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

161–170 of 229 posts

Re: US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law

#161

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #112
init2null wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the time they'll go on Twitter or the noncompliant websites instead. That being said, published numbers have shown VPN subscriptions skyrocket. Public tech skills aren't what they were in the 2000s, but people who can't/won't verify ID are motivated. It is a powerful force after all.

Just make sure it is not a Facebook owned VPN which is actually used to spy on its users. https://www.techradar.com/computing/cyber-security/facebooks...

> They would use a method known as "SSL man-in-the-middle" to decrypt Snapchat's protected traffic to inform Meta's business decision-making.

This particular story seems moot to the worry porn viewers would have of Facebook ratting them out to law enforcement.

Re: US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law

#162

Post by DangitBobby »

cigaredforlife wrote: post #143

[flagged]

This attitude is first of all disappointing, but also predictable, and crucially exactly reflect (I believe) the closely held beliefs of legislators and judges trampling on 1st Amendment rights "for the children". The age verification scheme is blackmail, designed to discourage access to pornography for adults, plain and simple. If it weren't, they would have set up age verification schemes that allow you to remain anonymous.

Instead of being smug about how you like the outcome (this time) you should be concerned that your constitutional rights are subject to the arbitrary moral whims of whoever happens to be in power at the time. Imagine a Congress and complicit SC that together legislates it's illegal to visit Christian churches without government age verification because some right wing factions churn out violent extremists who brainwash and indoctrinate children into their ranks as young as possible?

Re: US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law

#163

Post by kotaKat »

haiku2077 wrote: post #97
yupyupyups wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kids don't go through the hoops to buy and install a VPN just to access porn. If they were not exposed to it in the first place, which is very easy without a VPN, then they wont have the interest to get one.

Kids were using VPNs and proxies when I was in school in the 2000s to access Myspace, flash games and comics. There are free ones that are spyware + hijack your PC for use in a botnet. These were "normie" kids, not future hackers.

Hell: My fellow kids in class ~2008-2011 were using Ultrasurf to get to Facebook, powered by Falun Gong. I remember those days quite well, and the half-assed attempts by IT staff to keep us from running it or saving it to our network drives.

I just remembered my home IP address by heart to RDP back home. Another one of us hosted a free website somewhere with a spare copy of Ultrasurf to get around the filters in the first place.

Re: US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law

#164

Post by vel0city »

reverendsteveii wrote: post #75
vel0city wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What counts as obscene has been defined for a while. And I don't think Wikipedia would count as obscene by the Miller test. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test . Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, . Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory fun…

Even in this description you deferred to your own personal interpretation when you said "I don't think much of the content of Wikipedia is describing sexual content in a patently offensive way". Someone might, or might find it politically expedient to pretend that they do. After all, what's "offensive" is arbitrary.

You're misunderstanding my description.

You don't just need "someone". You'll find "someone" say anything, including that the Earth is flat, its 40,000 years old, and we're controlled by lizard people. The standard isn't "someone". You'll find someone who claims a table of ICD codes or a stop sign appeals to their prurient interest and is sexual in nature.

You'd need "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" to say that under the Miller test and have the court/a jury to agree. Not just any person applying any standard.

Re: US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law

#165

Post by Canada »

cchance wrote: post #53
silverquiet wrote: post #26

[flagged]

Its bullshit a kid can buy a vpn without an ID for 3$ and skip any restriction, and even without that 90% of international porn sites, so the law fixes nothing but opens a slippery slope, whats next a law saying US needs a "Great Firewall" to protect the children from international deviancy. And it also just opens the possibility for centralized ID verification services being breached and tieing identities to their m…

We need to put these restrictions on device, and hard socially punish anyone who breaks the pact. Like, our kids get phones with parental control, they get the whitelisted approved stuff only on those.

If I give my kid a general purpose computer with unsupervised access, I better be on top of that, especially if your kid is over. It's dangerous.

We are the adults here, we have to control the children for their own good, and frankly for our own good too whether said children belong to us or not. And we sure can, and we have always done so without eliminating vice, we just agree to exclude the children and punish any adult who breaks this pact. If we can't even control the children, we must be the most incapable idiot generations of all human history.

We do not need to give children access to the internet. There will be nothing of value to children published that can't be whitelisted inside of a week, and the delay of a week won't matter.

Conversely, we cannot afford to allow a comprehensive internet censorship regime for the adult public. It's too important for civil society to survive that every adult have unrestricted read and publish rights with every other adult. Therefore, the only reasonable move is to kick the children off of it.

Re: US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law

#167

Post by dragonwriter »

vel0city wrote: post #164
reverendsteveii wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even in this description you deferred to your own personal interpretation when you said "I don't think much of the content of Wikipedia is describing sexual content in a patently offensive way". Someone might, or might find it politically expedient to pretend that they do. After all, what's "offensive" is arbitrary.

You're misunderstanding my description. You don't just need "someone". You'll find "someone" say anything, including that the Earth is flat, its 40,000 years old, and we're controlled by lizard people. The standard isn't "someone". You'll find someone who claims a table of ICD codes or a stop sign appeals to their prurient interest and is sexual in nature. You'd need "the average person, applying contemporary communi…

> You'd need "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" to say that under the Miller test and have the court/a jury to agree.

No, you just need the court to agree, you don't need to actually get the (non-existent, fictional abstraction) of “the average person” to say anything, you just need a judge to believe that.

Re: US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law

#169

Post by codedokode »

nickff wrote: post #130
Rebelgecko wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do CC issuers report the owner's age?

I am not sure whether the issuers report that to the processors (though I doubt it), but you cannot get that information from a processor.

It would be not very reliable because kids could take parents' card under some excuse (I want to ride an electric scooter, they allow only adult users so I need a card).

Re: US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law

#170

Post by anigbrowl »

codedokode wrote: post #169
nickff wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure whether the issuers report that to the processors (though I doubt it), but you cannot get that information from a processor.

It would be not very reliable because kids could take parents' card under some excuse (I want to ride an electric scooter, they allow only adult users so I need a card).

If they can do taht they can probably make copies of their parents ID too
Post reply on HN