> If you are anonymous on the platform, they legally can't do shit.

That simply means certain evidence can't be introduced in court (courts with compromised judges/prosecutors), but the intelligence doesn't disappear. 

"Show me the man i'll show you the crime", if they know the man the legality doesn't matter. They'll use the extra-legal means to find a legal means if deemed necessary.

>they already have full control

imo, that's the error in framing

>They're already trapped, so why put up billboards saying its a trap?

Because it's how law works. If you are anonymous on the platform, they legally can't do shit. If you KYC, you accept the person's t&c, all your actions on the platform are now in a jurisdiction where there's no freedom. Control is trivial/automatic at this point

That's the error in framing, they already have full control. KYC is subtractive rather than additive. 

Zuck is who would stand to gain, or rather, mitigate losses. The article specifically mentions lawsuits, he's seeking immunity and stifling competition. That's a different set of concerns than the national security state.

There are obviously factions within the state, perhaps the FBI or even CIA for example may want this since they don't have NSA-level capabilities... but they are small fish by comparison.

They NEED your consent, only then their hands are washed.

That helps in civilian court, and things you consent to are things that can serve as a replacement for capabilities they'd rather not divulge over mundane matters. It lowers the fruit, but garnering consent hasn't really met much resistance since people volunteer data already whether they think they are or not.

People enslave themselves voluntarily, they just have to set the trap.

They're already trapped, so why put up billboards saying its a trap?

Politics_And_Law

Zuckerberg’s “Fix” for Child Safety Could End Anonymous Internet Access for All

Scoresby

> I think this kyc push is for control.

That's the error in framing, they already have full control. KYC is subtractive rather than additive. *They* gain nothing.

Zuck is who would stand to gain, or rather, mitigate losses. The article specifically mentions lawsuits, he's seeking immunity and stifling competition. That's a different set of concerns than the national security state. 

There are obviously factions within the state, perhaps the FBI or even CIA for example may want this since they don't have NSA-level capabilities... but they are small fish by comparison.

> They NEED your consent, only then their hands are washed.

That helps in civilian court, and things you consent to are things that can serve as a replacement for capabilities they'd rather not divulge over mundane matters. It lowers the fruit, but garnering consent hasn't really met much resistance since people volunteer data already whether they think they are or not.

> People enslave themselves voluntarily, they just have to set the trap.

They're already trapped, so why put up billboards saying its a trap?