Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance • Hacker News Board

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#241

Post by bigstrat2003 » Sat, Mar 08, 2025, 2:15 AM UTC

miki123211 wrote: post #128

armchairhacker wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO slippery slope is a fallacy when the small step only supports the big step symbolically, shifting the “Overton Window”. It’s true that the Overton Window has some effect, but we shouldn’t avoid taking a step towards the middle just because it’s also a step towards the opposite bad side, if the middle is good. Wrt. privacy, the real issue is that the small step helps the big step not just symbolically. ID-based ag…

IMO the problem isn't ID-based age verification specifically, it's that such verification is usually impelemnted in a way where the service in question gets a lot more data than they need, with no real control over how that data is kept and processed. It would absolutely be possible to implement that stuff in a fully privacy-preserving way, with nothing but basic cryptography, and the government could absolutely enfo…

> It would absolutely be possible to implement that stuff in a fully privacy-preserving way, with nothing but basic cryptography, and the government could absolutely enforce that implementation.

Yeah, it seems like it would not be as much of a problem if you were able to have assurances that your data isn't being held onto. If I give my ID to a bouncer at a strip club, he isn't able to scan it and put it into a digital file. He just looks at it*, goes "yep this guy is of age", and gives it back. If we ensured a similar data flow for the Internet, then it wouldn't be nearly as much of a privacy issue.

*These days I doubt I would even get carded as well. Getting older and all that. IDK how you could implement a similar check for the Internet though.

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#242

Post by ty6853 » Sat, Mar 08, 2025, 2:15 AM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #238

ty6853 wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes I agree 100%, although I admit the reptilian response might never fully attenuate. Which leads me to, is public nudity/display of sex something we feel is wrong based on fear or disgust? Or because there is a scientific basis of degraded life outcomes? There can be health hazards in say most indoor spaces but for say printed material those biohazard don't exist. I'm seeking to find if I'm being a reptile here.

> although I admit the reptilian response might never fully attenuate That’s fine. The problem is in the bits between your senses and the reptilian brain. When a kid screams for their iPad on a plane, the reptilian part of their brain is legitimately freaking out. You’re not going to ever shut that off. But the adults in their life should attempt to disconnect it from the stimulus.m If you’ve genuinely never overcome…

I've been to multiple pride events, a gay nightclub, drag shows, have gay friends, and been to the odd party that was 90+% gay. Had a great time, no problems, and liked the people. I've learned to look past the feeling, but it doesn't shut off.

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#243

Post by slg » Sat, Mar 08, 2025, 2:17 AM UTC

kerkeslager wrote: post #234

slg wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> Is the implication of this question that a heterosexual man should be aroused whenever they see a heterosexual couple kissing? This kind of wild accusation doesn't further the conversation. What the person you've responded to said is off base enough without you accusing him of saying random things that aren't there.

They asked a question specifically about the feelings of a "heterosexual man". Why include the sexuality of that hypothetical person in the question if their sexual preferences were not intended to be part of the answer?

I don't mean that or my previous questions rhetorically. I was less "accusing him of saying random things that aren't there" and more asking for confirmation on their answer to the reverse of their question: "what do you think an unbiased heterosexual man should feel stumbling upon [a heterosexual couple] kissing in public?"

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#244

Post by whoitwas » Sat, Mar 08, 2025, 2:20 AM UTC

They are. There's no need for them. Parents should parent.

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#245

Post by s1artibartfast » Sat, Mar 08, 2025, 2:26 AM UTC

slg wrote: post #229

theoreticalmal wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

Every time I see this link people act as if it is a solved problem.

It is called a paradox for a reason.

It also presupposes that intolerance always outcompetes tolerance in the marketplace of ideas, which I strongly disagree with.

The problem intolerance of intolerance actually tries to solve is one of purity. A pure society is the only way to avoid risking discomfort

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#246

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Mar 08, 2025, 2:33 AM UTC

yubblegum wrote: post #216

7952 wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with the internet is the mixing of different contexts. You can have cute cats, disney fandom, hobbies, politics, porn, extremism all on the same platform. In the real world you don't have strip clubs at disney world or children wandering about in a bar.

The problem with the internet is that it is flat. Society has hierarchies, has always had hierarchies, and the architecture (in the broadest sense) of "RL" societies reflected that. Internet came out of military and academia and had a flat namespace. No consideraton whatsoever was given to the idea of a 'social model' for it. This was discussed way back in late '90s in a yahoo group that has since disappeared: social…

[deleted]

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#247

Post by michaelmior » Sat, Mar 08, 2025, 2:42 AM UTC

Braxton1980 wrote: post #118

michaelmior wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such a law doesn't necessarily have to require that every browser include the content filtering code. Only that websites must correctly report the content they serve. Of course then the obvious workaround for someone wanting to access restricted content is just to install a browser that does not enforce the restrictions. But that's a problem even if browsers were "forced" to implement this anyway. There would always…

> Of course then the obvious workaround for someone wanting to access restricted content is just to install a browser that does not enforce the restrictions. But that's a problem even if browsers were "forced" to implement this anyway. There would always be a browser out there that didn't adhere to this rule anyway So why are you for it if the solution isn't valid?

I didn't say anywhere that I am for it.

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#248

Post by ThrowawayR2 » Sat, Mar 08, 2025, 2:47 AM UTC

slg wrote: post #229

theoreticalmal wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

The paradox of tolerance is not a law of physics. It doesn't automatically win you the argument because it was always merely some dude's opinion.

Moreover, given that the public mood has turned decidedly anti-progressive, it's really, really a bad idea to bring up the paradox of tolerance because they might just adopt it and decide you're the intolerant ones that don't have to be tolerated.

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#249

Post by __turbobrew__ » Sat, Mar 08, 2025, 2:50 AM UTC

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…

Usually I don’t see people beheaded in NYC but that definitely exists online.

I grew up on the uncensored internet, and it was fine, but I would not conflate the internet with a public space. From my experience the actions and content of the internet are very different from the real world.

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#250

Post by yusyusyus » Sat, Mar 08, 2025, 2:56 AM UTC

Back in the day, during the short-lived reign of Communications Decency Act's provisions for dealing with pornographic material and minors, there emerged a site called sexkey.com that would provide a sort of SSO experience for doing age verification. That is, one would verify their age with sexkey.com and then, at participating sites, one would do a lil SSO bounce to verify age.

When the CDA's porn provisions were struck down, the sort of industry argument was that they'd use the PICS site ratings and the content could be blocked in proxy/client side. This made a lot of sense in the context of the V-chip mandates of the 90's. AFAIK browsers stopped supporting this a long time back.