upvote

points

by dwedge6 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby sixtyj6 hours ago|
next
[-]
Some people have been saying for so long that you should need a license to use the internet, and now that we have it, it's a little different than we intended :(
reply
upvoteby rockskon5 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
We don't have it yet and there is still time to head this off. Not much time - but still time! Talk to your federal lawmakers and state AG's office!
reply
upvoteby mothballed6 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
I'd argue it's more like KYC for the internet. Something HN users have brutally and ruthlessly defended for banking every time I argue it's a 4A violation (in fact, it's one of the most fiercely defended things anytime I bring it up).

Give in 20+ years and you'll be called a kook for thinking otherwise.

reply
upvoteby kbelder4 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
KYC is one of the greatest government overreaches in the last several decades. I'll back you up on that.
reply
upvoteby tired-turtle5 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Can you explain the connection between KYC in banking and the Fourth Amendment? How does KYC constitute a government search/seizure?
reply
upvoteby mothballed5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
The government requires the bank to search your identity documents to open an account, even when there is no individualized suspicion you've broken the law as to why your papers need to be searched, as part of the KYC regulations passed post 9/11. Technically it's not in the statute that they actually search your documents, but rather enforced through a byzantine series of federal regulatory frameworks that basically require them to do something that approximates "industry standard" KYC compliance which ends up being, verifying the customer through inspecting their identity and perhaps other documents. This is why i.e. when I was homeless even my passport couldn't open an account anywhere -- they wanted my passport plus some document showing an address to satisfy KYC requirements.

Maybe I will have more energy for it tomorrow, I've been through this probably a couple dozen times on HN and I don't have the energy to go through the whole rigmarole today because usually it results in 2-3 days of someone fiercely disagreeing down some long chain and in the end I provide all the evidence and by that point no one is paying attention and it just goes into this pyrrhic victory where I get drained dry just for no one to give a shit. I should probably consolidate it into a blog post or something.

reply
upvoteby DennisP5 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Fwiw I lean to your side and would be interesting in reading what you have to say about it.
reply
upvoteby sneak5 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
I’d happily host that blog. Contact info is in my profile.
reply
upvoteby brandensilva5 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
It isn't a coincidence we have two Palantir articles on the front page and this. It's in the cards and American's seem to be ignoring it and are more than happy to accept the dystopian future where this leads.

It's incredibly sad as an optimistic person trying to find any silver lining here.

reply
upvoteby latency-guy26 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Bad actors like --

William Tong, Anne E. Lopez, Dave Yost, Jonathan Skrmetti, Gwen Tauiliili-Langkilde, Kris Mayes, Tim Griffin, Rob Bonta, Phil Weiser, Kathleen Jennings, Brian Schwalb, Christopher M. Carr, Kwame Raoul, Todd Rokita, Kris Kobach, Russell Coleman, Liz Murrill, Aaron M. Frey, Anthony G. Brown, Andrea Joy Campbell, Dana Nessel, Keith Ellison, Lynn Fitch, Catherine L. Hanaway, Aaron D. Ford, John M. Formella, Jennifer Davenport, Raúl Torrez, Letitia James, Drew H. Wrigley, Gentner Drummond, Dan Rayfield, Dave Sunday, Peter F. Neronha, Alan Wilson, Marty Jackley, Gordon C. Rhea, Derek Brown, Charity Clark, and Keith Kautz

--

Always operate under the assumption that the people serve the state, not the other way around. There are some names in that list that are outwardly infamous of this behavior, and none are surprising considering what type of person looks to be an AG. Maybe fighting fire with fire is appropriate - no such thing as a private life for any of these people, all their communications are open to the public 100% of the time and there are precisely 0 instances where it is not the case. It's only fair considering that is what their goal is for everyone not of the state.

reply
upvoteby plagiarist6 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Poettering will help get us remote attestation on Linux so we won't have to switch to Windows when it dies.
reply
upvoteby halJordan5 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
It's already the law in California. I don't remember any outrage here when it was passed there.
reply
upvoteby rockskon5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
No it isn't. There is no law in California that mandates showing an ID to see ambiguously-defined adult content.
reply