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

Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online

ellsberg.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 1001 posts

Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online

#501

Post by blurbleblurble »

__turbobrew__ wrote: post #486
blurbleblurble wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet then again how hard is it to just grab your parents' ids while they're not looking and add it to your phone wallet?

Gate it in the touch id secure enclave. Then only the biometrics of the adult can provide the proof that they are over 18.

I'm just saying that if age verification is done via a "smart card" then it shouldn't be hard to just add that to the phone.

Unless of course they're planning on making us go to some facility to ensure our phones get the digital components of the IDs get loaded into the secure enclave? Which sounds dystopian as heck given the scenes coming out of the US right now.

Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online

#502

Post by Tadpole9181 »

Aerroon wrote: post #324
alwa wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And we could call this way… zero-knowledge proof! :) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-knowledge_proof I bet we could even get a major phone OS vendor to support such a thing… https://blog.google/products/google-pay/google-wallet-age-id...

I bet that in practice, at scale, these zero knowledge proofs end up being a lot more than zero. Not to mention that you're almost certainly going to have to tie this stuff to specific accounts that will then forever and ever keep your habits collected. One day somebody enterprising is going to add all that data together too.

VPNs and zero knowledge proof systems are vulnerable to traffic analysis (based on packet size and timestamps) and there's almost no cure.

Mullvad is the only VPN I know of that has a mode that normalizes all packets to the same size (going into the VPN) and sends fake packets that don't get sent as real traffic. But that's only obfuscation and, at low traffic or high bandwidth (videos) or with sufficient heuristics, it can be beaten.

The US has basically zero regulation on selling this data. I can imagine a world where within a couple decades the US has one of the largest blackmail crisis ever seen, as foreign governments target civil workers. Or, I guess, at this point, the US government against the "undesirable" party within this administration.

Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online

#504

Post by Tadpole9181 »

38 wrote: post #345
al_borland wrote: post #10

All these ID check laws are out of hand. Parents are expecting the government, and random websites, to raise their kids. Why would anyone trust some random blog with their ID? If these laws move forward (and I don’t think they should), there needs to be a way to authenticate as over 18 without sending picture of your ID off to random 3rd parties, or giving actual personal details. I don’t want to give this data, and…

VPN.

Oh, don't you worry, they'll come after VPNs next. After all, this makes them accomplices to felony acts.

Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online

#505

Post by AaronAPU »

lelanthran wrote: post #468
Hikikomori wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So majority chooses what healthcare options are available?

> So majority chooses what healthcare options are available? You sound surprised, so maybe you really don't know this: this state of affairs is how it's always been, and is likely to continue well into the future. The government regulates all medicines, all medical procedures, and all medical practices. It's literally one of the many jobs of government.

But what if they ban something like robbery? Then the robbers won’t be able to rob things, thus depriving them of their right to choose robbery.

Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online

#506

Post by croes »

watwut wrote: post #146
perth wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nitpick: currently in the US, most public libraries do not regulate anyone, of any age, from reading “adult” books.

They wont allow minors to take out porn. Simply, they wont and it would be illegal for them.

You can read a book without taking it out.

Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online

#507

Post by makeitdouble »

anondude24 wrote: post #454
xp84 wrote: post #27

So, while I agree that this feels foreign and wrong to me as someone who has experienced "The Internet" for so long, I can't help but wonder if we can separate that from how the offline world works. I'm asking this in good faith. Given that: 1. The Internet is not an optional subscription service today the way it was in 1995. Every kid and adult has 1,000 opportunities to get online including on the multiple devices…

> I'd also like to separate the logistics from the morality here. If you believe it's hard to do it without satisfying privacy concerns, totally true! But then the focus should be on finding a good privacy-respecting solution, not just arguing for the status quo. I like this point. I feel like the tech community just figured politicians would forget about the issue. Instead of working together to develop a solution.

Are you assuming the "tech community" doesn't have the right to argue this on morality and thus refuse to provide technical means ?

Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online

#508

Post by dewyatt »

65 wrote: post #34
soulofmischief wrote: post #22

[flagged]

Tor might be wildly popular in a few years.

Tor doesn't protect against traffic correlation last I checked.

Mixnets/Nym are better for actual privacy.

(I've not audited Nym, not an endorsement)

Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online

#509

Post by Tadpole9181 »

IAmGraydon wrote: post #210
danaris wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If these laws move forward (and I don’t think they should), there needs to be a way to authenticate as over 18 without sending picture of your ID off to random 3rd parties, or giving actual personal details. But there won't be. Because the ultimate purpose of laws like this isn't really to prevent minors from accessing porn. Ultimately, it's to 1) outlaw porn for everyone , because it's "sinful", and 2) outlaw disc…

You’re getting downvoted, likely because the people downvoting you dont realize that Project 2025 explicitly calls for the complete outlawing of pornography and the imprisonment of anyone who produces it. They also frame transgender ideology and LGBTQ+ educational materials as falling under “pornography”, essentially calling for these to be banned.

No, they very much realize that. The people down voting them want these things. HN isn't some bastion of progressive thinkers or the libertarian hacker-minded anymore. It's chock full of wealthy tech-bro neocons who dote on figures like Elon Musk.

Just see how any criticism of dear leader gets flagged in mere minutes now.

Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online

#510

Post by conradev »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #469
conradev wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The spec is being implemented by Apple, who is sensitive to privacy issues. The intent of the ISO spec is to allow you to request fine-grained data, like birth year only, but if you read the W3C standard, they explicitly call out privacy as a complex thing that maybe should be regulated. The spec spells out the complexity: some ID verification processes actually need a lot of info! But some, like an alcohol age check…

> The intent of the ISO spec is to allow you to request fine-grained data, like birth year only, but if you read the W3C standard, they explicitly call out privacy as a complex thing that maybe should be regulated. Aren't the regulations the problem here? If not for that nobody would be getting pressured to divulge this personal information to every shady app and website in the first place. Suppose I want to make a s…

Yes, they are! but also because the law sets the standard, it can also provide a new one. For example:

a) you are still legally required to age verify online alcohol purchases but

b) it’s illegal to use information collected for that purpose for other purposes and

c) Which information is collected is made legible by the user agents

Maybe something around only collecting minimal data, too.

Some of the first eager customers are banks with onerous KYC requirements – they want one click account creation! Good luck changing financial disclosure laws, though, my bank knows quite a bit about me.

Post reply on HN