Read on Twitter
Watch a debate on Online Anonymity in Westminster Hall this afternoon at 1430h London time, led by @DamianHinds. Will be interesting to see whether MPs understand that real anonymity includes "from them". HT @WebDevLaw https://alecmuffett.com/article/13791
. @justinmadders shares that he feels Twitter has never gotten back to him regarding abuse reports; I don't share that experience - I receive Twitter notifications of report followups, frequently - so I wonder if he's expecting Direct Messages.
. @ChiOnwurah seems to be angling towards being able to "reveal" anonymity when equipped with the proper legal paperwork... which would not be actual digital anonymity.
. @ChiOnwurah appears, yes, to be demanding a "Right to Identity" on the internet - which is not how identity works at all on the internet, it's not technically possible to "own" data as one "owns" a own a house or a body. This is why we "copyright" speech/data rather than own it
Unclear whether @ChiOnwurah would be content to argue for the converse, that if there is a "Right to Identity", that a converse "Right to Non-Identity" - or: for an online presence to be an identity in-and-of-itself, without reference to Government identity .
. @justinmadders asking about "Tech Giants" have access to lots of data, so "surely identity could be found" ...
...and lo, @ChiOnwurah is hinting towards Social Networks needing to adopt something like KYC / banking "Know Your Customer."
...and lo, @ChiOnwurah is hinting towards Social Networks needing to adopt something like KYC / banking "Know Your Customer."
Perhaps @ChiOnwurah would like people to have to present Government ID in order to sign up for access to Social Networks - like they do in China, or like #Parler did?
Oh, okay, she wants them to use Identity Verification services; this is the "Digital ID Card" thinking again.
Oh, okay, she wants them to use Identity Verification services; this is the "Digital ID Card" thinking again.
The call for Digital Identity and Identity Verification and Age Verification is a perpetual non-solution, because it's not possible to attach identities to data. There is no such glue which can achieve that.
For a fun tramp through this issue, see: https://medium.com/@alecmuffett/a-sequence-of-spankingly-bad-ideas-483cecf4ba89
The only "glue" to maintain a binding between real-world-identity AND a piece of data, is for a platform to create a digital "bucket" which they police and where they maintain pairings of (say) photograph AND login-name.
The problem, then, becomes trust between buckets.
The problem, then, becomes trust between buckets.
With each inter-bucket step of transitive-trust, the trustworthiness diminishes.
. @justinmadders I would be interested whether this committee intends to also address the significant question of non-anonymous abuse? I am a former Facebook security engineer, and Facebook (under criticism) take strong steps to pursue genuine names, real identities for accounts>
<...yet they are frequently held up as a platform where abuse happens. As such, it is largely not anonymous. Whither then the question of anonymity being somehow causative?
<A member is outlining the Online Harms regulations.>
Speaking to "legal but harmful" content, which apparently will be covered under the Online Harms.
"in respect of private communications, making [systems] safer by design" - touching on the steps that Facebook already takes to prevent outreach to minors, grooming, etc.
"in respect of private communications, making [systems] safer by design" - touching on the steps that Facebook already takes to prevent outreach to minors, grooming, etc.
. @ChiOnwurah querying re: whether Trade Deals with (eg: the USA) would risk diluting the protections against Online Harms.
HOO BOY - Minister: "Companies should not wait in order to launch protections against online harms rather than wait for legislation" - AND YET the age-verification providers and adult-content partners for the same, have sat on their hands for months, years, awaiting AV laws.
Evidence for same: https://twitter.com/AlecMuffett/status/1185920474188042240
. Minister is @cj_dinenage - speaking earnestly to law commission reports, may need to refer to this piece of Twitter policy: https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-law-enforcement-support#13.5
. @ChiOnwurah asking whether & why Online Anonymity is not explicitly covered in the #OnlineHarms proposals.
@cj_dinenage chiming with @ChiOnwurah's "right to identity" proposal, but somehow not with whether there is a converse "right to non-identity"
@cj_dinenage chiming with @ChiOnwurah's "right to identity" proposal, but somehow not with whether there is a converse "right to non-identity"
Why should it be incumbent upon Britons to identify themselves to anyone in pursuit of speech?
As Robin Wilton observes - there is no "safe", no "secure", no "private", and no "anonymous" without defining a threat model.
The UK Government is attempting to define a threat model for all Britons. It's not one-size-fits-all, alas. https://twitter.com/futureidentity/status/1349376498373976064
The UK Government is attempting to define a threat model for all Britons. It's not one-size-fits-all, alas. https://twitter.com/futureidentity/status/1349376498373976064
