Comment by chadsix
1 year ago
Submission Statement:
We have exactly 4 days to leave comments to the Federal Government of the United States of America contesting the requirement of KYC by internet service providers.
This law is not conducive to a free internet/society.
I ask this 100% genuinely, since this isn't a subject I've ever given any mind to. Why should we oppose this? What are the potential negative outcomes if this goes through? Can you steelman the argument for why people support this, and explain why you find the arguments unconvincing?
I think that the biggest argument in favour is that it would remove anonymity on the internet, at least from governments, and that could enable law enforcement to more easily find people committing real crimes. CSAM, scams, etc.
I think the biggest argument against it is that this removes anonymity on the internet, at least from governments, and that would remove people's ability to freely voice their opinions without fears of repercussions (will the first amendment ever be modified? Will people who discuss what it's like to be an illegal immigrant/drug user/etc. be persecuted)? Also, it raises the question of what happens to users of VPN's, public internet, etc.
Does this actually remove anonymity on the internet?
It seems to de-anonymize a set of IaaS customers, sure; but that's not nearly the same thing as removing anonymity completely. I've only just scanned this but it seems at first glance to mean that a foreign company can't anonymously spin up an AWS instance, that's all. Am I reading this incorrectly?
5 replies →
> …directs the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to propose regulations requiring U.S. Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) providers of IaaS products to verify the identity of their foreign customers… (from TFA)
This is about IaaS not “internet services”. It doesn’t remove anonymity from internet users, just foreign customers renting cloud servers and other infrastructure.
5 replies →
It is great that you ask a question, because we live in a world with the freedom to opine on things. What could be considered a massive issue to me may not be a massive issue to another; and if we feel the world will be better by debating our positions, we have the right to do so.
Today, anonymity and pseudonymity exist and allow people to speak freely without risk of backlash for having a different opinion as often times the right opinion may differ with that of social consensus.
If KYC is introduced, the ability to maintain freedom of speech, online, will likely diminish.
This is of negative consequence to the people of the world.
Further, with internet 'forever data', LLM NLP and so forth, character profiles are too easy to develop for people which can cause further harm as we begin segregating based on said profiles.
I believe this KYC requirement can even extend to blockchain node operators and so forth as well.
These are just a few reasons but there are many more.
I'm not in favor of this rule, but it seems to me you are conflating several issues into one without showing the effect of the rule. Can you explain how the rule that would be implemented causes these effects? I do not see the connection here.
This doesn't seem to affect users of internet services, though. It's just IaaS, so things like AWS. With that limited scope, what is the adverse affect of KYC laws on freedom of speech?
4 replies →
One example I've seen is a less-than-savory company make a purposefully confusing KYC process after purchase of their service/product to prevent users from realizing they're being scammed and are kept in KYC hell hoping to get verified when they never will. Time to start an ISP...
Provides the prerequisites for an authoritarian regime when they inevitable coopt the internet
Well some authoritarian regime would otherwise just do it whenever it got started, and it would require maybe a week?
This would make it illegal to anonymously run your own Wordpress install or Mattermost/groupchat server, you would have to reveal your identity to the web host. Do you trust the powers-that-be to never use this information to find and punish dissidents?
I know for me I'll have to stop using the internet. I can't take any chances. I can't upload government Ids everywhere I go, especially if the systems are not accessible with screen readers.
It's on the parties sponsoring and proposing the law to rigorously explain the benefits (and to discuss any negatives). Maybe go ask them?
why recreate this important argument with coffee? The Berkman Center at Harvard or one hundred other places has decades of written policy work and case studies on these topics ..
I would also find a link to those arguments to be satisfactory.
I too would have asked the same question as GP, and also meant it genuinely. It feels like HN is a place where someone could summarise the (presumably strong) arguments against this? Or links to a good source as suggested by a sibling comment.
This is not about Internet Service Providers. This is about Infrastructure as a Service providers, e.g. AWS, Linode, Azure, GoDaddy, etc.
See https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2024-01580/p-46 for their definition.
Misrepresenting what this is about is not helpful.
im not sure i understand are customers of AWS/Linode/Digitalocean now required to submit passport/drivers license to host a blog or website?
This is my question too. IDGI. If I am a foreigner how do they verify that my ID is real? just because it looks "real enough"?
This discriminates people from other countries from having tech resources, possibly increasing poverty by limiting opportunities, at the same time it exposes people to have their data leaked. I don't see how this is a good idea.
Yes please do! I did.