Hacker News Reader

Comment by m463 | Hacker News Reader

> I'd argue there isn't a middle class use case for strong anonymity.

I can think of 1000 use cases for strong anonymity.

Thinking of switching a job, thinking of getting a divorce, becoming a whistleblower, investigating symptoms of a disease you may have, forming or joining a union. Or even just showing your irrational spending habits.

These are middle-class, non-criminal things.

Folks will be oppressed on an unprecedented scale, and very cheaply.

Additionally, if we continue without taking action, society will be affected on an unprecedented scale by dataminers from the future. Data collected now or a decade ago may be mined by sophisticated algorithms created a decade from now.

View on HN

>Thinking of switching a job, thinking of getting a divorce, becoming a whistleblower, investigating symptoms of a disease you may have, forming or joining a union. Or even just showing your irrational spending habits.

Almost everything you've listed there is solved by using private browsing and pseudonyms. That's not strong anonymity. You don't need Tor to unionize.

> You don't need Tor to unionize.

Labor history is rife with eavesdropping, spying, honey pots and sabotage against workers at the hands of employers. Computers make all of those things easier and cheaper than they were in the past.

Nowadays, firms offering those services go by the names of 'union-avoidance consultancies'[1] among many others. You can Google that term or 'fighting union' for dozens of companies you can hire towards that end.

Also, the Pinkertons[2] are still in business doing what they did 150 years ago.

[1] https://www.epi.org/blog/union-busters-are-more-prevalent-th...

[2] https://www.pinkerton.com

Pseudonymity and anonymity are synonymous in many use cases. And unions did have a lot of secrets at their time.

Another poster addressed this as well, but:

> You don't need Tor to unionize.

Do journalists need Tor? Do lawyers?

I suppose Tor specifically is not required, but there are reasons why plenty of "normal people" need strong anonymity. Even if you discount state-sponsored surveillance[1], there are a ton of outfits who are willing to surveil you or your union drive, whether or not it is legal.

But beyond all that, it simply is not your call to make whether or not I need anonymous communications. You don't know why I think I need them, and frankly you don't need to. It is enough that everyone should be able to make that determination for themselves.

[1] Which, if you're unionizing, would be a serious error - there is a long history of less-than-legal state collusion in union busting in the US on top of the legal hostility.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com