This is why, I think, the future is either putting your money (or at least provable identity) where your mouth is, or not being heard (e.g. because everyone will assume a petition without hard proofs of identity fake).
Yes, this is disenfranchising. But not being heard while some company pretends to speak for you is even more disenfranchising.
Maybe this will come off as cynical, but aren't the customers of these 3 companies doing what you suggest here? "Putting their money where their mouth is", and since they have a lot of money their voice gets heard over the ones of individuals with no money. I don't think it's your goal.
So your second intuition about proof of identity is better, but the minute you invent a foolproof identity system and it gets widly used (by fiat or even voluntarily), you give a tremendous amount of power to the issuer/manager of it, as they basically hold the power of also removing/altering your public identity at their whims. You also make it harder and harder to remain anonymous and preserve your privacy, two things that might seem useless in a functional democracy, but unfortunately democracies are not perfect and they can turn into totalitarian systems where the wet dream of dictators is exactly this: having total control over every individual, especially the ones who would dare signing petitions against them.
This is by far not something humans have solved systemically, we have the technical solutions to build such systems, and governments tend to push to implement them, but as someone who cares about privacy/censorship resistance I do my best to build alternative, opt-in, systems to go around them.
> our second intuition about proof of identity is better, but the minute you invent a foolproof identity system and it gets widly used (by fiat or even voluntarily), you give a tremendous amount of power to the issuer/manager of it, as they basically hold the power of also removing/altering your public identity at their whims.
A decentralized way to issue and authenticate private keys, so as to eliminate the trust requirement- not just transferring it to a certificate issuer- seems needful.
Not only could it help eliminate the manufacture of consensus in OP, such a technology would have broad implications for trust and might lend itself to anti-counterfeiting measures.
Although such a development would also amount to solving the problem of Byzantine consensus so I would feel most fortunate to see it happen in my lifetime.
No. Public/private keys can be under the control of the individual. You only need the public key to be signed by a trusted 3rd party. That only gives them the power to revoke it, but even the revoking can't cancel what you already signed while the key was valid.
Sorry, but public-private key pair sais nothing about birth or death of individual. Which is an occurrence as common as you would guess. Being living person in some country is the relevant information, holding some cryptographic keys is not.
There's value to considering possible points of failure up front.
Think of the inertia that mag stripe only payment cards have in the USA, and think about how long it's taken to get chip cards rolled out. And then consider that we don't have the more secure chip and pin variant that Europe has, and (to the best of my knowledge) don't have any plans to go that route in the future.
A bad solution with broad penetration and huge network effects is one that can't easily be changed in the future. Let's do imagine some worst case scenarios and think about what it would involve to harden a system against them before rolling it out to everyone.
Anonymity, in the age of cryptography, is not going anywhere.
Between astroturfing, AIs, trolls, and foreign involvement, we are increasingly in need of a countering force. We are currently suffering under the tyranny of the anonymous!
It is astonishing that so many people are still swayed by such outdated cyberpunk ideologies! The arguments of the 1990s do not make sense given the realities of the 2020s.
> we are increasingly in need of a countering force. We are currently suffering under the tyranny of the anonymous!
Are you? What happens if this "need" isn't filled? Just because you can't probe popular opinion with an open comment system, it doesn't mean it is a requirement for society to work. We have systems to vote that work and don't have these issues. Simple paper ballots work really well.
> It is astonishing that so many people are still swayed by such outdated cyberpunk ideologies
Private companies and governments have never collected as much data as they do now, mostly without real consent, and they are getting the means to exploit this data very efficiently now with AI. The cypherpunk ideology (cyberpunk is a fictional sci-fi genre, although it's kinda related with its themes) applies more than ever in this context, it actually predicted the situation we are living, so I can't agree with you when you claim it is "outdated". Individuals should value their ability to be anonymous if they intend to remain somewhat free, this is the "counter" to mass surveillance.
What happens if this need isn’t filled? Well, the focus of this article for one, more and more astroturfing and fraud. How about riling up another country’s voting public with lies? Various forms of harassment and bullying? And do you think AIs are going to make this better or worse? Should we ignore all of this because we’re worried about the outcome matching the plot of a Gibson or Stephenson story?
I can’t come up with a better argument than I’ve made in these two articles:
Don't you think that security-guaranteed-by-strong-goverment model is outdated too? Governments all around the world seem to be incompetent to solve the emerging issues.
We don't need an ironclad identity system, we need stronger laws making individuals behind companies like this personally and criminally liable with harsh penalties. That is how scenarios like this can be avoided: destroy the cost/benefit ratio of pursuing it.
Yes, fraud can still happen. But if you fake 100,000 comments eventually you will be discovered and held responsible. What this would reduce is systemic fraud at scale.
> This is why, I think, the future is either putting your money (or at least provable identity) where your mouth is, or not being heard
Oh, I assume this will be run by companies. What is stopping them from impersonating you? Or impersonating you after you're dead? How can we trust these companies not to sell access to identities? Further, why not sell/rent your access to your own identity?
Partly it's audit: check some randomly chosen votes, look for anyone not remembering casting their vote.
Partly it could be cryptography: you keep a private key and sign your vote with it. Your public key is stored by a trusted centralized institution, or several (see GitHub and signed commits), so anyone can verify your vote, but nobody can fake it.
Voting is anonymous to make it harder for someone to demand proof that you voted in accordance with their wishes.
I wouldn't want my employer, for instance, to be able to verify that I voted for their preferred candidate for state representative and take retaliatory actions against me if I didn't.
You seem to be addressing a related but separate matter, namely boycotting products to influence companies. The topic in hand is companies pretending to be large numbers of anonymous people. This is what would be prevented if submissions to public consultations were tied to real-world identities.
I think this is a miscommunication. You interpret nine_k's phrase "putting your money where your mouth is" as meaning "buying only from companies you support", but I think nine_k actually meant "having public comments require payment".
How do you invent a system where the websites instituting the identity proof (KYC/ Know Your Customer) systems don’t just become honeypots for collecting the necessary data to impersonate the millions of people that used it?
Others have commented on your point about money already
It's mostly not the fee to speak, even though a mere $1 per vote could be too expensive for some petition-spamming efforts: 100k payments from the same account would trigger suspicion, and creating 100k legal payment accounts (paypal, google / apple / samsung pay, venmo, etc) just to pay $1 per vote may be onerous.
I mostly say about giving a ton of identifying info so that your vote can be reliably tracked back to you: not only email (with a one-time link to confirm the email works), but also a phone number, postal address, maybe even some government ID like SSN or driver license number. It removes any expectation of anonymity from the vote or signature, and this is by design. Fraud of the kind the article mentions would be easily detectable by a random check of 1-2% of the signatures (and more is suspicious patterns are noticed). As a side effect, it would make a vote or a signature a much more conscious, committed decision.
Can you even function in modern society without a government issued photo ID? It’s required to drive, collect benefits, fly, purchase alcohol, purchase tobacco, or even purchase Sudafed. I just can’t fathom that there are any actual petitioners or voters that requiring photo ID would disenfranchise.
I just have a really hard time believing there is a large group of individuals without ID when it is essentially mandatory for modern life as an adult. I also am having difficulty believing that the usually less than $25 fee for government issued ID is an obstacle to anyone.
Personally I think a verified voter ID should be both required (so as to prevent voter fraud) and provided freely to everyone.
All that means is that you have an incredibly limited perspective shaped by your personal experiences. I would urge you to talk to people who are living on the streets or who work one or more minimum wage jobs to raise a family
Yes, this is disenfranchising. But not being heard while some company pretends to speak for you is even more disenfranchising.