then get a warrant if your daily/hourly or whatever ID had been found to be naughty enough to investigate. However, we've recently seen that the bar for such a request can be pretty low if the activities of the person being unveiled don't meet the prevailing views of the individuals working in the government. That is a bit of a crisis.

  2. It doesn't solve the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The claim of knowing if you're interacting with a real person isn't verifiable via uploading an ID...

    I love my anonymity and wouldn't want to give it up.

  3. Internet full of crazy by sinij · · Score: 2

    File this under obviously bad idea category. The Internet is full of crazy, so you don't want to tie anything to your real life identity.

    1. Re:Internet full of crazy by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

      The Internet is full of crazy

      The world is full of crazy.

      Fixed that for you.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    2. Re:Internet full of crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Internet is full of crazy

      The world is full of crazy.

      Fixed that for you.

      In the normal real world, the crazy doesn't notice you because it's far far away. On the internet, the crazy can start searching for you. Can use AI / deep learning to work our which of you are worth targeting. Can simply select the people living closest to them (and everybody has some crazy living near them). It's not the same thing at all.

    3. Re:Internet full of crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, they're called Trump voters. QAnon is the dumbest conspiracy they've latched on to yet.

    4. Re:Internet full of crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Besides that, sometimes it is just nice to say what is on your mind without the possibility of IRL repercussions. Like if your boss fucks you over, you probably won't want to rant about that on Facebook where everyone knows who you are and that can eventually work its way back to someone who can fire you. But if you do so on an more or less anonymous sort of way (Slashdot, Reddit, maybe Twitter if you didn't use your real name, ect.) then you can complain all you want without worrying about it coming back to bite you in the ass, provided you give out no personal details.

      Without even considering the issue of online trolls, sometimes saying what needs to be said or speaking your mind can piss off the wrong people, or make you seem like an unprofessional whiner, or something to that effect. Contrary to the continued push of using your real name in everything, there's plenty of good reasons to be anonymous or under a pseudonym.

    5. Re:Internet full of crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like a lot of people, I learned this the hard way a long time ago. It got me in enough trouble back in the 90s, and things are about 50,000x worse now.

      Basic advice: pick a pseudonym and make it based on something popular. Do what you can to make it not stand out too much so it's lost in the noise when social justice retard types want to google you during the witch hunt. Also consider setting up a dirt cheap VPS in a different country, even hopping the Canada/US border will work, or just paying for some cheap VPN service, because obscuring your IP will also help keep the loonies at bay.

      I'm now living in a world where I'm persecuted for pointing out that veganism is an eating disorder and being a transsexual is a mental illness. A little anonymity goes a long way in such a world.

  4. Wow. by MiniMike · · Score: 2

    Sounds like a great browser, for other people to use. I'm guessing that the people showing up and threatening employees were either early investors or creditors.

    1. Re:Wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Early investors? Why would a startup need early investors when there are multiple 3 letter agencies with slush funds that have wet dreams about this sort of thing.

  5. Last sentence in TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    But apparently it’ll be up to someone else to take on an Authenticated Reality 2.0. “I’ll even give them the code if they want,” he said.

    This got my attention.

    1. Re: Last sentence in TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair the code for this wouldn't be very complicated over and above what a regular web browser entails. I could already think of a dozen ways of structuring the coding for it.

    2. Re:Last sentence in TFA by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      You know that scene in Parks and Rec where Ron asks for a piece of soy-bacon?

      And immediately throws it into the trash?

  6. Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good.

    1. Re:Good. by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      As should be the fate of any who try to take away anonymity on the Internet.

      No one took away your ability to remain anonymous; they gave people a chance to have a verified ID if they wanted it. I would pass but threatening the company’s employees because you don’t looe their approach is full on nut case. Your arguement seems to be “anyone who disagrees with my view of how the internet should work should be threatened into submission.” Do you really think violence or threats is how to run the internet?

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    2. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Goddamn domestic terrorism.

    3. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The nutjobs threatening them illustrated exactly why this is a bad idea.

    4. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you really think violence or threats is how to run the internet?

      No, we don't, but there's plenty of idiots out there responsible for the current mess, that would happily jump on board this bandwagon and make it mandatory through the exact same means. Though mostly through legislation. With plenty of other idiots prasing it with thunderous applause.

      Because of that, the only way to prevent it from happening is to never give the option in the first place. We're forbidden from making things less convienent for them, or god forbid educate them about their choices. We can't expect them to vote for or defend something they know nothing about. We can't expect them to abide with inconveniences if they don't understand why the inconveniences are there, and why they should exercise caution when trying to bypass them. What else are we to do? Sit back and watch as these idiots create an even worse hellhole that effects everyone? Do nothing as these idiots lay the foundations for taking away the freedoms we all enjoy? Make popcorn for the inevitable shitshow that will happen after the idiots realize they made a mistake? Start making plans to undo the damage these idiots will have wrought, assuming any attempt at prevention is pointless? My answer is No.

      Using threats may be morally wrong, but it's all we have left when all other options are forbidden. Allowing their choice to become a requirement for everyone, is far worse than the alternative. If you have a problem with those ends, then maybe you should consider allowing and being more open to other methods being used. Until then, we'll use the options that are still available to us.

  7. Why? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why would one need (or want) to provide proof of identity to use a browser? So the company can pass a permanent, unique ID cookie and data to *every* site you visit? So you can be tracked *everywhere*? I imagine their revenue model relied on selling your browsing data to every/anyone. So that sounds like fun.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:Why? by Kielistic · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It was only a couple of years ago that the internet was praised for its ability to allow people to communicate outside of their authoritarian countries. Now people are demanding "America-net" because an election didn't go to plan.

    2. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not even useful for that in an absolute sense anyway. Someone could just steal whatever token, cookie, or whatever other identifier the browser stored.

    3. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would one need (or want) to provide proof of identity to use a browser? So the company can pass a permanent, unique ID cookie and data to *every* site you visit? So you can be tracked *everywhere*? I imagine their revenue model relied on selling your browsing data to every/anyone. So that sounds like fun.

      It's an interesting situation. The anonymity of the internet has certainly created it's share of problems, but if you try to come up with a solution you effectively create far more problems than the one you set out to solve.

      Effectively it just shows that maybe the problems associated with internet anonymity is something we'll just have to suffer with.

    4. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, we're demanding people be held accountable for conspiracy against the United States. Nice strawman.

    5. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems like there ought to be something between the polar extremes.

      FWIW, it pisses me off no end to see people on twitter engaging with obvious bots, e.g. account names ending with 5 or more digits. Twitter could do a whole lot to improve the situation by giving clear and obvious labels to suspicious accounts. Not just teeny-tiny blue checkmarks to authenticated accounts, but something more like changing the background of entire posts to indicate things about them, like age of the account, ratio of followers to tweets, avg rate of tweeting, etc.

      We'll never be able to identify ALL fugazi accounts, but at least give us better tools to help regular joes know when something is fishy.

    6. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're never going to be held accountable for your batshit conspiracy theory, so why bother?

    7. Re:Why? by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Why would one need (or want) to provide proof of identity to use a browser? So the company can pass a permanent, unique ID cookie and data to *every* site you visit? So you can be tracked *everywhere*? I imagine their revenue model relied on selling your browsing data to every/anyone. So that sounds like fun.

      Well, there are a few legitimate reasons why you'd want to be "authenticated" - say you're doing some online banking or other things. Then if you log in via a regular browser, your bank will flag those and ask if you actually meant to do them (there are plenty of bank scams now that capture banking information)

      Some social media accounts may also wish to be accessed via an authenticated browser to prevent hijacking.

      Of course, the problem is all that data - the company may want to sell it, but it would lead to disrepute And keeping them honest will be the hardest thing to do - because they will be holding some very valuable information.

    8. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like how Hilary Clinton and the DNC where held accountable for conspiring to rig the 2016 DNC primary?

      Funny how you support people who have rigged elections to go after people who havn't rigged elections. You don't mean held accountable, you mean tyranny of the government against people you don't like despite them not having broken any laws.

    9. Re: Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The conspiracy against the United States is being carried out by the wingbats trying to ovrrturn the legitimate constitutional election of President Trump with their ignorant teh Russia ranting.

    10. Re: Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt if Fugazi has a twitter account but they peform some pretty fine rock music.

    11. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its pretty fucken amazing how your one post garnered (at least) 4 people parroting russian propaganda.

      I can't imagine that a backwater like slashdot would rate that level of professional trolling. So that leaves Hanlon's razor to explain that these sad people are simply bot thralls, which is really quite pathetic. Now we see the consequence of nerds thinking a liberal arts education is useless.

    12. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now people are demanding "America-net" because an election didn't go to plan.

      Uh yeah... An attack on our election by a hostile foreign power is definitely not part of the plan.
      Only a quisling would think otherwise.

    13. Re:Why? by jrumney · · Score: 3, Funny

      Why would one need (or want) to provide proof of identity to use a browser?

      So you can buy groceries online.

  8. With all due respect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Who forced anyone to sign up to this browser? If the people who sign up *want* to interact in an environment where there is no anonymity, that is their right.

    1. Re:With all due respect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I am forced to work for Google, classifying images, to access many sites including government websites. Hail recaptcha.

      At first, it's optional. If it works, it will become unavoidable.

    2. Re:With all due respect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody. Just like nobody forced the employees to put their information up on the site. They found out WHY being to open about your identity on the internet is a bad idea. Some people learn from other people's mistakes, some need to make their own.

  9. yeah, sure, threatened employees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    sounds more like an excuse to not admit to having a shitty business model

    1. Re:yeah, sure, threatened employees by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      sounds more like an excuse to not admit to having a shitty business model

      Yeah. Probably:
      a) some loony sent them a deranged rant
      b) there were no customers and no profits
      c) company shuts down because of a)

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    2. Re:yeah, sure, threatened employees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sounds more like an excuse to not admit to having a shitty business model

      Actually I don't interpret it as an excuse for a shitty business model. That would have probably taken them longer than a month to find out it was shitty.

      It sounds more like they tried eating their own dog food and very quickly discovered exactly why having your real identity linked to you online is bad, and had to do a 180 on their moral stance.

      I'm actually rather glad they learned why anonymity is so critically important to maintain before learning how shitty their business model is.
      If it was the other way around, they may have never learned why anonymity is so important, and gone on in life thinking the only problems they had were related to money and sales and crap.

      Had that happened, they may very well have tried again.

      This way however, either (hopefully) they learned a good life lesson, or alternately will convert to being hypocrites demanding anonymity for them but trying to force everyone else to give it up.
      I for one am rooting for the former.

  10. A free country should not fear this by mi · · Score: 2

    So long as no one is forced to use this browser to get access to anything they must access, there is nothing to see here.

    The danger lurked in this browser eventually becoming mandatory for certain sites — the government-run ones. And even then, only when the access did not need authentication before.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  11. So much wrong with this idea in the USA by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 2

    What's to stop one person from signing up legitimately and then giving copies of the browser to others who did not register? Does the browser check IDs? If so, does that slow it down? We've got people here in the USA who don't want to be identified for anything, so yeah, not real surprised that some people were threatened by this and got that point across. On the other hand, I was almost thinking that all the dumb "solutions in search of a problem" ideas for companies had surely been taken by now. but I am wrong about that.

    1. Re:So much wrong with this idea in the USA by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      What's to stop one person from signing up legitimately ...

      Or using someone else's ID or a fake ID. My wife died in 2006, but I still have her (now expired) driver's license. It would be simple to photoshop the expiration date on a photo of it and provide another picture of her to get this browser. Obviously, I wouldn't do this with her information, but the idea is sound. I imagine it would be also relatively simple to photoshop a fake driver's license photo using a real one as a template. I can't imagine the company would actually verify the IDs submitted...

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    2. Re:So much wrong with this idea in the USA by mysidia · · Score: 1

      signing up legitimately and then giving copies of the browser to others who did not register?

      Their product was not a PC installer you download from a website -- they were only available on Smartphones and Tablets, and the major platforms have DRM technologies controlling distribution of commercial apps, and limiting your installs per account.

      Their installation steps were:
      (1) Install App (No verification required yet)

      (2) Launch App

      (3) Follow prompt to login with Google, Facebook or LinkedIn Account

      (2) Go through prompts to Point your Tablet/Smart Phone's camera at the back of your driver's license and take picture

      (3) Final prompt is to make a $19.99 In-App Purchase to register for "The New Internet"

      (4) The In-App purchase will only succeed if your Social Media Account's Data: Name, Address, DOB, and In-App Purchase billing details match Driver's license data.

  12. A little much for a browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Whoever thought this was a good ideal was absolutely nuts. Surprised it lasted this long.

  13. Developed a browser? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    When they say "developed" they mean a stupid skin over webkit, that forces you to log into a centralized account on startup?

    Wow what a fucken tremendous achievement

    1. Re:Developed a browser? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Well, it does seem like a huge achievement compared to the normal hand waving that startups do to get funding.

  14. Re:creimer is fat and a cuck! Smells like a butt! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He never got threatened, but many people washed their eyes out with bleach.

  15. So I guess you have never bought anything online? by pablo_max · · Score: 1

    Must be the case, because you would need to give your actual name. Assuming you are not paying in bitcoin or something.
    I guess you never paid a bill online either. Pretty sure they wont accept a fake name.

  16. Re:Yeah, no, f___ them and that shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems you mean " should be required to authenticate", not "able to preserve" our identities? Then internal repercussions make more sense. I did not see any mention of destroying vs preserving id's...

  17. If Only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    There had been some way to hide their identity....

  18. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  19. Re:creimer is fat and a cuck! Smells like a butt! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well he is morbidly obese and ugly.

  20. Good. by thedarb · · Score: 1

    As should be the fate of any who try to take away anonymity on the Internet.

    --
    This sig intentionally left blank.
  21. Identity fags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course, these shitbags won't eat their own dog food.

    HA HA! fuck them

  22. Re:So I guess you have never bought anything onlin by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

    I don't have to give my name to use Chrome, Firefox, or even Edge. Admittedly, I have to give my real name & shipping address to Amazon.

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  23. Interesting parallel here by Solandri · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Most of you are too young to remember, but once upon a time, everyone's real-life identity was transparent on the Internet. Everyone used their real names, most people even included their phone number and work address. If all you had was an email address (bang path), you could use it to finger them and get their info. Being able to skirt around this and do things anonymously was considered a bug which needed to be fixed.

    As I recall it, anonymity took off when AOL joined Usenet. An AOL account granted you 5 usernames, ostensibly so a family could share a single AOL account. But a lot of AOL users used the extra identities to create pseudonyms so they could post on Usenet anonymously. There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth over this among the pro-real identity folks, and a lot of heated arguments, but I don't remember there being any death threats over it. And eventually the pro-anonymity side won out.

    It's interesting that the pro-anonymity folks aren't as tolerant of opinions different than theirs. For a democracy to function, there has to be a free exchange of ideas. People with different opinions must be allowed to express and practice what they think is a better way to do things. Their idea should be evaluated by each individual who hears it, and either accepted or dismissed. An individual or a group proactively preventing other individuals from learning about a different idea by threatening the people advocating them is corrosive to democracy, and will lead to a tyranny by an apparent majority. Nobody will know if the "majority opinion" is really held by the majority, because everyone is too afraid to contradict it.

    1. Re:Interesting parallel here by ole_timer · · Score: 1

      back in the day we called downloading the usenet daily looking for new viruses the "porn hauler" for obvious reasons. before that when I had a .arpa email address there was no such thing as anonymity - then came Robert Morris and it's been downhill ever since. now we think we have anonymity but we don't. so it goes.

      --
      nothing to see here - move along
    2. Re:Interesting parallel here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to disagree with your assessment of online activity in the early days of computer networking with HOME computers. Once it got into the home, anonymity was the word of the day. No one signed up for a BBS using their real name. Not even for privacy's sake, but because you could pick any you wanted! I don't know anyone who used their real name on a BBS and the stories from those who began to privately share such details made most of us damned sure to never do it once we had the internet available! Anonymity was in full swing on the Newsgroups way before AOL allowed access to them. Academics and researchers began using them as well to talk in groups outside their peers in order to be able to say things and not have them linked back to their real information.

      Now I admit, maybe that's partly just my perspective, but then I grew up hanging out with people who didn't trade real names face to face with each other and close enough to call each other brother.I still run into people who knew me as a teen who have no idea what my real name is.

      And... our Founding Fathers did the exact same thing. The Federalist Papers were written by a number of them under pseudonyms because they rightly feared persecution for their ideas and beliefs. Yet somehow its poisonous to a free democracy? Our country was founded on such things! For certain activities, yes, anonymity is an issue, mainly the exchange of goods and services. Free speech can only be fought with more speech however. And yet, if you espouse a different belief than others, instead of using speech to convince you to change or others to ignore you, they now doxx you to your employer, they show up at your house and threaten you, they SWAT you, they steal your identity and ruin you financially, etc.

      Real anonymity is a struggle, a constant battle. You cannot be careless and use it, or you will get outed for something you've done. Reddit for example loves to doxx people who think they are being anonymous, to intimidate or harass them for some stupid viewpoint. They don't argue back, they don't use logic and reason to convince, they use fear and terror.

      Another thing, look at the plethora of people lately losing their jobs for things they said 5-10 years ago, as if they can't grow or change. Once bad, always bad, burn the witch! And corporate America just goes along with it as if these groups had actual power. Maybe Facebook should start investigating these people as well. I mean, if idiots in Russia can hire idiots in the Ukraine to run fake news sites to influence an election, why couldn't Warner Bros be paying people to dig up dirt on famous actors and directors Disney has hired and slip it to special interest groups with loud voices? This is what forcing people to use real names online does, it punishes them forever for shit they've outgrown. And the worst part is the ones doing all this public outcry don't even realize they're next. When they try to get jobs and don't get hired because of what they've said about others online, maybe they'll become more tolerant and forgiving. They just better hope the next generation isn't ready to hold it against them and out them for their shit too.

      I hate the EU's Right to be Forgotten, because its a horribly written law, but I get the idea behind it and agree with the sentiment.But America never will, we're incredibly judgmental and revel in it. That's why felons are never forgiven here Sure they went to prison and were punished for their wrongdoing, but when they get out, the punishment has only begun! From employers to lenders, to social lives, no one wants to forgive them and treat them like humans and Americans. We don't need a sex offender registry because ALL felons can be found online here. Every employer now has the ability to perform invasive background checks and deny people based on a criminal past. But that's a loaded term since technically if you committed a single crime, you now have a criminal past! Doesn't matter it was 15 years ago and you've never even been arrested since. It borders on a human rights violation and i'm kinda surprised the rest of the world lets us get away with that crap. Then again, they don't let prisoners have cable tv or tennis shoes, so maybe we're not completely horrible.

    3. Re:Interesting parallel here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It's interesting that the pro-anonymity folks aren't as tolerant of opinions different than theirs. "

      Anonymity is the the ultimate form of tolerance. Even if you don't wish to tolerate anonymous opinions you must because you don't know who they are to shut them up. What you have here is just a classic case for why one would want to remain anonymous online. If this company was anonymous no one would know who to send death threats to. Unfortunately for them, that's not an option for a company but I am very thankful it is for a person.

    4. Re:Interesting parallel here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Netscape browser was first released in 1994, so I don't know what you're talking about. Usernet was not the Internet, they were newsgroups. AOL users surfed their own bulletin boards mostly.

    5. Re:Interesting parallel here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you're older than me, but when I was using the internet in the mid-80's there was plenty of anonymity. We typically chose to reveal our true names online because it appealed to our pride ("look at me, I'm trading info with people in Italy, can you believe it!") -- we WANTED people to know who we were. Except when we didn't. There were plenty of times you'd want to take an unpopular side in an argument, or flame someone. I didn't know anyone who had fewer than a handful of online identities, and their real one was only used when they chose to. Most of the people I knew were sysadmins who could create identities arbitrarily on a whim.

      So maybe we just used different portions of the Internet. But I still maintain that your real-life identity was transparent because you CHOSE to make it so, even way back when.

    6. Re:Interesting parallel here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of you are too young to remember, but once upon a time, everyone's real-life identity was transparent on the Internet. Everyone used their real names, most people even included their phone number and work address. If all you had was an email address (bang path), you could use it to finger them and get their info.

      This just in: when the Internet first formed it was much more of a country club with very limited access, so the notion of anonymity really didn't figure into things.

      Being able to skirt around this and do things anonymously was considered a bug [google.com] which needed to be fixed.

      This also just in: when a feature of a client to set certain information was introduced, someone rightly questioned trusting client data vs server data. In this context, it means obviously that the "from" line in email was more a vanity header than something authoritative. It says little/nothing about anonymity because (1) routing information was still being included that would likely identify the sender machine and (2) if they suddenly removed the "from" line it would no more add/remove anonymity any more than countless other protocols that inherently allow client side manipulation of sent data. Ergo, it's something that can be spoofed and should be taken with a grain of salt.

      As I recall it, anonymity took off when AOL joined Usenet [wikipedia.org].

      This just in: when the masses join the country club, you stop feeling the need to play ID games with everyone because the point of ID-ing--exclusivity--is lost.

      It's interesting that the pro-anonymity folks aren't as tolerant of opinions different than theirs. For a democracy to function, there has to be a free exchange of ideas. People with different opinions must be allowed to express and practice what they think is a better way to do things. Their idea should be evaluated by each individual who hears it, and either accepted or dismissed.

      So, you're pro <insert offensive imagery>? I mean, we can't interfere with people's expression and practices so long as it's consenting adults (and maybe some horses), right? Of course, "consent" is a funny thing when things quickly become mandatory.

      An individual or a group proactively preventing other individuals from learning about a different idea by threatening the people advocating them is corrosive to democracy,

      Thank God that didn't happen. People learned about "a different idea" and *then* threatened them. Btw, I'm not advocating people threaten them, but if it were illegal to do what the business was doing, then then that too would be people threatening them.

      and will lead to a tyranny by an apparent majority. Nobody will know if the "majority opinion" is really held by the majority, because everyone is too afraid to contradict it.

      Welcome to democracy. In almost all cases, it's the apparent majority (or even plurality), not the actual majority that pushes for legislation that not only threatens but also enforces and punishes opinions. The thing is that the Browser Firm wasn't threatened because they espoused ideas about an identity-based browser but because they worked to create one. So, your argument is bullshit. What your argument should have been is that by threatening such innovative ideas, people can't figure out if such ideas are practical or desirable. Of course, that logic is also how we got Communism, so reducto ad absurdium there's definitely a point where we shouldn't just tolerate "innovative ideas". Having said that, a lawsuit or a push for legislation would have been better because it would set the groundwork to prevent another company trying the same thing.

    7. Re:Interesting parallel here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It's interesting that the pro-anonymity folks aren't as tolerant of opinions different than theirs."

      WTF? We're already living under tyranny - Jewish tyranny. Who runs the media? Where did the phrase "hate speech" come from? Why are men now allowed into women's restrooms? Who pushed for that? The Jewish media. Why didn't it happen fifty years ago? Because the Jews didn't have as much power then as they do now. Next is the push to normalise paedophilia, just like they normalised the mental illness that is homosexuality. They've already got cretins like you believing that people can be 'born in the wrong body', and therefore need to have their penis and testicles cut off, because that's completely sane behaviour...

      BTW, from the article: "But, as the Facebook controversy shows, fake accounts designed to resemble those that come from peers, which are designed to spread propaganda, can have serious consequences." LOL. Do they mean that Trump got elected? It must have been those evil Russians, "meddling" in the election, right? Despite NO examples of these "meddling" Facebook posts in the Jew controlled media... despite there apparently being millions of such posts on Facebook... Maybe it has something to do with the fact that MOST people support Trump? Just watch videos of his campaign speeches, and look at the size of the crowds (if the controlled media will show you - they often won't), then watch videos of Clinton's campaign speeches... About one fifth of the attendees compared to Trump. Yet we are supposed to believe that 50% of the population voted for Clinton!
      So what are the "serious consequences" of "fake accounts"? What "propaganda" was spread? It's all bullshit.

      Where is the EVIDENCE that any of these 'threats' ever took place? Why isn't there one example of the 'threatening' e-mails that the company allegedly received? It's all made up bollocks.

    8. Re:Interesting parallel here by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      Not really. You may have been bill@mit.edu or rsmith@umd.edu or something, however we could find you. It wasn't that hard. I found a guy in 1986 that was at Japan's TIT. It took all of 1 hour and I don't speak Japanese!

      Sometimes I look for some of my old stuff from back then. Things to the humor newsgroups and such. Still out there.

  24. The current political discourse by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    Brings out a lot of loons and empowers them. There's a science fiction book called Distractions by Bruce Sterling that covered this. In it you could trigger an assassin by spreading conspiracy theories on the net to naturally receptive individuals. If you keep encouraging the crazies they'll start getting violent

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  25. so you're telling me they regret by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... using their real identities online? wow, nobody could have predicted that

  26. not sure /. will accept this short a post but... by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    ...QED?

    --
    -Styopa
  27. Let me guess.... by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 1, Funny

    Threats were received at their address here:

    San Francisco Office:
    529 Sausalito Blvd Sausalito
    CA 94965

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
  28. Re:So I guess you have never bought anything onlin by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Do you think my name really is Rick Schumann? LOL if you do.
    Why should what I post here on Slashdot be part of some permanent Public Record attached to my real legal name? So you can hunt me down and threaten me because I said you were a fucktard and should STFU? What about you? Is your real name "Pablo Max"? If so what's to stop me from hunting you down and beating you within an inch of your life because you dared to disagree with me or otherwise annoyed me somehow? What's that, you say, that's just a 'handle' and not your real name? LOL, guess you like you anonymity too, don't you, 'Pablo'? LOL relax I'm not mad at you or threatening you or planning to threaten you, just making a point.

    As stated above: 'official' business, and you exercising freedom of speech/freedom of expression on the Internet are two different things entirely. Or are we living in China right now, and every gods-be-damned word we post on the Internet is being scrutinized and 'graded' and being used to leverage our behavior by affecting our actual quality of life? Do you want to live in a world like that? You can see why, if things went that way, I'd dump the Internet over it.

    Did you watch that show Seth MacFarlane created, The Orville? Did you see the episode where they found a planet where their supercharged version of social media was literally being used to decide whether people lived or died, literally crowdsourcing justice? An extreme example done to make a point, but would you want to live in a world like that, where one joking statement taken out of context literally ruins your life, because the whole world can see it? Even here in the United States, would you open up a Twitter account under your real name with real address and contact information, then proceed to openly criticize Donald Trump and his administration right to his face? You'd be lucky to live out the week and you know it. That's why the ability to have anonymity on the Internet is important.

  29. Re:So... by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 0

    People like you with your all-or-nothing bullshit don't impress me, you come off as low-quality trolls with low-quality bait. Get real or GTFO.

  30. Good by aliquis · · Score: 1

    The ruling elite who want to destroy all opposition is everywhere.
    They are the fascists.

    1. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ruling elite who want to destroy all opposition is everywhere.
      They are the fascists.

      While you're writing this pointless shit on Slashdot, marauding Muslims are burning down your pristine Scandinavian forests. It must be very upsetting to be so utterly impotent against these strong, motivated men who aren't crippled by autism. Have you considered having some kind of pathetic, screeching breakdown about it?

    2. Re:Good by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Nah, I just have two thoughts about it and neither are that one.

  31. Umm. no. by thesupraman · · Score: 1

    You never used Usenet, did you.

    There were SOME ways to identify people, when they chose to be.
    And sometimes admins would even help with that, usually because people had access through universities, and had signed agreements...

    However, it was far Far FAR from the organised monitored recorded clusterfuck of privacy rape that it is these days.

  32. Impressive.. by thesupraman · · Score: 1

    So, just checking here.
    We would be paying them to provide them with personal details, and a lockin gateway to the internet controlled by them?

    Hard to see how people took offense to that, I wonder if they had also considered marketing online 'security' cameras for
    every room in peoples houses to make sure they didnt do anything 'bad' there either.

    Hell, if we paid them enough perhaps they could just develop implantable live tracker chips we could have inserted at birth,
    with all the data streaming directly to their servers (for our own good of course).

    They should be considered saviors of society!

  33. Re:Clearly the real problem is obvious by Darinbob · · Score: 0

    Crackpot indeed. I did notice he's managed to find some of the worst lawyers in New York. It's good though that Trump gave these guys jobs, as unemployable as they seem to be.

  34. Slashdot is a great example by HotNeedleOfInquiry · · Score: 0

    Of a site that would be tremendously better if the posters were known by real ID's. It's way too hard to sort out the middle-school ankle biters from the useful comments.

    --
    "Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
    1. Re:Slashdot is a great example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of a site that would be tremendously better if the posters were known by real ID's. It's way too hard to sort out the middle-school ankle biters from the useful comments.

      If you're seeing comments you find useful on Slashdot then I assume you're a prejudiced alt-right piece of shit eager to start a race war that you're far too physically and mentally inadequate to actually take part in.

      However I agree that having a database of these people would be extremely useful.

  35. struck gold?? by gravewax · · Score: 1

    WTF? struck gold?? never heard of this company of the app and if I had no fucking way would I or anyone I know have willingly used it. I can't imagine any market demand for this and lets face it, if there was no way they would be shutting down so easy. Sounds like an excuse for a failed venture.

  36. Influencing an election? Say it ain't so! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's ban television and the internet completely then, and campaigning, and talking to people, in case somebody "influences the outcome of an election", or, heaven forbid, "meddles" with one...

    Does anybody actually believe this bollocks from the Jewish media, day in, day out? "Russia meddled with the election" - starting to sound like "Weapons of mass destruction", isn't it...

    "The denial of free speech is the first act of tyranny."

    I bet these 'threats' are made up, why would anybody have to threaten such a stupid business model in the first place?

  37. Try reading the article - it's all made up bullshi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    t.

    There is no way this actually happened, and why is this obviously MADE UP article on Slashdot? How many times were the police called over these "threats", and why didn't they elaborate on what the "threats" were? (The real life "threats" from people who - shock horror - "visited" their offices? Why would ANYBODY find it necessary to threaten a company that they have to CHOOSE to give their driver's licence to? Nobody is even interested in such a stupid idea anyway - are you? The article is pure FICTION - designed to plant a seed in your mind that people who are trying to force everybody in the world to lose their right to free speech (which is what this push to remove our anonymity on the internet is all about, lest we expose the Eternal Jew and what they are doing to our world) are somehow 'victims', and 'ooh, the poor Jews', as usual.

  38. i get it but at the same time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is very little actual anonymity on the internet unless you're using real tools to do it. Meaning then average guy just jumping in a browser and going can be easily tracked down one way or another. Browser fingerprinting is shockingly effective. If a site has just your DOB, zipcode, and gender chances are you can be uniquely identified (and that's been known for decades).

  39. what happened to the pii they harvested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so what happened to all the real identity data they harvested? that's the real story - was it sold? this thing sounds like a big scam

  40. what is wrong with these people? by sad_ · · Score: 1

    death threats? really?
    because there was no other browser available they could use that didn't require an id verification.
    it was a bad idea, i agree with that, but it should have just died out because nobody (in their right mind) would use it.

    --
    On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
  41. American have issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Man you Americans have issues.

    We live in a world of shades, not absolutes. Any attempt to dictate an absolute right to *anything*, including privacy, is doomed to clash with reality.

  42. Top of the internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice to read some good news for a change.

  43. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  44. That's what I was wondering by Daralantan · · Score: 1

    Why did they so desperately need to use this specific browser, that they were willing to kill over a ID requirement?

    It's not like they were having to provide ID for Chrome, Firefox, IE, Edge, Opera, or whatever. Was there some "special promise" from this new browser???

  45. I call bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't believe they closed down because they were being threatened, that's such bullshit, I'm guessing they ran out of money or their product wasn't selling.
    Other companies like Trusona also use a driver's license as part of their authentication mechanism - but they're not being threatened - and they're a whole lot more successful and well known.

    1. Re:I call bullshit by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      Ding ding ding.. I think we have the real answer.

      Who the hell would get that? Not me. Too much hassle.

  46. Threatening the employees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn violent people are dumb.

    1. Re:Threatening the employees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn violent people are dumb.

      Anyone who doesn't understand this need only attend a snowflake rally wearing a MAGA hat, and prepare to be bloodied for daring to have a differing opinion.

  47. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I never used any of my real details 'back in the day' - I've always used the same handle since I first started using the Internet (Or, more correctly, 'The Web' these days, sadly).
    From day one it seemed very obvious to me that using real details was dangerous.

    It's only in the last decade that I've been forced to use real-world detail on-line, usually for online shoppng and government crap that can only be realistically done online (e.g. Stupid bridge tolls that we shouldn't even be paying since the tolls finished paying for the damned bridge in 2003!!!)

  48. Re:So I guess you have never bought anything onlin by EmptyHead · · Score: 1

    That episode of the Orville was one of the most useful things to show up on television, ever. I wish it had gotten some press. Unfortunately, being able to whip people into a frenzy on social media is too valuable a tool. It follows that we are a Republic for many of the same reasons. Democracy is important, but mechanisms do need to be in place to temper moments of mob hysteria.