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

391–400 of 485 posts

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#391

Post by TZubiri »

c22 wrote: post #376
TZubiri wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's not a matter of should government be allowed to protect kids. They already do, that's not the discussion.

In the same way that parents can control what kids do with their devices, so can governments and they do, all the time. Through regulation they control what software companies like Google or Apple approve for kids, and they can control or subpoena data from kid apps.

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

100% should, and 100% does, you are misinformed on what is and what should be. Thankfully you are not in charge of this decisions.

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#392

Post by TZubiri »

Spivak wrote: post #371
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.…

That's a great way to be excluded from a political conversation, pretend that the other side does not exist and that we are a strawman from a conspiracy.

How about recognizing the inevitable conflict between two priorities: kid safety and online privacy? Simple thing really.

Again, you don't need to do this, but you will be ignored and put in a kiddy table while the adults talk in the senate and in school boards.

Most schools have deep inspecting firewalls btw. Go tell them that it's an invasion onto kid's privacy, and that you should be able to speak with them without their parents or guardians snooping. See how they look at ya

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#393

Post by wkat4242 »

GlobalFrog wrote: post #388
wongarsu wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Exactly. Î really don’t understand that some take issue of verifying ages. IRL, you can be asked your ID to buy porn magazines, drink alcohol… Why would it be a nuisance to verify the same things online? Is it because you would be asked every time as your data wouldnt be stored for privacy issues? So, people are realizing that automating everything has drawbacks and that interacting with real humans directly has also…

Because IRL it is just as inconvenient but it doesn't actually happen. I've never been carded in my life. Even when I was in my 20s.

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#394

Post by wkat4242 »

ty6853 wrote: post #172
slg wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Or alternatively, someone else with homophobic feelings will use my comment to reflect and realize it's OK to acknowledge their feelings while acknowledging the rights and freedoms of others. I welcome gays the freedom to kiss in public, just as they must accept my freedom to discuss my feelings. It's a two sided coin, and I'm not sure it's a loaded coin as you imply.

It's because you're berating their identity.

It's similar to sharing your feelings when you're offended by a black person walking on the street. We don't tolerate people complaining about that. Why would the LGBT community be treated differently?

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#395

Post by crote »

repeekad wrote: post #143
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…

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

Yes? There are plenty of stories of exactly this happening. People see a kid walking on their own, call the cops, who scoop up the kid and charge the parents with child endangerment because they were "abandoned". Get unlucky, and CPS will be involved.

On the other hand, child kidnapping by strangers isn't really a common thing. The vast majority of kids going "missing" just did something like going over to play with the neighbour's kids without telling their parents, and the remainder is taken by their own family. Of the roughly 800.000 kids going missing each year, only 100 or so are genuinely abducted by a stranger.

So no, a child being more likely to be abducted by a cop than by a stranger isn't as strange of a claim as it may initially seem.

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#396

Post by wkat4242 »

haswell wrote: post #123
kennysoona wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Internet should be Unrated and thus Adults Only by default. As much as I kind of agree, I want to fight so much for open access to the internet because it was so useful to me as a child, thirsty for information and starving for nourishment. I will say I think these laws are bonkers. Restrict what companies can do with child data, make it clear an account is a minors, that should be more than sufficient.

> 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…

Uh in the early days porn was even less restricted online than it is now. You could grab it at many websites and on Usenet (which was still very common in those days). There wasn't even a "Yeah I'm 18+, stop bothering me" button.

Only the quality was worse but that was purely due to technical constraints (no streaming video)

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#397

Post by wkat4242 »

crote wrote: post #395
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?

Yes? There are plenty of stories of exactly this happening. People see a kid walking on their own, call the cops, who scoop up the kid and charge the parents with child endangerment because they were "abandoned". Get unlucky, and CPS will be involved. On the other hand, child kidnapping by strangers isn't really a common thing. The vast majority of kids going "missing" just did something like going over to play with…

Lol so different. When i was young (I'd often see train conductors asking why I was alone and then going "ok, fine" though they would keep an eye on me usually.

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#398

Post by wkat4242 »

haswell wrote: post #240
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is more of it now, certainly. Is it worse than goatse?

More of it yes, but the themes and extremes have been shifting over the years as well, with family fantasies and misogyny/sexual violence becoming increasingly prevalent. This was actually on the front page recently [0], and while I'm no prude, I do think it's worth taking the trends in porn seriously when comparing the old Internet to the current day. - [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43196585

I don't disagree that porn shapes our sexual behaviour. But I don't think it's a bad thing. Sex is a behaviour that's sensitive to fashion and tradition just like food, dance and social norms are.

If people do more extreme things and they enjoy it then why not? As long as it's fully consensual and of adult age it's only great when people get to explore their sexuality.

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#399

Post by Aloisius »

solidsnack9000 wrote: post #253
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…

"...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?

If you don't wear a seatbelt, you can be ticketed. Not only is enforcement practical, but it has a measurable impact on behavior.

If you use a VPN to visit a porn site to bypass age verification, you haven't broken the law as it applies to sites, not users. There will be no measurable impact on underage people visiting since the barriers to VPNs/proxies are almost nil while still costing money to enforce on non-tech savvy adults - an overall detriment to society.

Laws that are unenforceable and don't benefit society are bad laws.

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#400

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

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 web, i.e., websites, is only one example of how "the internet" can be used. "The internet" is "Adults Only", assuming internet subscribers are persons with bank accounts and credit cards to pay internet access fees, i.e., adults.

Web != internet.

Post reply on HN