Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 485 posts

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#171

Post by Jolter »

rs186 wrote: post #160
janci wrote: post #85

Our state-issued eID cards are supposed to have a function that allows anonymous age verification to a trusted party. It should work like this: a requesting party sends a request signed by state-issued certificate to the ID card, the card verifies the request authenticity and responds with a signed confirmation of legal age and that signature then can be verified by the requester. No personal information is shared. W…

So kids just memorize their parents' driving license when they don't pay attention, and this is bypassed, just like in the old days.

I don’t think that’s how a state e-ID works.

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#172

Post by ty6853 »

slg wrote: post #167
ty6853 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recognizing you have feelings isn't wrong. It's how you learn to control your actions and reason your response.

[flagged]

Or alternatively, someone else with homophobic feelings will use my comment to reflect and realize it's OK to acknowledge their feelings while acknowledging the rights and freedoms of others. I welcome gays the freedom to kiss in public, just as they must accept my freedom to discuss my feelings.

It's a two sided coin, and I'm not sure it's a loaded coin as you imply.

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#174

Post by wegfawefgawefg »

slg wrote: post #167
ty6853 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recognizing you have feelings isn't wrong. It's how you learn to control your actions and reason your response.

[flagged]

This is not reasonable.

That doesnt make him prejudiced. He just likes bananas and doesnt like natto.

I dont want to see morbidly obese people naked either, its gross to me.

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#175

Post by djsjajah »

rs186 wrote: post #160
janci wrote: post #85

Our state-issued eID cards are supposed to have a function that allows anonymous age verification to a trusted party. It should work like this: a requesting party sends a request signed by state-issued certificate to the ID card, the card verifies the request authenticity and responds with a signed confirmation of legal age and that signature then can be verified by the requester. No personal information is shared. W…

So kids just memorize their parents' driving license when they don't pay attention, and this is bypassed, just like in the old days.

No. Kids would need to memorize the private key of their parents id card.

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#177

Post by cogman10 »

janci wrote: post #85

Our state-issued eID cards are supposed to have a function that allows anonymous age verification to a trusted party. It should work like this: a requesting party sends a request signed by state-issued certificate to the ID card, the card verifies the request authenticity and responds with a signed confirmation of legal age and that signature then can be verified by the requester. No personal information is shared. W…

Really comes down to "how sure do you want to be that the person is the right age"? Or the "how hard would it be for a preteen to buy beer?" test.

With an eID card, if it's just saying "yes, this person is old enough" then any teen can swipe a device with an eID card and start using it.

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#178

Post by AnthonyMouse »

burnished wrote: post #41
baby_souffle wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The data already exists, it's what bars use to scan IDs with handheld readers IIRC. Sorta, yeah. But the reason that works is because there's a human guarding the door that can assert that the hand presenting the ID is attached to a face that looks just like the one on the ID. Otherwise a very smart 17 year old would just get their hands on the UUID or whatever for literally any ID that belongs to somebody that's 1…

You're implying smart 17 year olds don't make it into bars. You rarely need anything approaching %100 compliance in order to have an effective policy, so if anything you're advocating for its effectiveness when you suggest the only people that would be in violation are the rare precocious kid.

But that's the difference. For a 17 year old to get into a bar, they need to, themselves, acquire a fake ID. Anyone selling that physical object in your jurisdiction would then be subject to arrest.

On the internet, one smart 17 year old sets up im-old.lol and then every kid everywhere has a one-click age verification bypass and the service is run by an anon on a server outside the jurisdiction.

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#179

Post by sieabahlpark »

cameldrv wrote: post #116
mjevans wrote: post #71

The Internet should be Unrated and thus Adults Only by default. Just like public spaces. (Would you allow an 8 year old to wander New York City unattended? Arguments can be made for more controlled spaces but...) Have a website and want the chance for kids to see it? Advertise in the headers that it's moderated and intended to be a given rating. Various indexers can pick that up. Complaints can be forward to relevant…

Public spaces are most definitely not "Adults Only" by default. You're not allowed to have a big billboard with porn on it, you have to show ID to get into a bar, you have to show ID to buy a pack of cigarettes, and in many states the cigarettes have to be in an opaque cabinet. You can't walk around naked. You can't be drunk in public. Now admittedly many of these things are unevenly enforced, but society absolutely…

[dead]

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#180

Post by wegfawefgawefg »

ty6853 wrote: post #155
lolinder wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Internet should be Unrated and thus Adults Only by default. Just like public spaces. This is exactly the opposite of the way public spaces actually work, and the way that public spaces actually work is the very justification for laws like this in the first place! You've just taken their exact rationale and imagined a world that would lead that metaphor to the opposite conclusion. In most of the real-life US, yo…

[flagged]

The US is very sensetive about public nudity, but realistically it would probably be fine.

I dont think nakedness and pictures of sex on 7-11s would suddenly make all the children become meth addicts and fail their schoolwork.

In tribes everybody runs around naked all the time, and the parents are fucking in the hut.

Post reply on HN