Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 229 posts

Re: US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law

#151

Post by Tadpole9181 »

cigaredforlife wrote: post #143

[flagged]

Thanks! Did you have any more tips for us immoral peons, clearly beneath your intellect? Maybe you could let us know how best one can licks boots, since you seem to be an expert on the subject matter?

First of all, privacy and free speech are human rights and this is so brazenly a violation of them. The government has no business knowing every site anybody goes to and mandating delicious databases of blackmail material with every piece of adult content any American citizen has ever watched.

Second of all, reduced access to porn correlates to an increase in sex crimes and teenage pregnancy. This is bad news for us all.

It really is that simple.

Re: US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law

#152

Post by theturtle »

heavyset_go wrote: post #44
silverquiet wrote: post #26

[flagged]

You will need to upload your ID to post on social media. Bills like that have already been introduced. Lawmakers have already said this is their intention. We are going to "think of the children" ourselves into needing to give every site our ID, or more, just to use the internet.

As the late George Carlin put it succinctly years ago, "fuck the children!"

Re: US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law

#153

Post by superfrank »

DrillShopper wrote: post #142
superfrank wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"IT IS A SLIPPERY SLOPE! First we gave women rights, then black people rights, and now we're trying to give trans people rights and rights to illegal immigrants!" To be clear, I support all of those things, but the point I'm making is that saying it's a slippery slope is a bad argument because A) the next steps are often based on opinion and not fact and B) what one person sees as a slippery slope another person sees…

If you're not arguing for it, stop being an apologist for it.

Why? Pointing out a flawed argument isn't the same as supporting an idea.

Re: US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law

#154

Post by ahtihn »

ineptech wrote: post #119
ahtihn wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need something like Verifiable Credentials to do this properly imo. You don't want something like OAuth because the login service knows which websites you're requesting the login from.

I'm not suggesting that people actually authenticate to Pornhub using Login.gov's oauth, they would continue to auth (or not) as they do now. Login.gov can issue a token saying, in essence, "A user authenticated to me, and that user over 21, but I'm not going to identify them, I'll just give you a random GUID so this token will be unique". edit to add more details, since I'm thinking it through: the token would need…

Look into "Verifiable Credentials" (aka VCs)

You can have a digital ID that you store in a wallet. You can then present the credential and selectively disclose information.

There's a bunch of W3C specs and RFCs around this.

Re: US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law

#155

Post by tzs »

stvltvs wrote: post #121
ahtihn wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need something like Verifiable Credentials to do this properly imo. You don't want something like OAuth because the login service knows which websites you're requesting the login from.

Whatever technical solution is implemented needs to: 1. Not inform the authentication provider about which websites you're visiting. 2. Not inform the websites about your meat space identity.

Add

3. Not allow someone who gets both (1) a log of authentication provider transactions, including timestamps, who was being verified, and whatever output the provider generated, and (2) a log of the website's age checks including timestamps, website accounts, and whatever proof was provided to match them up to associate real IDs from the authentication provider with website account IDs.

To make this work I think any such system will need to be so widely used that there are hundreds or thousands of verifications happening every second at each authentication provider and typical users get verified many times a day, and there should probably be some random delays introduced by the user's computer.

Otherwise it could be too easy to unmask people by looking at verification timing. If you are trying to unmask a user who verified through provider P and P only did a verification for one person that day it is very likely that is the person you are trying to unmask.

Re: US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law

#156

Post by jonahbenton »

ineptech wrote: post #78

Would it not be reasonable and safe and private to implement age verification through login.gov? An Oauth implementation that knows your identity and age can produce a verifiable token that attests your age but not identity. The only way your identity would leak would be if both the porn site and the oauth retain the tokens (which they would both claim not to do else no one would use this), and the attacker gets acce…

Yes, uploading IDs to commercial entities (porn or not) is terrible. Coinbase's recent KYC breach is going to lead to a metric ton of identity theft. While there used to be penalties for securities fraud- no more of that under Trump- there are no penalties for privacy violations and until there are, commercially pervasive KYC is an absolutely awful idea.

Wrt login.gov, as someone who has contracted with fedgov and knows some former 18f people, absolutely excellent humans and technologists- their work notwithstanding, Musk's criminal rampage through fedgov databases and US SC complacence with same has turned me into a rabid libertarian. Cities and states are set up to- and should be funded to- provide individual constituent service. Fedgov is just not.

Re: US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law

#157

Post by Tadpole9181 »

tzs wrote: post #155
stvltvs wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whatever technical solution is implemented needs to: 1. Not inform the authentication provider about which websites you're visiting. 2. Not inform the websites about your meat space identity.

Add 3. Not allow someone who gets both (1) a log of authentication provider transactions, including timestamps, who was being verified, and whatever output the provider generated, and (2) a log of the website's age checks including timestamps, website accounts, and whatever proof was provided to match them up to associate real IDs from the authentication provider with website account IDs. To make this work I think an…

At this point, I can't even imagine a return to normal governing, let alone good governing. Like imposing enormous fines for ISPs selling user traffic data for packet analysis, to sell name-associated web traffic data to any company or foreign power even when the user is behind a VPN.

Re: US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law

#158

Post by nickff »

JohnMakin wrote: post #131
nickff wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The regulatory burdens on most companies have been gradually increasing, to the point that it is very difficult to run companies with <100 (some might say <1000) employees in most non-software industries. I am sorry to hear that it will negatively impact you, but you don't have the most sympathetic story, and nobody seems to care about this issue anyway, so there's little hope of reprieve, and you'll likely just have…

Why is the story not sympathetic?

Voters don’t seem to sympathize or at least support pornographic performers or distributors; see Operation Choke Point for an example of how they were lumped in with ‘unsavory’ industries, and cut off from essential services (with no substantial corresponding outcry).

Re: US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law

#159

Post by kyleee »

Canada wrote: post #145
pyuser583 wrote: post #124

I have kids and try very hard to keep them from inappropriate material online. The real dangers aren’t dedicated porn sites, but poorly managed social media sites. You can’t just block the domain. In many cases, the bad material comes from peers. Kids have always talked about “bad” things, but the internet super charges it. I generally support these efforts, but I’m also very cynical they help. Politicians focus on t…

You pretty much have to whitelist. I think we're heading towards a future where we give kids only devices that restrict internet access to known good content. There's more than enough known good content out there already to keep kids occupied until they come of age. There will be managed whitelists that your kids can access, which sites must apply for and demonstrate compliance with the policy of, and you will be abl…

Back to curation, back to whitelisted web rings, yes I think this is the only option

Re: US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law

#160

Post by techjamie »

Canada wrote: post #145
pyuser583 wrote: post #124

I have kids and try very hard to keep them from inappropriate material online. The real dangers aren’t dedicated porn sites, but poorly managed social media sites. You can’t just block the domain. In many cases, the bad material comes from peers. Kids have always talked about “bad” things, but the internet super charges it. I generally support these efforts, but I’m also very cynical they help. Politicians focus on t…

You pretty much have to whitelist. I think we're heading towards a future where we give kids only devices that restrict internet access to known good content. There's more than enough known good content out there already to keep kids occupied until they come of age. There will be managed whitelists that your kids can access, which sites must apply for and demonstrate compliance with the policy of, and you will be abl…

The most difficult part is getting parental enforcement. Because a lot of parents:

A. Aren't tech savvy enough to set up rigorous controls.

B. Don't feel like dealing with setting up the controls to keep their kid quiet.

C. Allow things that contain the content anyway. (Twitter, Discord, Reddit, etc.)

And D. Assuming their kids don't learn to bypass it anyway.

I'm sure with the locked down nature of devices today, good parental controls are easier to come by. But when I was a tech savvy teen, the controls on my machine weren't much more effective than wishful thinking.

Post reply on HN