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

451–460 of 485 posts

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#451

Post by isaacremuant »

LorenPechtel wrote: post #428
isaacremuant wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. That was the most clear cut case of authoritarianism I've ever seen in the post Berlin wall era. It's not hard to grasp if you read a constitution and see how right to assemble, right to work, right to bodily autonomy, right to speak, all got attacked in different degrees in different countries across the world with apparent widespread support. Of course, censorship of any alternative played a part and non compl…

If we had done as well as the places that were careful there would be about 1 million more Americans now than there actually are. But most of them were costs to society, not producers, and thus killing them was a win for the Republicans. (Although I don't think we had a chance of doing as well because it got here earlier.)

You can repeat that narrative all you want but it was always a bad one and became really stale, really fast.

Observing regions, countries and comparing when they didn't perform the hygiene theater really showed your measures had little effect (as expected). The fudging of numbers and bad faith also made things hard to argue.

The fact that you're all about republicans wanted to murder Americans shows how deranged you are. You must have been very happy with Cuomo's Emmy or Grammy or whatever it was, while he actually got a beautiful number of deaths that he absolutely "didn't want or cause".

It's time you accept what was obvious all along. The elephant repellent in Texas wasn't repelling elephants.

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#452

Post by isaacremuant »

outer_web wrote: post #386
isaacremuant wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. That was the most clear cut case of authoritarianism I've ever seen in the post Berlin wall era. It's not hard to grasp if you read a constitution and see how right to assemble, right to work, right to bodily autonomy, right to speak, all got attacked in different degrees in different countries across the world with apparent widespread support. Of course, censorship of any alternative played a part and non compl…

Uh what? Brief shelter in place orders followed by limitations on* occupancy of commercial spaces is proof that HN will embrace deanonymizing the internet? You are also gonna have to help me out what I am supposed to call you.

[flagged]

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#453

Post by solidsnack9000 »

Aloisius wrote: post #399
solidsnack9000 wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"...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…

Let me see if I understand the situation you're describing clearly. It seems like you're saying that all or most young people will be able to -- and be inclined to -- use VPNs to visit porn sites, and will do so.

They won't be able to visit porn sites in their own jurisdiction -- let us call it jurisdiction J -- because those sites have to perform age verification, but they will be able to visit porn sites in other jurisdictions, since they can send traffic that appears to originate in those jurisdictions. Those porn sites are not in J and so don't have to enforce J's rules.

When I think about this situation, though, it just seems like it would lead lawmakers to require VPN sites to perform age verification.

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#454

Post by solidsnack9000 »

Aloisius wrote: post #399
solidsnack9000 wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"...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…

Regarding "Not only is enforcement practical...", I'm not sure enforcement is all that practical for this offense -- my understanding is that most instances of it are never caught and never charged.

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#455

Post by account42 »

myvoiceismypass wrote: post #364
Aeolun wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You will however be asked for ID before being allowed in a strip club, brothel or casino, or before being sold a DVD of some action movie. The action movie too? I’ve never seen that happen, and I’m certain I rented a whole bunch of age inappropriate DVD’s (or was it VCR’s?) back in the day. Maybe we were required to be ID’ed and the teenager behind the counter just gave zero fucks?

I know movie theaters are different from video rental stores - but I once got carded on a date at age 16, to see the movie Johnny Pneumonic. It was rated R. Still had one more year to go. It was rather embarrassing. I still have not watched Johnny Pneumonic.

You mean Johnny Mnemonic?

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#456

Post by account42 »

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

#457

Post by account42 »

ty6853 wrote: post #163
slg wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Recognizing you have feelings isn't wrong. It's how you learn to control your actions and reason your response.

It's also a perfectly natural reaction that is built into many people's biology.

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#458

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#459

Post by isaacremuant »

cosmicgadget wrote: post #389
isaacremuant wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Another one who doesn't get it. It shouldn't be done. The problem is that you don't get it. You think that saying "we all agree on X but it's bad for society" gets you to eventually acknowledge there's a safer way to do X, at least partially. I'm saying you shouldn't even pretend the first statement is acceptable and that implementation is the problem . Now, that's very nuanced for some and I'll get the "you're m…

Okay my bad. I thought you were making an argument against intrusive law enforcement but you were actually saying kids should run with knives.

Strawman based on lack of understanding. Typical.

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#460

Post by isaacremuant »

BlackFly wrote: post #345
isaacremuant wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Another one who doesn't get it. It shouldn't be done. The problem is that you don't get it. You think that saying "we all agree on X but it's bad for society" gets you to eventually acknowledge there's a safer way to do X, at least partially. I'm saying you shouldn't even pretend the first statement is acceptable and that implementation is the problem . Now, that's very nuanced for some and I'll get the "you're m…

The point you are missing is that he presented what he knew to be norms and used language to indicate that they are norms (should vs must) and you are somehow confused into thinking that he presented them as inalienable facts. Commenters thought that if they pointed out the nuance of normative assertion vs enforcement you would see the distinction but you continue to fail to distinguish a normative assertion from a f…

I understand your point and if that were the case I'd accept it as valid but I'm not the only one in my interpretation, judging by other comments affirming the points of things that "should happen".

>I also disagree with you that widespread agreement on norms is some problematic slippery slope. Failure to distinguish between norms and objectivity as you are doing is what leads to widespread norms being enforced absurdly by a tyranny of the majority.

Objectivity huh? Tyranny of the majority huh? Why do I have the feeling you're generalizing some specific partisan/personal problem and you'd rather not discuss the specific because it's then less defensible?

I'll call and raise a self-centered tyranny of the anglosphere.

Post reply on HN