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

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#371

Post by Spivak » Sat, Mar 08, 2025, 4:22 PM UTC

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…

I think this analysis presumes that the initial problem is real and the concern for it is made in good faith. The senate isn't immune to concern trolling and "protecting the children" is probably the most famous and most used smokescreen for people with ulterior motives. Accepting the premise is not usually a good strategy.

And we don't even have to speculate anymore what they are because the plan is out in the open. So when someone shows up with what is ostensibly a non-problem in the real world but the solution to which happens to be the legal tool they need for this other less popular worse thing they've loudly said they want I think it's normal and intellectually honest for that to be the analysis. "The EFF doesn't care about child safety" is exactly what they wanted you to say to dismiss any reasoned opposition.

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#372

Post by scarface_74 » Sat, Mar 08, 2025, 4:24 PM UTC

AngryData wrote: post #219

repeekad wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You really think a child is more likely to be abducted by police in NYC than anything else? What are you talking about?

Unless you live in a really bad ghetto where everybody has bars on their windows and people warn you to get off the streets before sundown, US police are the most likely to harm or take people without cause.

No one in the “ghetto” just randomly takes people’s kids.

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#373

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Mar 08, 2025, 4:29 PM UTC

Der_Einzige wrote: post #340

isaacremuant wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#374

Post by balamatom » Sat, Mar 08, 2025, 4:42 PM UTC

squigz wrote: post #366

balamatom wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. The reason "we", scratch that, the reason the state allows adults to drink and smoke is because adults have been known to fight back , sometimes quite effectively, when they feel like something is been "taken away" from them. The obvious example here is the rise of bootlegging during prohibition; all that did was empower the organized criminal class, rather than get the nation to realize the awesome benef…

Spot the American. Not everyone has such an inherently negative view of "the state"

Frankly, I've observed the exact opposite: Americans strongly tend toward the mandatorily pro-social, and it's their vernacular discourse which treats the social establishment as fundamentally well-intentioned and legitimate.

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#375

Post by brookst » Sat, Mar 08, 2025, 4:42 PM UTC

Braxton1980 wrote: post #138

qball wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Littering degrades the commons.

In rural areas animals shit all over farms and areas where people exist and commingle

People stand up and scream and wave their arms at sporting events all the time, but it is frowned upon in airplanes.

context matters.

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#376

Post by c22 » Sat, Mar 08, 2025, 4:51 PM UTC

TZubiri wrote: post #353

c22 wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's also a huge risk. The privacy of attackers is a risk to kid safety. The privacy of messages sent is a risk to kid safety (law enforcement should be able to access them) The privacy of chilren activity is a risk to their safety (Parents should be able to view what their children do.)

Yes, parental responsibility is perhaps the most critical component of kid safety.

However, I know of no children who independently acquired and maintain a device with a connection to the internet. Are you entirely sure we need a governmental edict to allow parents to monitor and influence what their kids see and do online?

Should law enforcement be able to access messages sent to my kid? I'm going to have to say no to this one.

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#377

Post by throw10920 » Sat, Mar 08, 2025, 5:05 PM UTC

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #248

slg wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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.

> 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.

If the use of a meta-position like this is contingent on a particular set of people being in charge and using it, that means that it wasn't a good meta-position to begin with.

Either you believe that we shouldn't tolerate "intolerant" people (and accept that being turned against you when you're not in power), or you don't.

Only believing in it (or supporting it) when you have the power to enforce it on your political opponents is hypocritical and deeply evil.

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#378

Post by throw10920 » Sat, Mar 08, 2025, 5:07 PM UTC

HeatrayEnjoyer wrote: post #304

ty6853 wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tolerance means little if it's about stuff that you have nothing but good or neutral opinions and feelings about. The virtue of tolerance is accepting that which gives you unpleasant opinions or feelings. This is the kind of tolerance that actually takes meaningful effort to develop. You're limiting tolerance to a form where it has little to no value.

[flagged]

[flagged]

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#379

Post by evil-olive » Sat, Mar 08, 2025, 5:16 PM UTC

ndriscoll wrote: post #97

evil-olive wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

your confusion is understandable, because "age verification" can mean anything from "check the box that says you're 18" to "upload a picture of the front and back of your driver's license". > When I go to pornhub I have to click a button that days I’m 18. if you were in Texas, it'd be not reachable at all [0]. this is due to a bill [1] that would have required Pornhub to use the more intrusive age-verification option…

That fine applies if they don't have a system at all, not for scenarios like you posted.

> That fine applies if they don't have a system at all

no, that's not accurate. quoting from the bill:

> A civil penalty imposed under this section for a violation of Section 129B.002 or 129B.003 may be in an amount equal to not more than the total, if applicable, of:

> (1) $10,000 per day that the entity operates an Internet website in violation of the age verification requirements of this chapter;

> (2) $10,000 per instance when the entity retains identifying information in violation of Section 129B.002(b); and

> (3) if, because of the entity's violation of the age verification requirements of this chapter, one or more minors accesses sexual material harmful to minors, an additional amount of not more than $250,000.

if they don't have a system for age verification, the possible fine is $10k per day. run a website for a year, and then the Texas AG gets around to filing a suit against you? that's a possible 3.65 million fine.

the possible $250k is on top of that, if minors access porn on such a website.

crucially, the law says the age-verification system used must be "reasonable" which gives prosecutors a significant amount of leeway. does your porn site use Honest Achmed's Age Verification Service? if that is easy to bypass, there's nothing stopping them from arguing in court that you may have implemented age-verification, but you didn't comply with the law because you didn't use a reasonable verification service.

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#380

Post by jmholla » Sat, Mar 08, 2025, 5:31 PM 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…

Everybody keeps keying in on NYC. I thinks better analogy is would you let your kid travel the world at their whims without you. Because that is the Internet. It is inherently international.