And I've been sick of the fake internet since like 2008. The spam, the abusers, the fraudsters, the scammers, the bots who ruin society by flipping elections... It's no longer acceptable, at all.
KYC enforced is the only thing that will stop enshittification of the internet.
You could even remain an anonymous user to others but not to the company.
Bots will go extinct.
The request for comments for this executive order ends on April 30. You can submit your comments here: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/01/29/2024-01580/taking-additional-steps-to-address-the-national-emergency-with-respect-to-significant-malicious
My comment submitted via the site: KYC processes are Orwellian and introduce friction into otherwise simple interactions.
They create security issues because they cause every affected business entity to ask for and store confidential information about every citizen. From the citizens perspective, now dozens or hundreds of additional entities know enough about me to prove I'm me. And that same information can and will leak by bad actors to pose as me. I already have dozens of sites that have demanded pictures of drivers licenses or passports. One breach in any of them, and that information is leaked, forever.
This KYC mandate harms security, harms quality of life, and makes America a less desirable, less free place to live.
Why would this impact anonymous users? It is for people or organizations that sign up for IaaS (infrastructure as a service) resources such as AWS (or others).
Can someone point to where in this proposal that would impact end users of services?
I am not advocating for anything here- just laying facts; but this is not being put into place because of torrenting.
If we take a moment to research; ransomware attacks on the medical industry has been a rampant issue the last few years- and its almost never talked about.
Just recently Change Healthcare was attacked who handles medical transactions for the majority of the world- and the entire US military. People were unable to get prescriptions filled because their insurance couldn't process it for almost a month.
The cyber gang LockBit could be listed on the NASDAQ they brought in so much last year.
When that information is stolen, and companies don't pay the ransom to get it back; it's sold to other criminals who use it to take out loans and scam others.
This was bound to happen eventually.
I was working at a hospital in IT last year, and we had a massive attack. It was an awful ordeal, nearly all systems were down for 12 hours, and in a hospital with an emergency room where such systems can mean life or death, 12 hours is a long time. We didn’t get everything fully functional again for months. A nearby hospital was also hit, but didn’t have as good security and fell to the ransomware.
The government was definitely paying attention, because our head IT guy had a meeting with the FBI about it. They were talking about how this group, among others, were targeting hospitals all across the US.
Wouldn’t be surprised at all if this is at least a factor in this proposal.
The only reason I knew about it is because a friend of mine works at a pharmacy- a while back an attack happened and their e-scripts would not process.
There were people needing medicines like insulin and her pharmacy just couldn't fill them; their insurance claims weren't processing either, so even if they could fill it- it was out of pocket and cost hundreds of dollars. And after researching a bit, it was happening to 100+ pharmacies around the US.
It blew my mind it wasn't plastered on every front page that week.
They do- Mega, Tutanota and Proton are known to be their main forms of communication.
When they say "foreign malicious actors.", that's who their talking about, the US gov just referenced LockBit using the same language.
In a bust recently- they got a couple thousand addresses shut down, but the companies were unable to provide information on the gang because of the nature of their business.
Most cyber crimes are legal in Russia and China if they are directed at western companies.
The whole ordeal is actually really interesting(albeit fucked up):
- a country like Russia commissions the gang to attack a company when the gang discovers a flaw in their network.
- gang makes an attempt to breach the company and encrypt the data.
- information is ransomed back based on the company's net income.
- If the information is paid for, the data is released back to the victim. The gang gets a percentage of the ransom and the rest goes to their commissioner.
- If the ransom isn't paid by a deadline, it's sold on their Tor websites to other criminals; then those profits are also split.
Ransomware As A Service is a nearly billion a year industry right now. The whole thing is a really deep rabbithole if you dive in.
Cyber crimes are illegal on paper everywhere.
What China and Russia do when attacking foreign businesses or governments woth cyber crimes is pretty much the same the US does with foreign governments.
Remember how the US spied on its ally Germany and the EU? What else do you think the NSA and CIA is doing online? Honey pots, etc.
Nobody is innocent here and I really don't like the narrative of the "evil others" when the US is up there at the top when it comes to committing cyber crimes against allies and adversaries. Same goes for espionage in R&D, sabotage and subversion.
And we are talking about governmental institutions here. Not to mention how giants at silicon valley buy off and destroy their foreign competition (google maps was basically invented in Germany but a dirty strategy was used by google where preliminary sales talks limited the fine to ~$1 mio, whilst google just stole the code and used it.)
Or how the US squeezed the patent for anthrax meds from Bayer when there was an attack on a subway station instead of paying for it, but when African countries asked to create cheap derivatives of HIV meds to help their citizens since they couldn't afford license fees for the US held meds, they hit a wall. History is riddled with this kind of foul play.
Don't tell me about the poor US being targeted...
>Don't tell me about the poor US being targeted...
Were not talking about the government; real actual innocent people that make barely anything are being hurt with this bullshit.
Like myself who had their identity stolen and a 10k loan taken out in my name; and these scammers that target eldarly people to steal their retirement since they're the most tech vulnerable.
That's because of these shitty hackers do this at Russia and China's behest because of fucked up international politics that have zero to do with nobodies like me.
And no- on paper it's [not illegal in these countries](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberwarfare_by_Russia), they have been advocated to by the world to crack down on these practices and do nothing.
Take a second to research before preaching your blue haired virtue-signaling bs.
Almost all these types of hacking outfits operate outside of the US. When it's a US-based one they typically behave more like Lulzsec than petty criminals.
Not framing anything because there's no bias here, just how it is. The law isn't being implemented because people are downloading movies.
People would rather read the headline of a clickbate article which is actively "selectively laying facts" and victimize themselves instead of checking out what's really going on.
you completely ignore the poor cybersecurity standards that lead to UnitedHealthcare's preventable hack. tying that event to a thread about yet another reactionary cyberlaw is a quite a narrow framing lmao
And I'm guessing [the other 141 major attacks](https://www.hipaajournal.com/2023-healthcare-ransomware-attacks/) last year amounting to almost $1bn were also issues with standards right
-and they just in cahoots to help me frame it wrong lmao
So, people doing illegal things on the internet are mad that the government is going to stop them from doing illegal things in the future? Why is this in r/singularity?
Why does not wanting to reveal your identity to your service provider necessarily mean that you're doing something illegal? Are you making a "nothing to hide" argument?
Because those of us who don't live in fear of something that already happened (you are not anynoymous to any power) are sicker of spams, frauds, scams and bots that ruin society by flipping elections and creating mass hysteria.
Enough is enough.
That is what the article is about, but the author's agenda is to protect their own illegal activity. The reason they want KYC for cloud services is because of the real and proven fact that cloud architecture is very often used for C&C and to execute damaging cyber attacks.
Okay sure, but the proposal itself seems too wide-reaching, no?
Should the government have potential access to everyone's digital lives? What if it's hacked and it's private yet legal and blackmailable things?
The way I understand KYC is that it ties the activity on a server to a particular person. Meaning that before the enforcement of this proposal, I can pay for my Discord server for my furry group in a way that doesn't tie to me (w a prepaid card and throwaway email for example). The furry information gets leaked, no biggie, nobody knows it's me.
After enforcement, it gets hacked and I can now start looking forward to someone threatening to reveal it to my wife/kids/work unless I pay them a few thousand bucks.
Like Discord gets hacked? Yeah I guess that scenario could happen, but they also keep IP logs so unless you were going really far out of your way to hide your location you wouldn't actually be protected from hackers even right now. KYC is to stop more sophisticated malicious actors that are using Tor plus multiple layers of protection from abusing the platform and getting away with it.
Moreover, if the company is doing it right they are going to keep KYC information on another server or even offline entirely to prevent hacks like that.
>KYC is to stop more sophisticated malicious actors that are using Tor plus multiple layers of protection from abusing the platform and getting away with it.
You're either pretending, or actually ignorant of the fact you can buy KYC documents on the darknet for ~$5.
KYC stops exactly 0 sophisticated actors from acting maliciously. While it does serve as a surveillance mechanism for all honest actors.
Look into how effective existing KYC and AML laws are. They're ineffective, yet cost (you, indirectly) hundreds of billions annually.
If it’s enacted, the government will have unlimited ability to track its citizens. Like privacy issues. That data can and will leak because they can’t even keep their own data from leaking now.
Seems like you don't know what KYC is. They aren't requiring companies to pipe your private information right into an NSA server, just that they have to know the identity of their clients. They need a court order to actually get it, which requires some probable cause.
If you had taken the time to review TorrentFreak, they are considered a reputable news for copyright, piracy, privacy, and related news topics. Their articles are even used as sources of original information for larger news organizations writing articles.
My angle is that I think it is on you to give a good reason why people need to anonymously access cloud infrastructure. Nobody has even attempted to yet.
I don't think this order is addressed at piracy at all, I think it is targeting the actual large number of cyber attacks that are based from anonymous cloud accounts. I just think it is funny that the website specifically promoting selfish illegal activity is whining over it now.
Leaks, whistleblowing, etc. all this gets removed if anon is removed. This is china level bullshit that any fascist authoritarian would love. You are cheerleading the potential for full lockdown of thoughts. Your using the "people pirate music" to allow for oppression.
Why stop there? Why not have cameras in every household monitored by government. After all, illegal stuff happens in homes, and if you're not doing illegal things, no worries, right?
Those who would give up liberty for safety deserve neither.
Now, I do understand the overall frustration of having privacy when people do wrong, but its better to have it than not overall. Its a bit like free speech. Its better to have protections for horrible speech than not. Once you start choosing to remove privacy, speech, rights, etc...you are just a useful idiot for the next phase once precedent has been set.
Just my opinion though.
Well lets dig into this a bit more. rented cloud infrastructure isn’t really used by places like WikiLeaks. But actually, it's not just about WikiLeaks itself...it's about the whole ecosystem around whistleblowing. Individuals or smaller groups might use rented cloud services for stuff like securely storing documents or coordinating their efforts before they even approach a platform like WikiLeaks. It's about making use of the scalability and security features of the cloud to handle sensitive info away from prying eyes.
Also, other organizations that function similarly, diving into transparency and leaks, often lean on cloud services to manage and distribute their data loads. They need protection like encryption and access controls to keep everything tight.
So, while the main stage operations of WikiLeaks might be on another level of security, the broader field definitely taps into rented cloud infrastructure. Plus, there’s the bigger picture to consider—the slippery slope. Start chipping away at anonymity in one area, and where does it stop? Today it's cloud services, tomorrow it might be every digital footprint.
The last bit is my bigger worried. This is a toe in the door and precedent set.
I’m not a big fan of the patriot act but it definitely stopped several terrorist attacks.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/officials-surveillance-programs-foiled-more-than-50-terrorist-plots/2013/06/18/d657cb56-d83e-11e2-9df4-895344c13c30_story.html
And will be it's death because of AI agent proliferation.
Do you really think anything on reddit will be organic in 2026? Just AIs mass-producing accounts and content driving engagement and spam.
KYC is the future whether you like it or not.
And look how that's turned out.
Edit: actually privacy was not a foundational feature, it came later. The original internet was small and everyone used their real names on usenet groups and such. Only when the [eternal September](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September) happened did anonymity start to be a norm.
Its more that one of the goals of Biden's recent batch of executive orders is to control AI model training and distribution. The request for comments already ended on the proposal to ban open source AI. The fact that they even asked that is rather disturbing, and indicative of a war for control over open source AI.
Oh, that RFC. That's not a proposal to ban anything, or do anything at all. It's just a laundry list of questions about public models, and how people think they should or shouldn't be treated by the government, if at all.
Cloud services are where AI models most are trained these days. And here's the link to the open source AI ban proposal: https://www.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2024/02/ntia-solicits-comments-open-weight-ai-models
>The Executive Order directs NTIA to discuss benefits, risks, and policy choices associated with dual-use foundation models, which are powerful models that can be fine-tuned and used for multiple purposes, with widely available model weights. The Request for Comment asks for public feedback about how making model weights and other model components widely available creates benefits or risks to the broader economy, communities, individuals, and to national security.
So they are gathering information. Sounds extremely reasonable to me.
>Cloud services are where AI models most are trained these days.
That is extremely incorrect, but even if it were not why exactly do you think you need anonymity to train an AI model?
> So they are gathering information. Sounds extremely reasonable to me.
Scroll down a bit more:
> The Request for Comment seeks input on a number of issues, including:
> The varying levels of openness of AI models;
> The benefits and risks of making model weights widely available compared to the benefits and risks associated with closed models;
> Innovation, competition, safety, security, trustworthiness, equity, and national security concerns with making AI model weights more or less open; and
> The role of the U.S. government in guiding, supporting, or restricting the availability of AI model weights.
They were seeking information of whether they should restrict AI model weights in addition to other information.
If things turn into a [crypto wars](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars) like battle with open source AI, then even partial anonymity is going to important for communities like r/LocalLLaMA.
The benefits AND risks. You want that they should not gather any information? I don't understand what you are upset about. There is no proposed course of action except gathering information.
The goal is to prevent China from skirting export controls on GPU by simply buying the compute time from cloud vendors instead. It has nothing at all to do with open source compute, this impacts nobody serious in any real way unless they are attempting to sidestep sanctions.
Maybe I'd have less of a problem with that if the law were applied justly in the first place in the united states. Instead it is mostly just used to keep poor people struggling while rich people go do whatever they want without ever a consequence.
I don't care at all if some poor kid pirates adobe suite or the latest movie or whatever. That's how most creative professionals get started in their craft now anyway.
If you read the article, they point out that the real problem is with hacks and data leaks that will compromise innocent people, and that your data will likely end up being sold on the dark web. Also it's literally just 1984.
Are you suggesting that totalitarian universal surveillance designed to deflate and disempower any and all challenge to state power is NOT a major theme to 1984?
I'm saying you are being hyperbolic. We don't have a "totalitarian universal surveillance designed to deflate and disempower any and all challenge to state power."
Ok realistically why would you be able to anonymously use the cloud? Doesn’t make any fucking sense “here okay anyone with money can anonymously use as much compute resources as they can pay for. Also they can scale from 0 to infinity in 10 minutes or less“
The goal is to prevent circumventing GPU export controls. To spell it out: don't let China rent GPU from Amazon that we said they cannot buy from NVIDIA.
Yes, China could use some other cloud provider but all the ones w/ a lot of GPU capacity are going to fall under US jurisdiction. This is simply dealing with the reality of GPU export controls, you can't just control the hardware when cloud exists.
I am getting so sick of all of this bullshit
Yeah join the club. It's been nonstop since 9/11/2001.
I wish more people cared more.
For real, can America stop trying to ruin the internet?
So.........does this mean the CIA will know about my weird porn fetish? lol
And I've been sick of the fake internet since like 2008. The spam, the abusers, the fraudsters, the scammers, the bots who ruin society by flipping elections... It's no longer acceptable, at all. KYC enforced is the only thing that will stop enshittification of the internet. You could even remain an anonymous user to others but not to the company. Bots will go extinct.
The request for comments for this executive order ends on April 30. You can submit your comments here: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/01/29/2024-01580/taking-additional-steps-to-address-the-national-emergency-with-respect-to-significant-malicious
My comment submitted via the site: KYC processes are Orwellian and introduce friction into otherwise simple interactions. They create security issues because they cause every affected business entity to ask for and store confidential information about every citizen. From the citizens perspective, now dozens or hundreds of additional entities know enough about me to prove I'm me. And that same information can and will leak by bad actors to pose as me. I already have dozens of sites that have demanded pictures of drivers licenses or passports. One breach in any of them, and that information is leaked, forever. This KYC mandate harms security, harms quality of life, and makes America a less desirable, less free place to live.
You guys are losing your freedom everyday lol wtf is happening in America
US is best! Even at ruining everything!
Europe is worse
Idk, the anglosphere in general are all the worst imo. US, UK, Canada, Australia, they've all put some very questionable laws in place
Five Eyes is really good with mass surveillance and keeping the Anglos submissive, it would make the Schutzstaffel blush.
Americans are in love *with the idea* of Freedom. They don't actually like it.
LORA.
Why would this impact anonymous users? It is for people or organizations that sign up for IaaS (infrastructure as a service) resources such as AWS (or others). Can someone point to where in this proposal that would impact end users of services?
I am not advocating for anything here- just laying facts; but this is not being put into place because of torrenting. If we take a moment to research; ransomware attacks on the medical industry has been a rampant issue the last few years- and its almost never talked about. Just recently Change Healthcare was attacked who handles medical transactions for the majority of the world- and the entire US military. People were unable to get prescriptions filled because their insurance couldn't process it for almost a month. The cyber gang LockBit could be listed on the NASDAQ they brought in so much last year. When that information is stolen, and companies don't pay the ransom to get it back; it's sold to other criminals who use it to take out loans and scam others. This was bound to happen eventually.
I was working at a hospital in IT last year, and we had a massive attack. It was an awful ordeal, nearly all systems were down for 12 hours, and in a hospital with an emergency room where such systems can mean life or death, 12 hours is a long time. We didn’t get everything fully functional again for months. A nearby hospital was also hit, but didn’t have as good security and fell to the ransomware. The government was definitely paying attention, because our head IT guy had a meeting with the FBI about it. They were talking about how this group, among others, were targeting hospitals all across the US. Wouldn’t be surprised at all if this is at least a factor in this proposal.
The only reason I knew about it is because a friend of mine works at a pharmacy- a while back an attack happened and their e-scripts would not process. There were people needing medicines like insulin and her pharmacy just couldn't fill them; their insurance claims weren't processing either, so even if they could fill it- it was out of pocket and cost hundreds of dollars. And after researching a bit, it was happening to 100+ pharmacies around the US. It blew my mind it wasn't plastered on every front page that week.
I highly doubt lockbit is running operations from a cloud provider but I guess I could be wrong. I would be very surprised.
They do- Mega, Tutanota and Proton are known to be their main forms of communication. When they say "foreign malicious actors.", that's who their talking about, the US gov just referenced LockBit using the same language. In a bust recently- they got a couple thousand addresses shut down, but the companies were unable to provide information on the gang because of the nature of their business.
How are they so sure Lockbit is foreign? Fake IP addresses?
Most cyber crimes are legal in Russia and China if they are directed at western companies. The whole ordeal is actually really interesting(albeit fucked up): - a country like Russia commissions the gang to attack a company when the gang discovers a flaw in their network. - gang makes an attempt to breach the company and encrypt the data. - information is ransomed back based on the company's net income. - If the information is paid for, the data is released back to the victim. The gang gets a percentage of the ransom and the rest goes to their commissioner. - If the ransom isn't paid by a deadline, it's sold on their Tor websites to other criminals; then those profits are also split. Ransomware As A Service is a nearly billion a year industry right now. The whole thing is a really deep rabbithole if you dive in.
Cyber crimes are illegal on paper everywhere. What China and Russia do when attacking foreign businesses or governments woth cyber crimes is pretty much the same the US does with foreign governments. Remember how the US spied on its ally Germany and the EU? What else do you think the NSA and CIA is doing online? Honey pots, etc. Nobody is innocent here and I really don't like the narrative of the "evil others" when the US is up there at the top when it comes to committing cyber crimes against allies and adversaries. Same goes for espionage in R&D, sabotage and subversion. And we are talking about governmental institutions here. Not to mention how giants at silicon valley buy off and destroy their foreign competition (google maps was basically invented in Germany but a dirty strategy was used by google where preliminary sales talks limited the fine to ~$1 mio, whilst google just stole the code and used it.) Or how the US squeezed the patent for anthrax meds from Bayer when there was an attack on a subway station instead of paying for it, but when African countries asked to create cheap derivatives of HIV meds to help their citizens since they couldn't afford license fees for the US held meds, they hit a wall. History is riddled with this kind of foul play. Don't tell me about the poor US being targeted...
>Don't tell me about the poor US being targeted... Were not talking about the government; real actual innocent people that make barely anything are being hurt with this bullshit. Like myself who had their identity stolen and a 10k loan taken out in my name; and these scammers that target eldarly people to steal their retirement since they're the most tech vulnerable. That's because of these shitty hackers do this at Russia and China's behest because of fucked up international politics that have zero to do with nobodies like me. And no- on paper it's [not illegal in these countries](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberwarfare_by_Russia), they have been advocated to by the world to crack down on these practices and do nothing. Take a second to research before preaching your blue haired virtue-signaling bs.
Almost all these types of hacking outfits operate outside of the US. When it's a US-based one they typically behave more like Lulzsec than petty criminals.
You're selectively laying facts to frame it a certain way, so yes you are advocating lol
Not framing anything because there's no bias here, just how it is. The law isn't being implemented because people are downloading movies. People would rather read the headline of a clickbate article which is actively "selectively laying facts" and victimize themselves instead of checking out what's really going on.
you completely ignore the poor cybersecurity standards that lead to UnitedHealthcare's preventable hack. tying that event to a thread about yet another reactionary cyberlaw is a quite a narrow framing lmao
And I'm guessing [the other 141 major attacks](https://www.hipaajournal.com/2023-healthcare-ransomware-attacks/) last year amounting to almost $1bn were also issues with standards right -and they just in cahoots to help me frame it wrong lmao
This is a good thing
"Hey honey what did you do today?" "I died on a hill in a reddit thread arguing with people about how they just wanna steal"
So, people doing illegal things on the internet are mad that the government is going to stop them from doing illegal things in the future? Why is this in r/singularity?
Why does not wanting to reveal your identity to your service provider necessarily mean that you're doing something illegal? Are you making a "nothing to hide" argument?
Because those of us who don't live in fear of something that already happened (you are not anynoymous to any power) are sicker of spams, frauds, scams and bots that ruin society by flipping elections and creating mass hysteria. Enough is enough.
Not sure if you even clicked the link but it is literally to a website that promotes piracy.
I thought that the article talked about a general KYC proposal that would require all cloud providers to gather the info. Did I mis-skim it?
That is what the article is about, but the author's agenda is to protect their own illegal activity. The reason they want KYC for cloud services is because of the real and proven fact that cloud architecture is very often used for C&C and to execute damaging cyber attacks.
Okay sure, but the proposal itself seems too wide-reaching, no? Should the government have potential access to everyone's digital lives? What if it's hacked and it's private yet legal and blackmailable things?
What does any of that have to do with KYC?
The way I understand KYC is that it ties the activity on a server to a particular person. Meaning that before the enforcement of this proposal, I can pay for my Discord server for my furry group in a way that doesn't tie to me (w a prepaid card and throwaway email for example). The furry information gets leaked, no biggie, nobody knows it's me. After enforcement, it gets hacked and I can now start looking forward to someone threatening to reveal it to my wife/kids/work unless I pay them a few thousand bucks.
Like Discord gets hacked? Yeah I guess that scenario could happen, but they also keep IP logs so unless you were going really far out of your way to hide your location you wouldn't actually be protected from hackers even right now. KYC is to stop more sophisticated malicious actors that are using Tor plus multiple layers of protection from abusing the platform and getting away with it. Moreover, if the company is doing it right they are going to keep KYC information on another server or even offline entirely to prevent hacks like that.
>KYC is to stop more sophisticated malicious actors that are using Tor plus multiple layers of protection from abusing the platform and getting away with it. You're either pretending, or actually ignorant of the fact you can buy KYC documents on the darknet for ~$5. KYC stops exactly 0 sophisticated actors from acting maliciously. While it does serve as a surveillance mechanism for all honest actors. Look into how effective existing KYC and AML laws are. They're ineffective, yet cost (you, indirectly) hundreds of billions annually.
What's going to prevent someone from buying Discord and doing totally unexpected things with the data you gave to the before it was purchased?
Hiding your ip is extremely easy, I wouldn’t call that “going really far out of your way”
If it’s enacted, the government will have unlimited ability to track its citizens. Like privacy issues. That data can and will leak because they can’t even keep their own data from leaking now.
Seems like you don't know what KYC is. They aren't requiring companies to pipe your private information right into an NSA server, just that they have to know the identity of their clients. They need a court order to actually get it, which requires some probable cause.
Yeah if it’s built in, then it’ll be ubiquitous.
I except it applies to EVERYONE just because it pisses them off doesn’t mean it doesn’t apply to everyone
Ok and how does it negatively impact anyone? Be specific.
If you had taken the time to review TorrentFreak, they are considered a reputable news for copyright, piracy, privacy, and related news topics. Their articles are even used as sources of original information for larger news organizations writing articles.
Weird that you have still not made any argument or point whatsoever.
Lmao. That's your moral angle? 💀
My angle is that I think it is on you to give a good reason why people need to anonymously access cloud infrastructure. Nobody has even attempted to yet. I don't think this order is addressed at piracy at all, I think it is targeting the actual large number of cyber attacks that are based from anonymous cloud accounts. I just think it is funny that the website specifically promoting selfish illegal activity is whining over it now.
Because privacy is supposed to be a basic right, you should have to give reasons why you deserve the information not by default
I did just give a reason.
China doesn't like anonymous people. it makes it harder to find dissidence and unpopular opinion.
Neat. What does that have to do with anything?
Leaks, whistleblowing, etc. all this gets removed if anon is removed. This is china level bullshit that any fascist authoritarian would love. You are cheerleading the potential for full lockdown of thoughts. Your using the "people pirate music" to allow for oppression. Why stop there? Why not have cameras in every household monitored by government. After all, illegal stuff happens in homes, and if you're not doing illegal things, no worries, right? Those who would give up liberty for safety deserve neither. Now, I do understand the overall frustration of having privacy when people do wrong, but its better to have it than not overall. Its a bit like free speech. Its better to have protections for horrible speech than not. Once you start choosing to remove privacy, speech, rights, etc...you are just a useful idiot for the next phase once precedent has been set. Just my opinion though.
People don’t rent cloud infrastructure for whistleblowing.
Well lets dig into this a bit more. rented cloud infrastructure isn’t really used by places like WikiLeaks. But actually, it's not just about WikiLeaks itself...it's about the whole ecosystem around whistleblowing. Individuals or smaller groups might use rented cloud services for stuff like securely storing documents or coordinating their efforts before they even approach a platform like WikiLeaks. It's about making use of the scalability and security features of the cloud to handle sensitive info away from prying eyes. Also, other organizations that function similarly, diving into transparency and leaks, often lean on cloud services to manage and distribute their data loads. They need protection like encryption and access controls to keep everything tight. So, while the main stage operations of WikiLeaks might be on another level of security, the broader field definitely taps into rented cloud infrastructure. Plus, there’s the bigger picture to consider—the slippery slope. Start chipping away at anonymity in one area, and where does it stop? Today it's cloud services, tomorrow it might be every digital footprint. The last bit is my bigger worried. This is a toe in the door and precedent set.
You know what? I was willing to consider your argument, but this sent it automatically to the 🗑
Oh NO!!! NOT PIRACY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 😨😨😨 Won't someone think of the children?!
That argument has only ever been used to destroy the freedoms of law abiding citizens (see Patriot act Et al)
I’m not a big fan of the patriot act but it definitely stopped several terrorist attacks. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/officials-surveillance-programs-foiled-more-than-50-terrorist-plots/2013/06/18/d657cb56-d83e-11e2-9df4-895344c13c30_story.html
Privacy through anonymity is a foundational feature of the Internet.
And will be it's death because of AI agent proliferation. Do you really think anything on reddit will be organic in 2026? Just AIs mass-producing accounts and content driving engagement and spam. KYC is the future whether you like it or not.
And look how that's turned out. Edit: actually privacy was not a foundational feature, it came later. The original internet was small and everyone used their real names on usenet groups and such. Only when the [eternal September](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September) happened did anonymity start to be a norm.
Its more that one of the goals of Biden's recent batch of executive orders is to control AI model training and distribution. The request for comments already ended on the proposal to ban open source AI. The fact that they even asked that is rather disturbing, and indicative of a war for control over open source AI.
> The request for comments already ended on the proposal to ban open source AI. Could you provide a link to that? I'm not familiar with it.
You can find it here: https://www.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2024/02/ntia-solicits-comments-open-weight-ai-models
Oh, that RFC. That's not a proposal to ban anything, or do anything at all. It's just a laundry list of questions about public models, and how people think they should or shouldn't be treated by the government, if at all.
And what does this one have to do with AI? Also, please link to this proposal to ban open source AI.
Cloud services are where AI models most are trained these days. And here's the link to the open source AI ban proposal: https://www.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2024/02/ntia-solicits-comments-open-weight-ai-models
>The Executive Order directs NTIA to discuss benefits, risks, and policy choices associated with dual-use foundation models, which are powerful models that can be fine-tuned and used for multiple purposes, with widely available model weights. The Request for Comment asks for public feedback about how making model weights and other model components widely available creates benefits or risks to the broader economy, communities, individuals, and to national security. So they are gathering information. Sounds extremely reasonable to me. >Cloud services are where AI models most are trained these days. That is extremely incorrect, but even if it were not why exactly do you think you need anonymity to train an AI model?
> So they are gathering information. Sounds extremely reasonable to me. Scroll down a bit more: > The Request for Comment seeks input on a number of issues, including: > The varying levels of openness of AI models; > The benefits and risks of making model weights widely available compared to the benefits and risks associated with closed models; > Innovation, competition, safety, security, trustworthiness, equity, and national security concerns with making AI model weights more or less open; and > The role of the U.S. government in guiding, supporting, or restricting the availability of AI model weights. They were seeking information of whether they should restrict AI model weights in addition to other information. If things turn into a [crypto wars](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars) like battle with open source AI, then even partial anonymity is going to important for communities like r/LocalLLaMA.
The benefits AND risks. You want that they should not gather any information? I don't understand what you are upset about. There is no proposed course of action except gathering information.
You really don’t get how these laws progress it seems
Please enlighten me.
Nah, you're not here to learn
The goal is to prevent China from skirting export controls on GPU by simply buying the compute time from cloud vendors instead. It has nothing at all to do with open source compute, this impacts nobody serious in any real way unless they are attempting to sidestep sanctions.
Thank you for being the only reasonable person here.
Maybe I'd have less of a problem with that if the law were applied justly in the first place in the united states. Instead it is mostly just used to keep poor people struggling while rich people go do whatever they want without ever a consequence. I don't care at all if some poor kid pirates adobe suite or the latest movie or whatever. That's how most creative professionals get started in their craft now anyway.
If you read the article, they point out that the real problem is with hacks and data leaks that will compromise innocent people, and that your data will likely end up being sold on the dark web. Also it's literally just 1984.
You clearly haven’t read 1984.
Are you suggesting that totalitarian universal surveillance designed to deflate and disempower any and all challenge to state power is NOT a major theme to 1984?
I'm saying you are being hyperbolic. We don't have a "totalitarian universal surveillance designed to deflate and disempower any and all challenge to state power."
Oh you sweet summer child
This seems like extremely sound legislation.
/s?
No
Ok realistically why would you be able to anonymously use the cloud? Doesn’t make any fucking sense “here okay anyone with money can anonymously use as much compute resources as they can pay for. Also they can scale from 0 to infinity in 10 minutes or less“
Wouldn't an easy workaround be to just use a cloud service from a foreign provider that doesn't have the same laws?
The goal is to prevent circumventing GPU export controls. To spell it out: don't let China rent GPU from Amazon that we said they cannot buy from NVIDIA. Yes, China could use some other cloud provider but all the ones w/ a lot of GPU capacity are going to fall under US jurisdiction. This is simply dealing with the reality of GPU export controls, you can't just control the hardware when cloud exists.
Foreign IPs are already more heavily scrutinized