←back to thread

525 points alex77456 | 7 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
jjgreen ◴[] No.45385121[source]
Before the election I was approached by a bubbly young woman who tried to persuade me to vote Labour: "No thanks, last time I did that they tried to introduce ID cards", "But that's not in our manifesto" she replied, "It wasn't the last time I voted for them either".

It gives me no pleasure to be right on this.

replies(3): >>45385315 #>>45389860 #>>45390373 #
celticninja ◴[] No.45385315[source]
Could you explain what it is you find so distasteful about ID cards?

I mean if you have a passport then you already have an 'ID card', but I certainly don't want to take that out with me to prove my age.

replies(7): >>45385353 #>>45385512 #>>45385524 #>>45387406 #>>45390224 #>>45391030 #>>45391103 #
jjgreen ◴[] No.45385353[source]
Could you please give me your real name "celticninja", your phone number, your address, your NI number -- oh, and you'll need to install this app on your phone which I promise will never be used to monitor your location, purchases, friends. Then I'll explain.
replies(4): >>45385433 #>>45385455 #>>45385574 #>>45389857 #
gadders ◴[] No.45385433[source]
Also, please authenticate with your digital ID before posting on social media.
replies(3): >>45385518 #>>45385633 #>>45388836 #
celticninja ◴[] No.45385633{3}[source]
That is not a requirement though. And if it came in I would be against it. So what is your point?
replies(3): >>45385655 #>>45387173 #>>45391044 #
pjc50 ◴[] No.45385655{4}[source]
Yet. This slope looks very slippery in the year of the Online Safety Act.
replies(1): >>45389309 #
1. ruszki ◴[] No.45389309{5}[source]
With your logic, everything can be used, or change to be used in a bad way, so nothing should be changed. There is never a guarantee. Seriously, is there anything which cannot be changed to be shit, in the best case to be a worthless money pit?

Edit: btw this proposal already has something which can be criticised: ID on mobile phones… so probably they’d lock everybody into a duopoly.

replies(2): >>45389852 #>>45390049 #
2. DangitBobby ◴[] No.45389852[source]
You're arguing that the installation of a literal surveillance apparatus should be tolerated because technology can almost always be used for evil.
replies(1): >>45392395 #
3. array_key_first ◴[] No.45390049[source]
Yes, let's build the nuke and then put it in the center of London with a big red button. But don't worry, nobody will push the button.

Or, proposal B: don't build the nuke.

replies(1): >>45392339 #
4. ruszki ◴[] No.45392339[source]
Yes? They can kill half Europe with a single nuclear power plant if they really want. They are safe only for accidents, and external sabotage. They are absolutely not for intentional internal fuck ups. The whole system is built on that most workers there don’t want that. The whole system is built on trust.
5. ruszki ◴[] No.45392395[source]
No, I’m arguing that it can be used for good, and it shouldn’t be dismissed when it cannot be used for evil things by law, especially not because of future possible evil usage, because that’s true for everything. Btw, why do use the internet? It’s quite contradictory to argue about this here. And that is the case since almost its inception.
replies(1): >>45404395 #
6. DangitBobby ◴[] No.45404395{3}[source]
Everything can be used for bad or good, some things the balance is so bad they aren't worth considering.
replies(1): >>45437115 #
7. ruszki ◴[] No.45437115{4}[source]
There is no difference between changing a law more, than less. It can be done the same way, with a single vote. So the balance doesn't matter at all, especially that voters clearly don't make distinctions based on that.