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

331–340 of 485 posts

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#331

Post by tzs »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #319
consteval wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can verify who someone is without knowing specifically who "who" refers to. We do it all the time. I give a one-time code to service X and it knows I am who I say I am, but the code I gave is virtually worthless information. All it knows is that I have credentials, and I am the authorized person to have those credentials because I have physical access to some device, unknown, which is known to belong to said pers…

You're omitting the part where you have to disclose who you are to the party issuing the credential. If they issue you a unique credential while knowing your identity then they can trace back all your uses of it to your identity. When that party is the government or within the government's jurisdiction, the government has the capacity to do that even if the services where you use the credential are operated by a thir…

The party that you must disclose your identity to doesn’t necessarily need to see the credential you will present to the party you wish to demonstrate your age to.

A blind signature could be used to have the ID checking party sign the credential without seeing it.

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#332

Post by verisimi »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #153
haswell wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I want to fight so much for open access to the internet because it was so useful to me as a child As a child of the 80s who benefited greatly from the Internet as a kid (repressive religious parents, and the Internet was a lifeline), I feel extremely conflicted. On the one hand, I absolutely want to preserve the kind of benefit we received growing up. On the other, the Internet looks nothing like it did when I was…

The dangers of the modern internet aren't boobs though. The 20th century internet had boobs. The modern dangers are state-funded and international they're not going to be thwarted by an age-verification law, are they?

> The modern dangers are state-funded and international they're not going to be thwarted by an age-verification law, are they?

As they write the laws, and mostly people follow them, no, they will not be thwarted.

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#333

Post by [deleted] »

Aeolun wrote: post #260
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

[deleted]

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#334

Post by alwayslikethis »

Y_Y wrote: post #323
Aloisius wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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 you assume a sensible rate limit, that entering the check is voluntary (and unlikely to fail), and that people age monotonically, then it's going to require a lot of cooperation from the victim to get more than a couple o…

You can get the age quite quickly with a binary search. If everyone is between 1 and 100, that's no more than 7 requests. The only way this wouldn't hurt privacy excessively is that it has to work the other way around. You, not the app, requests a verification token from a government API that only says you are above 18 which expires once in a while. The token should bear no other information about you and be single use so it cannot be correlated between different sites. For the US, it should also be on a federal level (the verification scheme, not the age verification requirement) to reduce the bits from knowing your state, which is a lot for small states.

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#335

Post by Zak »

abenga wrote: post #307
darioush wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And how can you attribute this decline to specific laws? Seems it could be a result of many things such as public education & cancer outcomes becoming obvious.

When people were told they could smoke from candy-flavored USB-charged devices they jumped back on the train. Education didn't do anything, and no facts are obvious in this new world.

Do we have clear evidence for vaping causing harms of similar severity and frequency as smoking?

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#336

Post by wegfawefgawefg »

slg wrote: post #188
wegfawefgawefg wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>That doesnt make him prejudiced It is literally the dictionary definition of prejudice. From Merriam-Webster[1]: >1. b (1) - an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge They directly said "two dudes kissing... feels wrong to me but when I try to come up with an explanation I have none." That is an "adverse opinion" they immediately admit to holding "without just grounds".…

I dont have to justify why I dont like bananas. It is intrinsic to me. I am not prejudiced against bananas.

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#337

Post by TZubiri »

We should recognize that this is a political issue and that a problem exists that needs a solution.

One party to the debate claiming that the solution (age verification) to the problem (kids accessing adult content) is imperfect, is worthless.

We know what the position of the EFF or FSF is on the matter, they prioritize online privacy over kid safety, got it. But if the message is going to be that the solution has a problem and there is no more contributions, then the implicit proposal is that there needs to be no solution and the initial problem is ignored.

If the opposition to current age verification take this naive approach of denouncing age verification and offering no solutions, they will be kept at the sidelines while the adults vote in the senate for these solutions. Newsflash, you lost the debate, if you want back in, you are going to need more than this.

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#338

Post by wegfawefgawefg »

kerkeslager wrote: post #236
slg wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That doesnt make him prejudiced It is literally the dictionary definition of prejudice. From Merriam-Webster[1]: >1. b (1) - an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge They directly said "two dudes kissing... feels wrong to me but when I try to come up with an explanation I have none." That is an "adverse opinion" they immediately admit to holding "without just grounds".…

A strategic tip: he doesn't care that he's prejudiced, so showing he's prejudiced doesn't do much.

What can he do before you determine that he has justification in his purely qualitative preference? Let a man fuck him in the ass?

Your position is not just unrealistic, it is out of sync with how the other 8 billion humans on the planet operate.

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#339

Post by c22 »

TZubiri wrote: post #337

We should recognize that this is a political issue and that a problem exists that needs a solution. One party to the debate claiming that the solution (age verification) to the problem (kids accessing adult content) is imperfect, is worthless. We know what the position of the EFF or FSF is on the matter, they prioritize online privacy over kid safety, got it. But if the message is going to be that the solution has a…

Online privacy is a key component of kid's safety on the internet.

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#340

Post by Der_Einzige »

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.

Thank you!!! This website and anglos in general (aussies are by far the worst) are little tyrant authoritarians who love to lick boots.
Post reply on HN