Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

DisgustipatedinCA

(12,530 posts)

3. I'm a techie who still wants that $500 bet

Reply to Recursion (Reply #1)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 12:52 PM

Jul 2013

You know, the network topology that you claimed was impossible, the same topology I'm intimately familiar with? I'd dearly love to take your money solely because you're too stubborn to admit you didn't know what you were talking about. Alas, in the end, you,we're too smart to lose that money. Nonetheless, baseline established.

Here's what's wrong with this program (no technical skills required!!): it's Orwellian, and it makes Big Brother's job that much easier when every tcp session is tagged with your government ID. It also goes very much against the freedom and spirit of the Internet. Call that an intangible if you want, but it means a great deal to a great many people. The government has no business regulating Internet users.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

20 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Pre-Snowden/NSA News Story: "Obama Eyeing Internet ID for Americans" [View all] WinkyDink Jul 2013 OP

Tell me what you think is wrong with this Recursion Jul 2013 #1

Maybe something like this? moondust Jul 2013 #2

And making it mandatory is bad. making it available is good. Recursion Jul 2013 #9

I'm a techie who still wants that $500 bet DisgustipatedinCA Jul 2013 #3

I said I agreed it's possible if you tap every edge of the graph Recursion Jul 2013 #7

Define 'I'm a techie' and then tell us why you adore this idea. Bluenorthwest Jul 2013 #4

I don't adore the idea. We tried this year's ago with the CAs Recursion Jul 2013 #8

Well, as the proposal claims, this will be for consumer purchases. One need not be a WinkyDink Jul 2013 #6

I like any public advancement of crypto Recursion Jul 2013 #10

We already have secure means of making purchases online and have for more than a decade usGovOwesUs3Trillion Jul 2013 #12

But not individuals? Recursion Jul 2013 #14

Individuals are what have put internet companies like amazon on the map usGovOwesUs3Trillion Jul 2013 #17

I'm an internet software developer, and I am against the idea due to privacy + eff.org concerns usGovOwesUs3Trillion Jul 2013 #11

Then you know they can require that right now. Client certificates aren't popular, never have been, Recursion Jul 2013 #13

If that were true why the need for this? usGovOwesUs3Trillion Jul 2013 #15

What concerns? That a non-mandatory technology might some day become mandatory? Recursion Jul 2013 #16

giving gov a central database of real identities for ALL your online activities, mandatory or not usGovOwesUs3Trillion Jul 2013 #18

A major flaw in the plan RC Jul 2013 #5

I'm sure the Chinese will line right up after them on this one. roamer65 Jul 2013 #19

K&R woo me with science Jul 2013 #20