> "the west" is effectively building their own version of China's social credit.

China's social credit system allegedly assigns (or will assign?) all citizens scores and punishes them for social wrongdoings. The IRS has always been tasked with auditing and catching tax cheats, the Treasury always went after people who violate economic sanctions. What's the similarity other than data collection?

The similarity is global system of collecting every piece of data about citizens.

You start with the little. Due to complexity and sheer amounts of laws, bylaws etc. each one of us breaks few of those every day. The systems like the one being mentioned will eventually be able to track those as well making every citizen an offender. Then when the time comes who do you thing they will choose to prosecute? Most likely those pesky human rights advocates and other similar people who are already monitored.

I think unless some "Reset" button is pushed we will end up exactly like this. End up on various lists (already happening) and private companies denying vital services.

> What's the similarity

Wasn't there some kerfuffle a few years ago about "special attention" being given to political targets?

(Cue Richelieu's "six lines")

The fact that we were allowed to discuss and protest this "special attention" shows that we are a far, far ways away from China's Social Credit system.

It would be silly for the Chinese not to be doing this. Extremely low cost [1], low risk, measurable effects, etc.

And the PRC is not a silly government - therefore my prior is very strong that it's taking place on a grand scale.

[1] a cruise missile is ~$2M...you could hire dozens of skilled astroturfers for a year for that, and you can't even use missiles against the US due to MAD...

Yes, this is common in user comments on several otherwise intellectually useful sites. It almost always takes the form of a reasonable take followed by a comparison to China and an insinuation that the US version may be worse. The commenters have the same playbook to work from because the Russians wrote it in the mid 20th century.

>"...followed by a comparison to China and an insinuation that the US version may be worse..."

I do not see insinuation that the US version is worse in this thread. What I see is people being concerned that we are on a dangerous path and building our own version mass surveillance, hence comparing it to China. Instead of shooting the messengers you'd better be concerned about where are we going.

>"The commenters have the same playbook to work from because the Russians wrote it in the mid 20th century"

Sure, I start my day by reading user guide written by Russians on how to fuck up the western world. Check under your bed btw. Maybe couple of them are hiding there.

Thank you - this is exactly what I was referring to. Reasonable take then moving into a comparison to China to bring China up to the same level as the US (or US down to the same level of China). Most individuals don't care or don't have the depth of knowledge to notice what is going on.

I've noticed a lot more recently - probably tied to the strong national spirit coming out of China these days.

This is a common strategy in American politics. If you can get the public to associate something with China/Russia/communism/bad person then you have the American public on your side. So I wouldn't necessarily see it as just people with strong Chinese interests.

Yes this is happening everywhere from Reddit to HN.

>"It really feels like there are a lot of people with strong Chinese interests mudding the waters of debate by equating the US with China."

What you say feels to me as Joseph McCarthy has just sprung back to life.

> What you say feels to me as Joseph McCarthy has just sprung back to life.

No need to go that far back in the history of the U.S. Government spying on it's own citizens. In the late 1960's, the Nixon Administration used IRS data to spy on Vietnam war protesters, Dr. Martin Luther King, members of the Student's Non-Violent Coordination Committee, and other American citizens critical of the administration's foreign policy[1].

Human behavior being what it is means that eventually someone in the U.S. government will be tempted to use this data for nefarious purposes. Why should US citizens live in a survaillence state contrary to the Bill of Rights?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee

I feel like McCarthyism requires pointing fingers in particular directions with no evidence. Neither was done there

It is exactly what was done here: blaming people with having "strong Chinese interests" with no evidence.

I feel like equating someone asking why pro-Chinese sentiment seems to be taking place with McCarthyism is dishonest and a quick way to shut down a legitimate question.

May I ask what is "dishonest" about what I wrote? It is my opinion and I am entitled to it (yet). And how did it "shut down a legitimate question"?

It’s such hyperbole that it’s difficult for anyone to believe that it isn’t simply a statement made in bad faith.

>"...difficult for anyone..."

Whole three of you sure qualifies for "anyone".

>"...statement made in bad faith..."

Labeling concerned users as Chinese agents is just that.

Saying a website may have pro-Chinese users pushing a narrative is nowhere equivalent to the accusations of McCarthy which had the backing of the US government and the weight if the law behind them. That is why your comment comes off as dishonest.

Originally:

"It really feels like there are a lot of people with strong Chinese interests"

Now:

"...website may have pro-Chinese users..."

Progressing from "really feels" to "may have" is of course nice touch. As for McCarthy - government backing or not, the general attitude of labeling opponents as foreign agents puts you on the same wavelength. It is not me being dishonest here.

Am I China government agent / sympathizer? Fucking no. Do I believe that mass surveillance is something that belongs more to China rather than "free" western world - yes.

You are being purposefully dense. “Feels like” and “may have” do not have very different implications. In fact, I’m more convinced you’re being dishonest now than I was just based off of your McCarthy comment.

It also isn’t labeling opponents as foreign agents it is saying that people attempting to equate US credit score, which has to do with the ability to get loans and little else, to Chinas social credit system is fishy especially when accounts that come out in full to defend China are regularly linked to actual Chinese people.

It doesn’t mean everyone doing so is, and it isn’t anyone asking for these people to be arrested or charged, but it does mean that there are pro-Chinese users on most social media and anyone arguing other wise is suspect at least.

>"I’m more convinced you’re being dishonest now than"

Be my guest.

>"and it isn’t anyone asking for these people to be arrested or charged"

How long before you do?

>"It also isn’t labeling opponents as foreign agents"

I’m more convinced you’re being weasel.

Is there a United States senator in this thread compelling people to testify, and then ruining their careers and livelihoods over baseless claims?

I do apologize I should have been specific in saying Peoples Republic of China to clarify that I meant the Government in control of China and not the people who live under their rule.

I don't think you actually know understand what happened in the Joseph McCarthy era but thanks for diluting the terrible nature of what Joseph McCarthy did by conflating it to my idle comment about the increased misinformation around China and US. Your comment feels disingenuous and honestly sounds like its part of the strong national Peoples Republic of China commentary that I was referring to that seems to be spreading around the internet.

>"Your comment feels disingenuous and honestly sounds like its part of the strong national Peoples Republic of China commentary"

Lemme return a favor - your comment feels disingenuous and honestly sounds like it is coming from an agent failing at the job and resorting to labelling anyone who disagrees with the party line as the agents of China.

The original theme - do not do mass surveillance. It looks like we are doing same things as China. You can find this lacking of substance / lie and I respect that. But labeling bearer as China sympathizer is total bollocks. I am not.

Because we need to understand the purpose of the data collection and what bad things might happen because of it.

If Treasury is using this data to catch people who violate economic sanctions, ok. If the IRS is using this data to catch people who cheat on their taxes, ok. I don't love either of those things, but they are using the data only to do things that have been defined as their job to do for a long time now.

There doesn't seem to be any evidence that any of this data is going to be used to penalize people financially/economically for "social infractions", or to penalize people in unrelated ways (like, you missed payments on your credit card so you aren't allowed to ride on a train). If there was, then sure, that's cause for worry.

>> There doesn't seem to be any evidence that any of this data is going to be used to penalize people financially/economically for "social infractions"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy

That's bad, but is not what we're talking about here. Not to mention it was a big scandal and that practice (which was not supported by any law or legal policy) has stopped. The China-style social credit system people worry about is something done on purpose, as designed, out in the open.

Can we stop taking isolated incidents and framing them as official policy?

> what bad things might happen because of it

> can we stop taking isolated incidents and framing them as official policy

Which do you actually want? What bad things that might happen because of it, or that list of bad things massively trimmed down to just what the US government publicly sanctions as official policy?

Don't forget to add parallel construction to the list of options too: bad things that then help make a separate case using sanctioned methods.

>>> In January 2014, James Comey, who at the time was the FBI director, told Fox News that its investigation had found no evidence so far warranting the filing of federal criminal charges in connection with the controversy, as it had not found any evidence of "enemy hunting", and that the investigation continued. On October 23, 2015, the Justice Department declared that no criminal charges would be filed.

Corrupt Comey, who shored up the ranks on the Steele dossier gaffe which is now bearing court cases, doesn't seem like the bastion of integrity that we should be assuming is performing in good faith.

Also, did you read anything else in the article?

The IRS did nothing wrong here, and it certainly is not an example of the IRS penalizing people for social infractions. As with any movement with lots of money and momentum and rapidly gaining popularity, there were a lot of fraudsters capitalizing on the Tea Party movement's name and engaging in shady tax dodging practices. The IRS was correct to subject them to increased scrutiny.

In terms of the facts involved, this has nothing to do with China's social credit score. Note that I am strictly talking about the facts involved, not the political fallout and usual bloviating.

>> The IRS did nothing wrong here

Uhh, that's obviously debatable.

I was responding to a very specific claim. It does have to do with China's social credit score in that it is a slide down the slope toward implementing such nonsense in the US.

> There doesn't seem to be any evidence that any of this data is going to be used to

Irrelevant. Get a targeted warrant, then get limited data.

I think history has shown enough times, that there needs to be a bigger barrier than, "no evidence currently that this data will be used in ways that differ from the stated reason"

I think the barrier is that if people getting canceled impacts their credit score, or if their credit directly impacts their ability to travel or get a job, there'd be a lot of social unrest. Especially in a country where people's perception and politics plays a huge role in the functioning of the government

I'd argue that it doesn't play that big of a role in the functioning of the government. Privacy abuse has been pretty non-partisan for decades. As Chomsky would say, the areas of intersection between the parties represent the institutional power outside the democratic process. For example, the American people do not have a choice in how to treat Snowden, he has been deemed a treasonous criminal of the state, regardless of actual public opinion on the issue

I don't disagree that privacy abuse for various goals, or some governmental policies (like the treatment of Snowden) are not beholden to public opinion. Although the counterargument might be the intensity of public opinion on the topic.

My main argument is specifically around whether the US is veering towards the implementation of a social credit score (which I think would look like having ones credit score be impacted by social reasons, and having the credit score be more pivotal to various civil liberties like travel). That's the kind of thing I think intense public outrage would shift government behaviors, especially since it's the kind of policy that would impact every single American

fair point. I guess my counter argument to that is that it is very surprising how much public outrage can be controlled through lengthening time duration, media propaganda to fuel fear and anxiety.

the world is much different than it was 30 years ago. I'm sure many would be appalled by the lack of privacy and governmental overreach.

Also, in the current era, the division of the populace, to the point where many actively hate the other side and think they are evil, is the exact conditions where a social credit score could become palatable if you believed the other side would be affected more.

Just look at the current trend of cancel culture. Its not that far of a leap to make that government policy

The FBI needs file hashes of every photo on everyone's phone. It will help detect abusers of cp/illegal content.

It is the mandate of the FBI and their job for a long time now to stop those things.

There doesn't seem to be any evidence that these hashes would be used to penalize people in other ways, but if there was then sure, that's cause for worry.

/parody

The comment says /parody, but I'd happily sacrifice such a small amount of privacy (hashes of the photos of my phone; not even the photos themselves?) to help law enforcement detect abusers of child pornography and related illegal content.

The hypothetical "what if" of how those hashes could be used to penalize people in other ways is FUD. We can think of millions of ways to abuse any system -- but that doesn't mean that people will.

>"Because we need to understand the purpose of the data collection and what bad things might happen because of it."

And government would of course never abuse the data it has. We've heard that before. The have, they do and they will keep doing it.

Selective enforcement is more American than apple pie and baseball.

Look at the prosecution of Aaron Schwartz, where the prosecutor plainly indicated Aaron’s political views were motivation for being so zealous.

I agree that's bad, but what does it have to do with the current conversation? It seems like a non sequitur.

Maybe you didn't consent to the data being sold, yet it was sold anyway?

In the US, except in California perhaps, you have no recourse. In the EU, that's a violation of GDPR and various local data protection laws. Elsewhere, unclear.

Private corporations are collecting the data, the state is just buying it, and I doubt they are the only customer.

Yep. As has often been said, everything you do online is (or you should assume to be) public. There are no secrets.

Also, everything you do on your Windows PC (and soon on a Mac).

You're assigning intent without any basis in fact.

Pretty much everyone in the west gets a credit score the math of which is nebulous and proprietary. It is increased by acting in a desireable manner even if that manner is unhealthy or unproductive for the individual - and a lot of random BS can go into the math that we can't even see.

In the west these things aren't public so it isn't the government grading you - but you still are very much being graded by private corporations. Since we have no idea what they're actually using to grade us we can't confidently say they aren't using any "social misbehavior" we'd find offensive.

If these programs were run by the government we could file FOIA requests - but with private organizations we're S.O.L.

A poor credit score does not limit your ability to board a plane, to be admitted to a university, or to found a political organization.

If you want a taste of low social credit score in the US life, consider the status of a convicted felon, or a status of a sex offender.

> A poor credit score does not limit your ability to board a plane, to be admitted to a university, or to found a political organization.

Is it possible to do any of those things without money?

I don't think I really see evidence of this. I mean, the IRS wants to catch people who cheat on their taxes. That's something they've been empowered to do for a long time. And when they catch people for that, they audit them, perhaps take them to court, and fine them. Which seems reasonable.

If the IRS is going to start telling people they aren't allowed to ride trains or get on airplanes because they applied a deduction to their taxes in a way that's not allowed, then we should worry; that sounds like the China-style social credit system people talk about. But I don't see that as being realistic; the IRS doesn't have that kind of power.

Well, I think to be fair to this, we had ought to look at the expansion of government agencies. The ATF, NSA, CIA, FBI, FDA, and so on and so forth are all additions to power. It's not a far reach to assume that granted some new ability to "remedy" some social ill, that establishment of some new agency is probable with implied powers and the necessary and proper clause. And it's really not necessarily just the IRS, but setting a precedent, there are various agencies that have been leveraging data-broker deals to track individuals. The more agencies jump on this the closer we get to crystallizing the behavior. If that's the case, it seems like a considerable hazard, which in the end could lead to some real consequences in the future. We've seen democracies turn into empires, and emperors of all kinds inherit those powers. This is the sort of gravitas no man, nor government had ought to be permitted to wield.

First thing I was told when I arrived in the US in 2001 and was picked up by a friend from the airport : "If the police says pull over to the shoulder, stop at the side of the road".

Second thing : "Credit score is really important".

Credit score isn’t that important really. I have terrible credit (low 600s) and I was able to finance a car and live in a nice apartment. It might make buying a house more expensive, but I’ve also been able to raise it from the low 500s in the last year.

Has anybody studied or quantified the evolution of "effective liberty" over time in the US? Say you buy groceries once per week. That activity might have triggered 1 governmental control touchpoint in 1800 (sales tax?), but in 2020 it might have triggered many more due to increased automation, logging and third-party delegation. All of this, of course, without fundamental changes to the Law of the Land -- simply because some of the assumptions built into our core restrictions on governmental power no longer hold.

Sales taxes weren't a thing then. Before the 20th century government played pretty much no part in the average person's life.

Wow, I didn't realize that. It does look like retail sales taxes were first introduced in the US during the 1930s.

Wait until the US public finds out about the concept of a credit score (new in the 1980s).

Credit score for ghee most part tries to assure lenders you can repay your debts.

Social credit score is about how close you hew to proscribed behavior at large.

Credit scores are used as a proxy for Ideal Citizenship. It just so happens to have baked into it enough plausible deniability as to not run afoul of anti-discrimination laws.

Turns out, a lot of "bad" actions result in missed bill payments.

In a semi anonymous society how else do you suppose one should determine the creditworthiness of someone?

It used to be the merchant had to know you and you had to build up your credit with each merchant over time. Credit scoring made it easier for merchants and customers to issue and leverage we credit.

My comment might come off as an indictment of credit scores. But it really isn't.

They absolutely solve the problem that you are pointing out. But they also serve to kind of solve a whole class of other problems around identifying behaviors that correlate with bad credit scores.

For example, if you're a land lord who vehemently opposes divorce, it's possible to use a poor credit score as cover to deny renting to this middle-aged guy who is clearly just gone through one.

Sure but previous to credit scores what was the option? References from friends and business acquaintances?

Sure credit scores aren’t perfect but they are better than the legacy alternative.

...Excuse me? Is there a way that could be better rephrased?

What was the option for what? You're replying to a post about discriminating against a divorcee, but having the landlord hide it behind the justification of "bad credit".

Not to be the missing antecedent police, but are you referring to by 'ther option' the pre-existing excuse to paper over arbitrary discrimination, or to practice of lending/renting in general?

The answer is sadly important to the final assessment of meaning. I don't think you mean the former, but I figured I'd be daft and ask.

I hear ya. A landlady could very well find out someone is an Antivaxxer who lost their good job and took a lesser job and now has degraded credit and may deny the lease or may want bigger advance.

What do you suppose is a better tool you have or would build which hides this person’s history but can vouch for their creditworthiness or lack of it?

>What do you suppose is a better tool you have or would build which hides this person’s history but can vouch for their creditworthiness or lack of it?

I'm still lost on the part where we're stuck on having to be able to lookup a datastore managed by some private party in order to facilitate these arrangements?

I have no interest in perpetuating the credit bureau system. If you're convinced that it's some priceless fixture we must have, then we can talk about setting up a public Bureau; with strict regulations around what type of information they collect, how it is used, how it is dispensed, etc, security measures around its access, but most importantly, synchronous notification of the reported on by the Bureau, with services provided to the notified to aid in prompt remedy, or failing that a means dispute or correct fraudulent information.

Other than that, I object vehemently to these types of datastores. Welcome to investing. Them's the risks.

I've worked in finance. Finance for its own sake is not high on my list of things to facilitate. I also prefer discriminatory people be required to appear discriminatory.

I don't know how you can avoid discrimination. By nature of credit you have to discriminate the creditworthy form those who aren't credit worthy. On the other hand, sure, we don't need to know if someone voted for Biden or voted for Trump, is for vaccines or isn't for vaccines. You're still not providing a way for a creditor to make a judgement on someone's creditworthiness. A creditor, lacking that information may have to require advances or "security" payments which is more burdensome for the poor.

Looks at the how Japan handles apartment credit. It's a different system but in my estimation its a worse answer than Credit Bureaus are.

Maybe we shouldn't have mountains of consumer debt

Credit score can affect employment, I.E. you can't get hired because you are too poor.

Is this actually true, or is it the case that you can't get financial related jobs because your credit score has been lowered by your past cases of poor handling of money?

The education system utterly fails when it comes to educating students in financial literacy.

They’d much rather teach them activism than actually give them useful tools for evaluating their finances and making good decisions.

Absolutely.

This is a great primer for those completely unfamiliar: https://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0465...

You really think it's because of activism and not because a lack of personal financial literacy is good for the oligarchs and more time spent teaching other subjects is also good for the oligarchs (employable skills)?

Failure to navigate a capitalist system of hoop-jumping due to lack of funds causes a self-fulfilling prophesy of poor performance at said hoop-jumping and associated poor credit scores. Blaming the victim comes to mind.

If I only pay my bills on time does my credit score go up in the US? Asking because I don't know, but if that is the case, not sure why you can call it 'hoop jumping'.

I don't care for the credit companies, they're total scum. But I'm not sure how to do anything better.

Afaict, your credit score will likely be lower if you haven't had a credit card open for a long time, run your balances too close to the limit (available credit) on those cards, or don't use them at all. My understanding is that your bills, depending on their type, may not even bother reporting to the credit agencies, or only report when they believe you have failed to pay; reliable ones seem to be big loans like mortgages, student or auto loans, and then credit cards. Rent, utilities, etc haven't seemed to affect my credit positively (or if they do they haven't been noticeable compared to the first category)

When I graduated, rented, and paid all my student loans off early and did not have a credit card my credit score actually went down significantly until I opened credit cards and used them regularly.

Average age of accounts is a pretty big factor in credit scores. Every bank will probably have its own proprietary rules for deciding when to offer credit, but the credit reporting agencies who generate a number use fairly well known criteria. Amount of credit, number of accounts, payment history, percentage of credit used, age of accounts, diversity of types of accounts.

Yep, that's all that's required for it, no hoops to jump through. The only catch is if you don't have any debt, you can't build credit, but it's pretty simple to get a credit card and pay it off every month.

Try to build credit with a secured credit card and on a minimum wage. Decide which bills you have to pay late this pay period. After years of this, you’ll be lucky if you can convert to an unsecured credit card, let alone maintain your (low) credit score, let alone improve it.

Most folks in US can’t even afford a $400 emergency expense. Good luck doing even that when your credit is maxed out and your car breaks down so you can’t work.

Why would I work for years at minimum wage? That doesn't seem like a good aim.

>> Most folks in US can’t even afford a $400 emergency expense.

It looks like they can, and fortunately the number of people in poverty continues to decline: https://policyadvice.net/insurance/insights/average-american...

Seems like you’re not able to empathize with others. Way to completely miss the point.

I was under the impression we were discussing facts here, and not feelings.

We are discussing facts, not just your own personal circumstance. The fact that you are not in these situations does not discount the experiences of others to the contrary.

If they're credit bills, yes. If they're just phone, power, rent, etc, not unless you've specifically set them up to go to the credit reporting companies.

Some corporate landlords report all rental accounts, some only report if you default.

Or rent an apartment/house in many cases

While this is true on a very shallow level, most landlords are happy to rent to "high risk" tenants with increased deposits if you talk to them directly instead of taking your initial rejection at face value.

More and more rentals are being gobbled up my big corporations. Finding someone to talk to who has the authority to make an exception can be nigh impossible.

Eh maybe. I think that largely depends on where you live. Granted, most apartment complexes are falling into that category, but venture out of the city a bit and if you're renting a small 2 bedroom house for $750/mo in Nebraska, it's probably owned by an individual.

Worst case scenario, even in a city, you could sublet or get roommates while you rebuild your credit.

>I think that largely depends on where you live.

I suspect you are right. I walk down my block and every other building is owned by the same slumlord. It is bad.

Your credit score is run before you can buy a house or rent an apartment.

We are already there.

The difference between a credit score and a social credit score system is one is based on debt payment history and the other based on political dissent & debt payment.

Currently saying "Lets Go Brandon" doesn't drop your credit score, in China you may lose quite a few points for posting that pesky bear that likes honey.

Having an arrest on your record is enough to bar your from job and housing, even if charges were dropped or you were found not guilty. That alone is enough of a chilling effect to affect behavior: for example, staying away from protests or not questioning a police officer.

Again, we are already there.

A criminal background check is not connected to your credit score and a convicted criminal charge is not the same as political dissent. Stop moving goal posts.

I was arrested once and I got the charge expunged with community service. Hasn't affected my job applications so far.

Is there any evidence that political dissent drops a social credit score?

Let's wait for the CCP to answer that...

They may be too busy with genocide though.

A background check is run in addition to a credit check.

My understanding was it basically was providing a way to incentivize indigent people to behave the law by imposing penalties for failing to pay fines.

In the US, fines are mostly meaningless if you are poor as debtor prisons are (rightfully) illegal.

In the civil context, which you obviously intended, this true. Unfortunately many people are (back) in jail because they can't afford to pay criminal court fines/probation fees

> In the US, fines are mostly meaningless if you are poor as debtor prisons are (rightfully) illegal.

You're overwhelmingly correct, however someone is going to shortly reply to your comment with a link to a story about how someone somewhere got jailed over a debt and how debtor prisons are making a comeback. It's extraordinarily rare in the US.

Yes, and also wage garnishment is another thing that is definitely a common thing.

Wage garnishment is predominantly for child support and alimony, no? Is that a bad thing?

I don't think so.

And unpaid taxes.

We're doing it to ourselves. We're the ones who keep clicking "I agree", who keep feeding these companies. Of course they're going to look to make a profit off of your data, there's nothing stopping them because we willingly gave it up.

So your suggestion is for everyone to become digital hermits? Start sending snail mail invoices and writing checks again?

Vote with your money and buy from a competitor that sells the same product/service but privacy friendly.

From what I've read China's social credit system does not yet incorporate any non-financial information; that part is more aspirational.

That is the narrative the CCP pushes. 'It is just like a government run checking score.' But it isn't. Crimes, including political ones, will penalize your social credit score. If your score falls too low, you and your children will become ineligible for government programs and assistance.

[citation needed]

What you describe is something that is often said, but I'm yet to see any reliable sources; everything turns out to be editorials based on some plans that never got implemented.

Being able to correct inaccurate information is an often underappreciated but important part of the GDPR. It's also probably the biggest motivation why you have a right to ask any company what data they have stored about you: so you can spot mistakes in the data of rating agencies. The other use cases are more of a nice bonus.

While i completely agree that the right to correct data is an underappreciated aspect, the biggest motivation is the fundamental right to your own personal data. It motivates the more detailed ones like the right to know who processes your personal data, for what purpose, which data they have, and to correct that data. Not to forget the right to be informed and asked for consent. The "why" of these rights is not found in the robber barons wish to improve the quality of their data swamps. It is found in the wish of the european people to preserve their freedom in the digital age against surveillance capitalism and/or totalitarian governments. I can only hope our brothers and sisters worldwide will one day understand that and demand such a fundamental right as well.

Utah released plans for the new electronic ID a couple of weeks back which, among other things, would contain your "vaccination status" and "social credit scoring".

Conservative press is abuzz with this (including photos of the promo leaflet), liberal press is dead silent. Since nobody on this site will believe a conservative news source, I'm not even going to bother providing a link. If you're in Utah, ask your local government to put an end to this horseshit before it's too late.