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

251–260 of 485 posts

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#251

Post by EarthMephit »

7952 wrote: post #209
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…

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.

You used to walk into a newsagent and see the regular papers and magazines, and then the rack of playboy and porn just sitting off to the side, often not that far from the kids magazines and comics.

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#252

Post by JumpCrisscross »

slg wrote: post #243
kerkeslager wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 q…

> Why include the sexuality of that hypothetical person in the question if their sexual preferences were not intended to be part of the answer?

They were speaking from the perspective of familiarity. The feeling they’re experiencing is probably mild disgust and/or fear, a typical reaction to the unknown and novel.

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#253

Post by solidsnack9000 »

Aloisius wrote: post #197
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…

> No personal information is shared. You'd know the state they're a legal resident of as they use state-specific keys used for signatures. If the request allows checking arbitrary ages like Apple's, then you can get their age with a handful of requests. If one has to verify every visit, then you can get exact birthdate eventually. If the one verifying has to pass data to the verifier site or the request to the verifi…

"...at which point, one has to ask, why do it at all?"

It seems like this line of thinking would lead you to ask the same question of literally any law, wouldn't it?

Laws often don't rely on being 100%. Even though there is a law saying people need to wear a seat belt, they can just not wear it! So what's the point, &c, &c?

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#254

Post by Aeolun »

EarthMephit wrote: post #251
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.

You used to walk into a newsagent and see the regular papers and magazines, and then the rack of playboy and porn just sitting off to the side, often not that far from the kids magazines and comics.

Japanese convenience stores still work this way. I’m still a bit bemused every time I see scantily clad ladies right next to the shounen manga, but maybe it shouldn’t xD

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#255

Post by Aeolun »

wongarsu wrote: post #227
ty6853 wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my state children can wander in a bar. They can even sit at the stool in front the bar counter. It's considered better to allow it than have children neglected at home without supervision.

The kind of hierarchies we deem necessary are certainly different. In most of Europe (spoiler: overgeneralization incoming) nobody would have an issue with a child walking alone through a city, going into a bar and ordering a coke. Nobody is going to stop them from taking public transit to a book store, and nothing is legally or physically preventing them from looking at a couple pages in the latest playboy issue in…

> You will however be asked for ID before being allowed in a strip club, brothel or casino, or before being sold a DVD of some action movie.

The action movie too? I’ve never seen that happen, and I’m certain I rented a whole bunch of age inappropriate DVD’s (or was it VCR’s?) back in the day. Maybe we were required to be ID’ed and the teenager behind the counter just gave zero fucks?

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#256

Post by Aeolun »

diddid wrote: post #144
qball wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Adults Only by default. Just like public spaces. This is the attitude that led us to this problem in the first place. >Would you allow an 8 year old to wander New York City unattended? They're at much higher risk of being arrested/abducted by the police than they are anything else. This is a uniquely North American neurosis; this happens every day in every other nation. They take the subway to work/school or walk, l…

I don’t think it’s entirely a mentality issue. I think North America created an environment where you wouldn’t want your 8 year old to navigate New York City. I would let my kids wander Tokyo before I would let them wander Chicago. Japan would not tolerate people spitting at and harassing children where Chicago does indeed tolerate that. I’d say ask me how I know but you could probably guess.

Guessing leaves me two options, so was you, or your children that were spit on?

Also, what could possibly lead to that happening? Someone upset they were noisy? Or just that they dared show up at all?

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#257

Post by Aeolun »

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…

> You're not allowed to have a big billboard with porn on it

Most adults would be put off by that as well, I’m not sure if this is indicative of public spaces.

That said, I agree that public spaces cannot possibly be adult only by default, as children have to traverse them.

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#258

Post by Aeolun »

__turbobrew__ wrote: post #249
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.

I mean, it might be easier to find on the internet, but if you are dedicated enough I’m sure you can find it in NYC too.

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#259

Post by kerkeslager »

slg wrote: post #243
kerkeslager wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 q…

> 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.

If you don't mean these questions rhetorically, then stop asking them in the form of a rhetorical question, where you propose an answer and ask a yes/no whether it's correct. If you're really asking, then you don't know the answer, so just ask the question and listen to the answer.

For example, if you want to know why the sexuality of the person stumbling upon two men kissing is relevant, you can just ask, "Why is the sexuality of the person stumbling upon the two men kissing relevant?" You don't have to pose a hypothesis like "it's because the person would be aroused by seeing them kiss". That's just a weird hypothesis, limits answers to yes/no, and makes it sound like you're more interested in communicating that accusation than understanding what the person said.

Curious people ask open-ended questions, not yes/no "Is X what you think?" type questions that sound a lot like you're accusing them of thinking X.

"Why include the sexuality of that hypothetical person?" is a great question, and in fact, "Why is the sex/gender of the people kissing relevant?" is also a good question.

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#260

Post by Aeolun »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #183
autoexec wrote: post #181

> California’s AB-728 mandates age verification for anyone purchasing skin care products or cosmetics that contain certain chemicals like Vitamin A or alpha hydroxy acids. On the surface, this may seem harmless—who doesn't want to ensure that minors are safe from harmful chemicals? Why would we want to keep minors safe from "harmful chemicals" but not adults? If skin cream products with Vitamin A or alpha hydroxy aci…

> Why would we want to keep minors safe from "harmful chemicals" but not adults? My understanding is they’re harmful if misused.

Pencils are harmful if misused. They make for effective stabbing.

Is this about the chance about being inadvertedly misused to the point they’re harmful.

I dunno, by all means, don’t sell them to kids, but should we really forbid a 15 year old unless they can show some form of ID? They’re not any more likely to do something dumb with it than an 18 year old.

Post reply on HN