While this bill is technically an alternative to the Kids Online Safety Act, it is a bad one. As we’ve said before, no one should have to hand over their driver’s license just to access free websites. Having to hand over that driver’s license to a government program doesn’t solve the problem. The world envisioned by the authors of this bill is one where everyone has less power to speak out and access information online, and we must oppose it.

A new bill sponsored by Sen. Schatz (D-HI), Sen. Cotton (R-AR), Sen. Murphy (D-CT), and Sen. Britt (R-AL) would combine some of the worst elements of various social media bills aimed at “protecting the children” into a single law.

  • HarkMahlberg@kbin.social
    72·
    1 year ago

    So maybe someone can fill me in on why the EFF opposes a digital national ID system. I know that Estonia has a cryptographically secure, free, and incredibly useful ID system. Is the fear of political persecution from the opposite party the reason we don’t implement that kind of system?

      • Eximius@lemmy.ltEnglish
        25·
        1 year ago

        That is quite a twist to use severely out-dated examples for the modern world of today.

        The technology for mass data analysis is here and make no mistake all data about you is there in an NSA computer folder.

        The question is, why the fuck can’t the government give you a nation-backed digitally-verifiable ID number for you that is useful for you, when they have one of you anyway, because they gave you a passport/driving licence.

        • MajorHavoc@lemmy.worldEnglish
          61·
          1 year ago

          Dismissing the holocaust as an “out-dated example” is actually a crime in some places, for good reasons.

          In case you’re asking in earnest, I can assure you that the technical risks are much bigger today than they were in the past, in most of the world. Exfiltration by third parties, illegal sales, and one-sided terms-of-use are big issues today.

          The government certainly can give me a centralized ID and not cause any problems. But for those who think it’ll automatically be fine - it’s worth reading some history.

          Some countries have the necessary culture and laws to make a centralized government tracked ID reasonably safe. Many do not.

          We would each be wise to stay aware of which we reside in.

          • Eximius@lemmy.ltEnglish
            2·
            1 year ago

            Nowhere am I dismissing the holocaust.

            The example given in the wikipedia article is one small part of the holocaust, while helpful for Nazi efforts, if it did not exist, it would have had 0 ideological hindrance, and most likely would have been managed in some other (maybe less efficient) way, not with IBM punch-cards specifically. I would say it is a bad and irrelevant example. Especially since the world has gone quite a bit away from “out-dated” punch-cards.

            I am arguing that having a digitally-verifiable ID has 0 impact on the country’s ability for surveilliance of you, since it does that without it, without much hindrance.

            A digitally-verifiable ID only impacts your ability to prove your identity online. That’s really all. And lack of it is just one symptom of an anti-progressive (whether slow, or inept, or purposely obtuse) country government.

    • Nowyn@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      146·
      1 year ago

      I think having a digital ID system is very important in the modern age but where it is required needs to be limited. You should not need to use it where it isn’t strictly necessary. We have one in Finland too. You will almost entirely use it to use official services that would need your ID in person as well. In this proposal, the issue is not digital ID but how it would be used. First, where it would be used could compromise revealing too much of your identity when you want privacy and secondly and more importantly, it could compromise revealing your private actions to the government. Latter can move into highly problematic territory when criminalizing actions that should not be criminalized.

    • MaxHardwood@lemmy.caEnglish
      31·
      1 year ago

      The EFF is notoriously kind of an extremist organization when it comes to privacy and any sort of tracking of people; not in a bad way though I think.

      • chakan2@lemmy.worldEnglish
        71·
        1 year ago

        I wouldn’t call it extremist…it’s usually reasonable policy protecting people’s privacy. It’s only extreme because it would severely cut into big tech’s profits and the USs surveillance capacity.

          • The Nexus of Privacy@lemmy.sdf.orgOPEnglish
            1·
            1 year ago

            Within the privacy community, EFF’s viewed as pragmatists – far from absolutists or extremists. So I agree with @chakan2@chakan2@lemmy.world, it only gets regarded as extreme because big tech and the surveillance-industrial complex have normalized not expecting privacy.

    • The Nexus of Privacy@lemmy.sdf.orgOPEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

      That’s one of the concerns. Here’s more, from https://www.eff.org/issues/national-ids

      Mandatory national ID cards violate essential civil liberties. They increase the power of authorities to reduce your freedoms to those granted by the card. If a national ID is required for employment, you could be fired and your employer fined if you fail to present your papers. People without ID cards can be denied the right to purchase property, open a bank account or receive government benefits. National identity systems present difficult choices about who can request to see an ID card and for what purpose. Mandatory IDs significantly expand police powers. Police with the authority to demand ID is invariably granted the power to detain people who cannot produce one. Many countries lack legal safeguards to prevent abuse of this power.

      Historically, national ID systems have been used to discriminate against people on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion and political views. The use of national IDs to enforce immigration laws invites discrimination that targets minorities. There is little evidence to support the argument that national IDs reduce crime. Instead, these systems create incentives for identity theft and widespread use of false identities by criminals. National ID cards allow different types of identifying information stored in different databases to be linked and analyzed, creating extreme risks to data security. Administration of ID programs are often outsourced to unaccountable companies. Private sector security threat models assume that at any one time, one per cent of company employees are willing to sell or trade confidential information for personal gain.