I stand by my statement that the laws need only require servers and clients use the RTA header. [1] Not perfect but perfect is the enemy of good or so they say. No leakage, privacy compliant. Contact your reps.
Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance
401–410 of 485 posts
Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance
#402Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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..."? This isn't really an answer, but the same problem exists with current age verification laws. I think the main difference with traditional parental control software is that the burden would be on the site maintainer to…
> I think the main difference with traditional parental control software is that the burden would be on the site maintainer to accurately report the appropriateness of their content. What would reddit.com do? > If not, they would be legally liable. We already have CDA/230. > Of course this introduces the problem that foreign entities not subject to the law are effectively exempt from the requirement. And so this whol…
I would think that that CDA/230 would probably have to amended if such a new law were to make any sense.
Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance
#403This 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…
You're describing the fallacy fallacy, the fallacy that just because an argument might be an example of a logical fallacy, doesn't mean the claim is incorrect.
Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance
#404Earlier 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…
> 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. Which is also the same reason adults are allowed to do all these other things, like buying toxic skin creams.
Strictly speaking, you got me there! Much like narcotic preparations, toxic cosmetics have been known throughout history - so both cases do boil down to the same dynamic after all. (Though there are interesting divergences e.g. in the gendered targeting of the products in question, or their application for altering the state of the self, vs. the perceptions of others, and so on. FWIW I consider both to be harmful and habit-forming; but a habit is a form of personality alteration that must be fairly reckoned with.)
My point is that fighting to get one's unhealthy "toys" back doesn't require any more maturity, self-reflection, or responsible decision-making, than that of a literal toddler. But neither does embodying a "rational economic agent", the very thing notionally expected of well-adjusted adults! This is a compound effect, eventually resulting in the present grossly miscalibrated governance model, where homegrown "growth hackers" run circles around the legislators.
Generously, "think of the children" can be seen as an escape hatch: reverting to some sort of universally shared value to prompt people to reflect on their present choices. Not very effectively, though: "Well I'm building a better future for my children, by selling all of this poison here to your children, what?" And, like one of the parent posters said, consumers don't just stop needing protection once they reach the age of majority. Clearly, we need better consumers.
Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance
#405Our 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…
The new laws, such as the one that just passed in Utah, require kids to get the consent of their parents to install apps. So now add that complexity to the flow.
https://apnews.com/article/utah-app-store-age-verification-7...
Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance
#406I wonder if there's any chance of technology like Verifiable Credentials[0] getting any adoption because of these laws. I think there are legitimate use cases where you would want to say, "hey, some third-party authority can vouch for me that ____", and not reveal to the third party who's asking for verification and not reveal to the party requiring verification any other claim besides the specific one that they need…
What's insane is that, in France, we have France Connect, which is exactly what you describe: a third-party authentication platform maintained by the government. Lately, a new law just passed to force porn websites to check the age of visitors. I would have been fine with an authentication going through France Connect: - the gov knows which website you went to, just like your DNS provider would, but it doesn't which…
We need this in the US. Otherwise, once laws like this https://apnews.com/article/utah-app-store-age-verification-7... go into effect, 3rd party app stores, like apkmirror.com, etc. are going to need to pull out of the US unless there's a service like that in the country. It's starting with Utah, but many states and even the feds are planning similar laws.
Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance
#407Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I really don't know how you came to any conclusions about "my position", given I did not actually state a position on this.
Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance
#408Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's insane is that, in France, we have France Connect, which is exactly what you describe: a third-party authentication platform maintained by the government. Lately, a new law just passed to force porn websites to check the age of visitors. I would have been fine with an authentication going through France Connect: - the gov knows which website you went to, just like your DNS provider would, but it doesn't which…
We need this in the US. Otherwise, once laws like this https://apnews.com/article/utah-app-store-age-verification-7... go into effect, 3rd party app stores, like apkmirror.com, etc. are going to need to pull out of the US unless there's a service like that in the country. It's starting with Utah, but many states and even the feds are planning similar laws.
What knock on effects do you see here, for state-led legislation about online privacy? Do we see privacy-conscious vs restrictive US states, and do folks in the (let’s say it, blue) states host US-centric Mullvads? Like out of state abortions.
Going further, how might this effect folks having “freedom is more important than safety” beliefs, given they reside in areas more likely to deny civil liberties-ish rights in the name of family values-ish rights, when this starts to really hit them where it hurts? Everything they do or say online becomes traceable to them, for a notoriously vocal-on-social media set.
Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance
#409The 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…
Maybe that's how things have become but it's certainly not how I grew up. My going to visit my grandmother alone was unusual, not a cause for alarm. I was 7, it involved public transit and crossing major streets. I was trusted to handle it, never had any issues other with getting on (drivers blowing past, not realizing I wanted on)/getting off (this was back when there was a pull cord at adult height.) Even tried using public transit to get to school (didn't work, too many drivers blowing past.) I've been in many other countries--and seeing young kids on the bus is the norm.
Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance
#410Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I really don't know how you came to any conclusions about "my position", given I did not actually state a position on this.
the way your response was phrased implies to readers that you agree with the accusation of prejudice.
if that was not intended, my apologies.
an agreement of the accusation of prejudice would imply a lot about your beliefs