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

(56,582 posts)

14. But not individuals?

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:31 PM

Jul 2013

Why the distinction?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

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

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

But not individuals? Recursion Jul 2013 #14

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

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

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