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

261–270 of 485 posts

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#261

Post by armchairhacker »

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.

What are some implementation(s)?

Different implementations vary in effectiveness. Anyone can give a minor access to their device, or a minor can steal their device. So in order to prevent access then, you'd need something like constant face monitoring (via a local model, possible to do anonymously, but expensive and fallible), or legal threats (impossible to do anonymously, because you must track the adult who gave their kid access; and many people are dumb with technology even when it matters, so you either have to fine or jail many people or selectively enforce).

The easiest implementation I can think, which I'd recommend, is to make locked-down kid devices, require ID or even just a credit card (18+) to purchase a normal device, put the burden on adults to not share their device with kids, and only police merchants (for selling normal devices without ID) and websites (for serving adult content without blocking kid devices). Like what we do with alcohol, except not even trying to police people for sharing, because it would be ineffective and messy. Like alcohol, many kids will get access anyways, although less than now.

I like this approach because, IMO importantly, kids who don't try to see adult content will be far less likely to, and parents who try to restrict their kids from adult content will be far more successful. I don't think you can stop determined kids with neglectful parents without drawbacks.

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#262

Post by yellowapple »

lolinder wrote: post #151
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…

> 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…

> and you can't wear it on a shirt

The widespread proliferation of attire bearing so-called "ahegao" faces demonstrates otherwise.

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#264

Post by yellowapple »

saurik wrote: post #9

This should be held up as a visceral demonstration of how the "slippery slope" isn't inherently a fallacy, as many oft like to claim: it is merely a form of argument that is easy enough to get wrong--leading to a fallacy when the cause is disconnected--that people have become overly-wary of it, reacting to the premise of the conclusion without even bothering to analyze how steep the slope might be before tuning the i…

Exactly. It ain't a fallacy to call out the folks actively greasing down the slope.

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#265

Post by ty6853 »

yellowapple wrote: post #263
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.

Why should that action be controlled?

Learning to control your actions doesnt necessitate controlling 'that' action, it gives you the option. Having the options beyond following your impulsive feelings is useful.

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#266

Post by [deleted] »

yellowapple wrote: post #262
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…

> and you can't wear it on a shirt The widespread proliferation of attire bearing so-called "ahegao" faces demonstrates otherwise.

[deleted]

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#267

Post by [deleted] »

ty6853 wrote: post #126
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…

The Karens seem to perish in the backcountry. I have seen multiple elementary age children operating dirt bikes and heavy construction equipment on desert dirt roads.

[deleted]

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#268

Post by harry8 »

yellowapple wrote: post #262
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…

> and you can't wear it on a shirt The widespread proliferation of attire bearing so-called "ahegao" faces demonstrates otherwise.

[flagged]

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#269

Post by baby_souffle »

squigz wrote: post #200
baby_souffle wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but forcing the age-verification onto websites is just moronic. Agree. > parents should be able to access a (password protected) setting in any browser that can exclude some types of websites (like porn). How would this work? Who's going to set up the taxonomy / classification tree for every domain/site on the internet just so a guardian can say "yes to drugs, no to porn, no to news, no to weapons..."? Or if that's…

> Who's going to set up the taxonomy / classification tree for every domain/site I would think adblock lists are a pretty good example of similar efforts (that is, people classifying large amounts of random sites), so I don't think that would be impossible. Such things don't need to be perfect, either - just good enough. (I don't agree with age verification efforts or even parental control software; just pointing out…

> so I don't think that would be impossible.

Ok, what bucket(s) does reddit fall into?

> Such things don't need to be perfect, either - just good enough.

I think we disagree about how "good" this effort will be given that it's a supremely subjective task. Your porn is my sexual education and wellness material...

And if it's going to be down to individual parents to make the most appropriate choice for their kids, this whole thing is just regular parenting but with extra steps.

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#270

Post by cosmicgadget »

isaacremuant wrote: post #134
whatshisface wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a list of things that I wouldn't want the police to do, but should be done: - Kids should be in bed by 8. - They shouldn't light fires in the back yard. - They shouldn't run with knives. If someone tried to use my support for those things as a basis for 24/7 surveillance of bedrooms, back yards and knife drawers, they'd be insane.

Should be done? Lol. Talking about culture ethnocentrism taking to the extreme. No one forces you not to take your kid to bed at 8, or you for that matter. Stay out of my life. The anglosphere is so full of authoritarian people wanting to get into people's lives and even when arguing against surveillance you think there's an agreeable common goal we should all strive to. No. We don't.

99% sure his point was exactly what you said. "Should be done" vs "should be enforced" by the person you demand stay out of your life.
Post reply on HN