Re: Tom Steyer's draconian national ID legislation

[http://dummy.us.eu.org/robert (Robert)]

I think Ralph Nader expresses best the other side in that there should be
no anonymity on the internet.  That would, for all practical purposes,
eliminate all privacy (except for maybe some self-sufficient hermits
living in a forest or something).  These days, most politicians and many
Americans agree with Nader.  So, yes, "the other side" does not want any
privacy.  (Musing, I sometimes wonder if this is because most people feel
that privacy is dead and, so, it may as well be killed off.  I don't know
because I never joined Facebook, Twitter, or most other social media (I do
use Youtube).)

I could definitely see the appeal of eliminating anonymity.  I remember
hearing about (never got to read it) "The Transparent Society"
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Transparent_Society ) and the idea that
nobody would ever have any privacy at all, and that that would keep
everybody accountable.

But, given that people are still biased, make mistakes, and pursue
control, I do not think this will work and, because of that, going in the
opposite direction (more privacy) is the less harmful of the two options.