I'm hoping it's a government or licensed third party provided anonymous token login system, or an email with a protected top level domain like anonymous@citizenverification.au or something.
De facto id will be a massive step backwards, if they move forward despite saying they most likely wouldn't, but not as far backwards as raising a generation on reactionary and divisive social media
They have multiple times deployed not just insecure versions, but insecure protocols, for the system now known as myID. And when people have reported it as insecure - they did their best to ruin the person's life. Getting them fired, blacklisted, and worse.
In no possible future, do I foresee our government managing this as a "good thing".
lol… you must be new here. When has ANY digital initiative gone right the first time from any Australian government.
The last time they tried censorship (aka Stephen Conroy) it was thwarted by a 15 year old and abandoned. Let’s not even talk about their current piracy website ban where all you need to do is point DNS to someone non-Australian.
I'm pretty aware of how inept our government is at these policies, and their surveillance state tendencies (eg undisclosed facial recognition testing at flinder street station). But at this point i think a malicious australian government is less of a threat to the public and our way of life and emotional prosperity than social media.
The Australian Government has been hacked repeatedly, including the time Centrelink was hacked and they didn't even know they had been infiltrated (and attempted to cover it up).
Not to mention their KYC regulations led to the Optus disaster, by forcing telecoms to store PII longer than necessary.
Your position is that everyone in Australia should have their PII exposed because parental responsibility belongs with the state, as parents shouldn't be trusted to parent. It is an absolute CERTAINTY that the ID mandate will be mismanaged and be a security catastrophe.
Don't forget Australian Parliament House was hacked as well.
But this time it'll be different, right? Your position is especially egregious because it is a global ID mandate (and it'll be totally ineffective as a 10 year old can figure out a VPN).
My point is that social media is an active threat to society that is doing vast magnitudes of harm right now, where as authoritarian creep is also a great threat, but it isn't currently eroding our self of self and the sanctity of the individual, and deliberately de-training us to be reactionary animals with no regard for emotional intimacy or others, and nosediving our quality of public discourse. I'm worried of a world where people raised on social media their entire lives that teaches them to think a certain way win their careers through what are increasingly popularity contests in the 21stc, run our institutions and have their hand on our metaphorical red buttons. I don't think our society will have the discipline or the patience or maturity to stay out of unnecessary conflicts or make decisions that are in our long term interests if we keep social media as a formative part of peoples youth.
ID's can be reissued like we saw with optus and while there's a lot of pain and misfortune from insecurity of assets etc we can reverse that, mostly. You can't reverse the childhood of an entire guinea pig generation once you find out that social media mentally broke them. Obviously, assets and security aren't a concern at my age so my perspective might be a little different.
If you have anything about a global ID mandate i'd be interested, because it definitely hasn't been publicised in the media, though that doesn't always count for much.
I have a lot of conflicting views on this, but I think overall we are better off addressing the threat from social media right now.
You might view the current generation of younger people with the notion of at least a warm childhood like your own, and regular life milestones and rite of passages behind whatever struggle they're currently facing as slightly older people. That's increasingly not the case.
ID issues are causing real and active harm, right now. The authoritarian creep has led in part to the current homeless crisis. Vulnerable people have been burnt by KYC requirements (what happens when you don't even have a birth certificate anymore?), and burnt again with the inevitable data breaches when poorly implemented (Optus), and then burnt again due to the country's financial class differences.
ID helps to lock a certain class of people out of government services. That group is generally the disenfranchised, the mentally unwell, the disabled, and the kind of people that always get screwed over. The people those services were set up to help - because helping them is actually cheaper than just letting them cause chaos and then die. Unfortunately, post-setup, that cost is ignored for brownie points with various audiences.
You can't reissue IDs for people when you cancel the only ones that they have.
You can't save a generation, when their entire childhood is spent being attacked on the street because their parents dared to create them.
So your entire argument for supporting U16 ban is that despite knowing that:
- it will put every Australian's PII in the hands of people who have a bad track record on security
- de anonymize the internet as we know it
- make it easy for a foreign actor to break in (remember if there is a backdoor, it will be exploited)
- increase the state's surveillance capabilities on their own citizens
All of this to do what exactly? Save democracy? Save the children? Can you prove that if we do that the outcome would be better than if we did nothing?
Do you have anything tangible in terms of proofs as to what outcome will be achieved?
My take is you don't because if you did, we would not be having this conversation.
My hope is that maybe people will stop viewing life from such a productised and artificial lens that's so far removed from the natural human experience.
Tiktok being not from the US has differently tuned algorithms. That’s why it’s being banned. Now you have the right to be brainwashed only by US-approved algorithms. Don’t be a fool, tolo.
I think you are trolling and your response is just a bunch of word salad without much meaning.
You agree with the ban because you agree with the ban because you think the ban is good. There seem to be no critical analysis as to why this is good besides some supposed good intentions.
> De facto id will be a massive step backwards, if they move forward despite saying they most likely wouldn't
Ah, yes, I too trust government to keep their words. Pinky promises and all that.
> but not as far backwards as raising a generation on reactionary and divisive social media
This is your opinion. You use of "reactionary" in this context implies that whatever views are being shared, you are against them. Instead of winning over people, you prefer the easy solution which is to silence them.
That is not very democratic of you.
Finally if you think that the "division" that most western societies are experiencing currently is only due to social media, then you haven't bothered researching theses topics.
These problems that are coming to light now have been a long time in the making. In reality decades, but before the governing powers could simply pretend that they did not exist whereas now, it is plain sight.
Silencing opposing voices is not moral and it is delusional to think that this will fix the broken state of western democracies just like sweeping the dust under the carpet doesn't mean that your apartment is clean.
De facto id will be a massive step backwards, if they move forward despite saying they most likely wouldn't, but not as far backwards as raising a generation on reactionary and divisive social media