Comment by Almondsetat
5 days ago
I am not making an argument based on tradition. I couldn't care less that the web has not been government-gated for the past X years, because through this logic you should adhere to any dumb tradition or custom humans have ever had. I am concerned with the present and the future of the web's impact on the world, which of course requires government intervention like any other big phenomenon or technology in the history of humanity.
Before snarkily calling "irony", at least understand the topic of discussion and make appropriate comparisons.
P.S.:
Not only is your assumption false, since in its first years the web was only accessible to academics so the gating was implicit, but the internet itself from its beginning to the present day requires heavy governmental intervention and international collaboration to make it work. Do you know what's behind the cables that carry your bytes? The ICANN? The IANA? I hope you never do, if you dislike government involvement this much
> I am not making an argument based on tradition.
I know, and neither am I. Perhaps you misread my comment.
> I couldn't care less that the web has not been government-gated for the past X years
That is clear.
> because through this logic you should adhere to any dumb tradition or custom humans have ever had
Not only is that statement a non-sequitur, since neither of us is making an argument based on tradition, it's also entirely irrelevant.
> I am concerned with the present and the future of the web's impact on the world, which of course requires government intervention like any other big phenomenon or technology in the history of humanity.
An assertion that is a) going beyond the subject, thus creating a straw man, and b) when applied to that actual subject, completely undermined by my comment.
My actual comment, not the one you appear to have decided to respond to that I haven't written, wouldn't write, and thus doesn't exist.
> Not only is your assumption false, since in its first years the web was only accessible to academics so the gating was implicit
The subject is *explicit* age gating. Nothing implicit, and nothing that isn't age gating is relevant.
> Do you know what's behind the cables that carry your bytes? The ICANN? The IANA? I hope you never do, if you dislike government involvement this much
Firstly, that is snark, but fair's fair I suppose. The irony.
Secondly and much more importantly, I dislike age gating via large-scale government coercion, the subject of this discussion.
Could you respond to that? Specifically, age gating via large-scale government coercion.
Operating a motor vehicle requires a license, and you have to present it. Drinking and other activities and purchases require showing ID to prove your age. Since the web contains the digital equivalent of many age-gated activities it's entirely reasonable, once technology advances enough, to mandate the IRL age gates to certain websites or services.
Since the government currently has all of our ID data and since mathematically secure algorithms have been invented to prove personal information without revealing it, I'd say we have reached the point where digital identification can be implemented without infringing on people's privacy any more than a clerk checking your ID.
Your assumptions are the opposite of those for an English common law country, which is why those with that background are particularly aghast.
> Operating a motor vehicle requires a license, and you have to present it.
You do not have to present it in all cases, and not to actually use the vehicle.
> Drinking and other activities and purchases require showing ID to prove your age.
Not in all cases. Purchasing alcohol in the UK may require ID (but again, not in all cases) but drinking is legal above 5 years old in areas that are not solely for the purpose of selling alcohol (crazy, but true).
That list will go on.
> Since the government currently has all of our ID data
No, it does not - for example, a passport is different to a birth certificate and they contain different amounts of identity information, and my government does not need to know other identity info regarding my work.
> mathematically secure algorithms have been invented to prove personal information without revealing it, I'd say we have reached the point where digital identification can be implemented without infringing on people's privacy any more than a clerk checking your ID.
This is too strong a statement. Having strong algorithms does not equate with the level of security you claim to exist. Implementation of the whole process is just as important.
Regardless, we have plenty of good reasons to fear any government having this information. The Japanese government, for example, has its civil service set up in a way to prevent the kind of abuses we saw in WW2. I wouldn't be surprised if the Dutch have done the same, for what should be obvious reasons.