7 ms·

Needing gov't ID to follow search links is dystopian, and antithetical to the original spirit of the Internet. Google should flat out refuse when governments m

Needing gov't ID to follow search links is dystopian, and antithetical to the original spirit of the Internet. Google should flat out refuse when governments make these requests.

tzs 4y ago
It looks like it is for YouTube and Play content, not search links. If so, I don't see how it is any more dystopian than the ID requirements that have long been in place for non-internet media. I don't recall anyone calling it dystopian back in the '70s for instance when we had to show ID to rent movies from the "adult" room at the local video rental store.
- BiteCode_dev 4y ago
  When you shown ID to the local video store, no record is made. And the video stores usually were not connected to a global interconnected graph of customers data. Worst case scenario, you had a paper card somewhere in a drawer with your name on it.
- car_analogy 4y ago
  After showing ID, did the rental place record it, the video you rented, when you rented it and for how long, then store that information in a database shared with other outlets of the giant multinational conglomerate which it belongs to, sell it to advertisers and corporate security, and make it available on request to governments of the world? And was this process duplicated for every other piece of media you consumed, to create a full profile of your interests? A large change in quantity changes quality as well.
  - socksset 4y ago
    This is a mistake we make over and over and over. It practically seems like a type of cognitive bias based around technology. We use some similar technology from the past to model the implications of the new technology and then willfully ignore the fundamental change brought about by digitization and network connectivity. The strangest thing is everyone understands how powerful network connectivity and digitization are in the abstract but when it comes to the concrete we brush it off like it is not. This is just like renting The Terminator from the video store in 1989. What could possibly go wrong?
mechanical_bear 4y ago
Agreed, and not sure why the early downvote wave you experienced there. I am surprised to see this sort of sentiment downvoted on HN.
- oblak 4y ago
  I've done my part to correct this injustice. I am curious what kind of person downvotes such opinions edit: point taken. I had read the "google should flat out refuse to follow the law" bit. oops
- hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
  I'll explain why I downvoted - because I get a little bit sick of these slippery slope arguments that every time Google has to follow a law that, while controversial, is not exactly the last breath of a despotic régime, that people love to decry Google as "being evil". The fact is, there are gray areas. When it comes to government regulations, tech companies essentially have 2 options: comply or leave the country in question (note Google has already tried to lobby against the law in question). While "leave" sometimes is the only moral option, I totally disagree that this law warrants Google leaving Australia.
  - mechanical_bear 4y ago
    I disagree, but appreciate the explanation rather than vote and run.
  - DaltonCoffee 4y ago
    Then we agree, at least in principle. I don't know the details of this legislation but I have viewed Australia as a beta test for new tech legislation and worry this sort of authorization barrier could become more common place in Western countries.
  - giveupitscrazy 4y ago
    Consider then if Google had decided to leave it would have had a huge negative backlash on the law, given the usefulness of Google. Instead Australia can now get what it wants and the backlash is minimal at best. Meanwhile they can go on to celebrate their dystopian law as working because of the endorsement Google gave them by capitulating. Short term yeah it'd suck for Australia to lose Google but then the law gets changed back, Google comes back, and everyone wins. Well except for the Australian government.

Needing gov't ID to follow search links is dystopian, and antithetical to the original spirit of the Internet. Google should flat out refuse when governments make these requests.

tzs 4y ago

It looks like it is for YouTube and Play content, not search links. If so, I don't see how it is any more dystopian than the ID requirements that have long been in place for non-internet media. I don't recall anyone calling it dystopian back in the '70s for instance when we had to show ID to rent movies from the "adult" room at the local video rental store.

BiteCode_dev 4y ago
When you shown ID to the local video store, no record is made. And the video stores usually were not connected to a global interconnected graph of customers data. Worst case scenario, you had a paper card somewhere in a drawer with your name on it.
car_analogy 4y ago
After showing ID, did the rental place record it, the video you rented, when you rented it and for how long, then store that information in a database shared with other outlets of the giant multinational conglomerate which it belongs to, sell it to advertisers and corporate security, and make it available on request to governments of the world? And was this process duplicated for every other piece of media you consumed, to create a full profile of your interests? A large change in quantity changes quality as well.
- socksset 4y ago
  This is a mistake we make over and over and over. It practically seems like a type of cognitive bias based around technology. We use some similar technology from the past to model the implications of the new technology and then willfully ignore the fundamental change brought about by digitization and network connectivity. The strangest thing is everyone understands how powerful network connectivity and digitization are in the abstract but when it comes to the concrete we brush it off like it is not. This is just like renting The Terminator from the video store in 1989. What could possibly go wrong?

mechanical_bear 4y ago

Agreed, and not sure why the early downvote wave you experienced there. I am surprised to see this sort of sentiment downvoted on HN.

oblak 4y ago
I've done my part to correct this injustice. I am curious what kind of person downvotes such opinions edit: point taken. I had read the "google should flat out refuse to follow the law" bit. oops
hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
I'll explain why I downvoted - because I get a little bit sick of these slippery slope arguments that every time Google has to follow a law that, while controversial, is not exactly the last breath of a despotic régime, that people love to decry Google as "being evil". The fact is, there are gray areas. When it comes to government regulations, tech companies essentially have 2 options: comply or leave the country in question (note Google has already tried to lobby against the law in question). While "leave" sometimes is the only moral option, I totally disagree that this law warrants Google leaving Australia.
- mechanical_bear 4y ago
  I disagree, but appreciate the explanation rather than vote and run.
- DaltonCoffee 4y ago
  Then we agree, at least in principle. I don't know the details of this legislation but I have viewed Australia as a beta test for new tech legislation and worry this sort of authorization barrier could become more common place in Western countries.
- giveupitscrazy 4y ago
  Consider then if Google had decided to leave it would have had a huge negative backlash on the law, given the usefulness of Google. Instead Australia can now get what it wants and the backlash is minimal at best. Meanwhile they can go on to celebrate their dystopian law as working because of the endorsement Google gave them by capitulating. Short term yeah it'd suck for Australia to lose Google but then the law gets changed back, Google comes back, and everyone wins. Well except for the Australian government.