I agree.

But, staying silent when influential figures make extreme statements isn’t neutrality, it’s acceptance. Passively enduring these shifts in public discourse is exactly how extreme ideas become normalized.

I’m always open to discussing

This is what I want to believe, that he is aware.
Yet he decides to use a expression in quotes with a intent, and this is what scares me.

That’s a good read that I didn’t had when I first wrote the post. I think it would change how I would put the words there. But this is a after, the post is now public.

Thanks for sharing,

It’s clear that you want attention. Here a token of attention for you. From the author, imagine that!

But you don’t know much of what you are talking. Read about the author of the game, read about the circumstances of the game (when the first was released) and then think about this phrase in this context.

Damn you, you got attention and learning from this!

Holy mother,
From all the shite mud I had to digg I finally found this nugget of gold.

I never though from this angle. But using the premise I started in the post, you are right, Atheism would be just another religion. I need to ponder on this this is a very good argument. Thanks for the comment.

I think I got your point.

But if a system is done in a proper secure way, and does have the proper audits, this won’t be a problem in my humble view.

Voting online does carry a different problem, the anonymity problem. If the vote is open and visible to everyone, online voting carrying a CitzenID + Hash from a user focused device, should be enough. Of course this would still bring other problems

(multiple devices for the same person, or old devices trying to mimic a user… there is plenty of problems, mostly a business problem, not a technical one)

In my blog post I describe a similar flow for data access that follows similar steps.

Looks like we were thinking on the same path.

Usually done with a government issued ID, which wasn’t digital, the moment it is digital how to prevent from being used (the information) without your consent?

I understand the feeling on the dictatorship view of the things.

The problem, in my perspective is that, the wrong set of people (aka.: big tech) already have this data, if not even more than data, or the private surveillance companies (aka.: pala||n%t65||) have this data.

This is where the danger lives. This data can and will be used for profit. To pray on the small guy, to make life of the common worse.

I know that the regime in some countries (like US), trusting the government is hard. But with the right set of audits, encryption and some push from the people. Data can be secure and private store. And only with the permission of the owner of the data provided to the right person, for the right amount of time.

Just to be clear, I know this is mostly wishful thinking, and utopian view.
But we need to start in some point this change.

I agree, on the past […]

This, to some extent, already exists as law in the US. In some jurisdictions, the OS must soon request the age from the user and provide it to some applications. It’s not verification though, or at least it’s not required to be.

Sadly the regime in US is kind of crazy right now. So the trust in the government is degrading, and maybe can be recover in the next decade. But for sure change is needed, on the age verification also.

But I think that age verification should be a device level API, and this follows to the next…

Linux users could simply add a simple form with “I was born 01-01-1900” […]

This started a whole war over systemd even adding a field for it (not a form). If they added a required form, it would probably start WW3.

Linux is a unique case, while they are open, flexible and easy to make your own distro, this also implies that a public distro should implement this API, and since this API is on the OS not on Kernel. Which means people fighting, but they can just ignore this API and make it return false to any and every request.

While distros like Ubuntu and maybe Fedora would follow (providing the baseline for the dependent distros), so they can also add a third-party validation layer, which also can be replaced with the government, or a fake one that always says that you are over 99 years old.

Truth to be told, this is a band-aid on the storage and ownership problem, the focus of the post. With the correct layer the OS can keep your “age” with a lease, and you on your phone can use the app to renew the lease whenever you need.

Again, this isn’t a perfect solution, I would even call it a solution since it have so many holes in it. But it’s the point of the conversation.

But on the MicroSlop, Gargle and iPear worlds, […]

No thanks. I’m not validating, so I’d be picking up the next Motorola phone with GrapheneOS on it instead.

Hell yeah!
Totally, and with fake API’s to make every page guessing my age wrong! This data sucker can suck my…
Jokes aside, I’m with you on this one, let the OS choose, even if this is just a form with “Birth” field and let the government verification as a different problem.

Like I discussed in the post, the moment you have heavy fines for keeping illegal data, and requires the user to take action to lease the information, we will start to notice how much data these big-tech have on us.

Ps.: Thanks for reading the post and following on the conversation.

I agree, on the past I had a proposal that the OS should have a device level API to provide this information, in this case apps and (the browser as an APP) would be able to consume this information from the device. And it’s up to the device manufacturer (or the OS installed) to add a age system.

I not denying that there is holes in this idea. Linux users could simply add a simple form with “I was born 01-01-1900” and everything would continue the same. But on the MicroSlop, Gargle and iPear worlds, they would be able to validate once and keep the information on the device. And each webpage, app and such won’t be able to ingest your personal/private data.

On this post, I do explore little bit this, but I do focus on the idea of storage and access of data.

Did you read the post?
It’s not that. It’s clearly a distrust (which is also part of the post).
But the problem with trust can be solved with “how to access data”.

Edit.
Since you clearly didn’t read here a snippet

[…] if you don’t trust the government, the encrypted data is useless to the government, and we can audit it, including audit by private companies. So even if we don’t trust the government, it can work.[…]

[…] If a company can’t store my personal data, how can they access it? […]

If you don’t trust, that’s fine. This is good. Government should be transparent, and should be auditable. To be honest we have close ideas, and we want the same thing (I guess), privacy and security for our data.

(and keep our data away from datahouses and bigtech)

That was a little bit agressive. I’ll give you the opportunity to learn from your mistake and discuss what bother you in this blog post.