Earlier quoted context omitted.
EFF's legal side is... not as insane, I guess. And there are some sound minds surely there still. But I repeat: the data privacy dystopia is upon us, and what is EFF pushing for clicks and eyeballs? "Big Tech Bad". "Big Tech Bad" is precisely the kind of poorly-grounded outrage farm used to bring DOGE to power in the first place. Voters trying to bring their perceived enemies to heel are the actual threat! And EFF is…
> In the coming years we will remember fondly when our personal data lived in secure and well-managed centers run by Meta and Google and Amazon and not on some DOGE staffers' Macbook. Seems odd to assume that the US government didn't have access to that data prior to the current administration.
Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance
441–450 of 485 posts
Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance
#442Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a manga/hentai trope. Pornography has latched onto it but it's not pornographic in nature. You really need to know the context to know it's meant in an erotic way, otherwise it's just a contorted face.
You know what hentai is, right?
But I mean Western video/cam porn has latched onto it
Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance
#443Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
Two situations have been mentioned in this thread:
1) coming across two men kissing in public, and
2) you seeing a morbidly obese person naked.
I honestly have no interest in classifying either you or the GP as prejudiced or not prejudiced for your feelings in either of these situations. What I'm more interested in is:
1) Can you regulate your emotions and behave reasonably in these situations, and
2) What underlying beliefs cause you to feel some kind of way about these situations in the first place.
To be frank, I think it's childish to be unable to regulate your emotions in these situations. Context of course matters--if someone is trying to force you to look at these things, that's not okay. But that's not what's happening in the vast majority of cases. In the vast majority of cases, if you come across men kissing in public, or a fat person naked in a locker room or bathhouse, those are just people going about their lives and if you have some negative feeling about that, that's very much your problem. It's not their problem, and it's not the problem of the legal system.
To be clear, your purely qualitative preference is 100% not anyone else's problem. I don't care what your purely qualitative preference is, but I do care that you're making it other people's problem.
People will really talk about how they value freedom and make fun of "snowflakes" for getting "triggered" and then those same people will want to restrict gay or fat people from doing the same things as straight or thin people so they can avoid getting triggered. It's childish in a literal sense, like a kid crying because they're mad that it's raining. Sure, you can not like the rain--that's valid--but at a certain maturity level we can expect that you will regulate your emotions enough to not lose your shit about situations where you can have no reasonable expectation that things will go the way you prefer.
The reason your beliefs matter is because people like me are willing to teach you how to regulate your emotions. Part of how you regulate your emotions is by questioning the beliefs that cause you to feel what you're feeling. For example, you seem very concerned about the absurd possibility that someone might expect you to (in your words) "let a man fuck [you] in the ass". I'm sure you can find some fringe weirdo who wants that, but I am very confident that nobody in this conversation is interested in coercing anyone into anal sex, or any sort of gay activity for that matter. The only thing I want from you in relation to gay people is for you to treat them with the same kindness and respect that you (ostensibly) treat anyone else with. Maybe if you were a little less irrationally terrified that a gay guy would try to have sex with you, you'd be able to regulate your emotions about gay people a bit better.
And... I'm not fat positive by the way. I think the science is pretty clear that obesity is a serious health issue. I just don't see any rational reason to leap from that to insisting that fat people are ugly and gross. Do you go out of your way to tell people with lung cancer that you're not attracted to them?
Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance
#444Earlier 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…
As a gay man, I am profoundly uncomfortable with the idea of one or more private companies having a durable record of the content I look at, for what I would hope are obvious historical reasons. Additionally, age-gate laws will inevitably be used for oppressive purposes - remember, a substantial number of conservatives view ANY mention of the mere existence of LGBT people or families as inherently pornographic, sexual, or obscene, and those people would absolutely seek to have all LGBT content age-gated. Hell, even without such laws we see this in libraries and schools. The harm that would be averted from age verification online is not proportional to the evils it would give rise to, plain and simple.
The only form of age verification I would ever be OK with would be on the same basis as being carded in RL - something like, at a corner store I could buy a tag with an ID number on it that would count as proof of age for as long as I had it, for online purposes. The clerk would verify my age and then give me a tag in a sealed box with a random number, thus preserving my anonymity from both angles: the clerk would not know what number he sold me, and the state would not know who bought the number, only that the retailer averred that I had had my age verified.
Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance
#445Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
#446Our 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…
There's an issue with the flow you described; the party requesting verification shouldn't directly interact with the verifying agent (the state) as this leaks to the state the identity of the requesting 3rd party. The correct flow for preserving anonymity is: the requesting party issues a challenge token to the user -- the token header describes the type of request (>=18yo?) and the token body is completely random( )…
Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance
#447Earlier quoted context omitted.
So kids just memorize their parents' driving license when they don't pay attention, and this is bypassed, just like in the old days.
No. Kids would need to memorize the private key of their parents id card.
Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance
#448Privacy Passes for adults where age verification is needed would be an interesting solution. The government hands you as many tokens as you’d like to access websites as an “adult”. Defaulting to getting tokens so that it isn’t only people accessing websites for only adults which are grabbing tokens. I’m know this is a newer project but Kagi implemented this as a way to completely decouple users from their searches, w…
Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance
#449It does sounds like that the author is not aware of existence of zero knowledge range proofs for identity based authetification (anonymous credentials). In essence they work as follows: a third party vouches a commitment for your birth year into a commitment with a signature. This then can be used for to be shown to a service provider along with a range proof to ensure that the age limit gets respected. That way serv…
1. Me from sharing my credentials with everyone by publicly publishing them.
2. The third party from connecting with any service providers requiring verification to share info?
Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance
#450Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
I don't know why I'd form an opinion on whether he's prejudiced--I'm not particularly interested in classifying people based on arbitrary divisions, especially when they're pendantic dictionary definitions that include archaic meanings of the word. I'm more interested in discussing people's beliefs and behaviors. Two situations have been mentioned in this thread: 1) coming across two men kissing in public, and 2) you…
I think one oversight is that you presuppose this.
My beliefs in this case counter my feelings. I have nothing but warm regards, in belief, for dudes that want to kiss dudes. And I've gone to gay events, pride, gay nightclubs, made gay friends, worked with gay peopke, done all the things to normalize it in my mind and the negative feeling from watching homoerotic activity doesn't hamper this or stop me from enjoying my time with these people.
In this case it's not belief driving feelings, it is a negative feeling I get counter to my beleif that I just have to overlook. I don't see this as a 'problem' as you put it. For all I know it is some genetic drive my ancestors had that lead to my genesis. I have no reason to believe it is maladaptive.