• asdfasdfasdf@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    This is basically nationally enforced “security through obscurity” which is dumb as fuck.

    • TORFdot0@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      6 months ago

      This is more of a privacy failure than a security failure. I don’t see how purchasing services via an alias could be considered security

        • TORFdot0@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          “Security by obscurity” is very much an end user “i don’t need to harden my server/accounts because nobody would bother hacking me” attitude and is really is “dumb as fuck”

          But KYC is just expanded due diligence before providing services, thats why I thought it as privacy issue as to why someone would be against it as opposed to it security wise.

          I still don’t see how you’ve gotten from that to “nationally enforced security by obscurity” though

          • asdfasdfasdf@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            Instead of implementing systems that are not vulnerable to attack, they are just removing the people who know how to attack.

            • TORFdot0@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              I think we fundamentally disagree on these ideas, and that’s ok.

              “Implementing systems that are not vulnerable to attack” is an impossible task. And passing KYC legislation doesn’t preclude anyone from hardening their system and I didn’t read any signs that the government plans to leave any of its systems unhardened.