131–140 of 371 posts
Why they don't use zero knowledge proof? Also question for the USA constitution experts, is this considered a violation of free speech? The article is not clear on this.
> is this considered a violation of free speech? Not in principle See the limits on curse words on TV. Or MPAA ratings for movies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Zero knowledge proof is either trivially defeated by re-using the same credentials or doesn't have useful privacy guarantees. There really isn't an in-between here for something like age verification.
It's funny because the same "perfect is the enemy of good" argument is used both to criticize age verification in the first place (why bother if it isn't perfect) but then also to dismiss proprosals to implement it better (why bother if they don't perfectly fix the problem).
Any time law-makers claim that a law is meant to protect children you can guarantee that the safety of children had almost nothing to do with it. This is all a push to normalize digital ID (to protect the children!); once normalized it will become mandatory .
[flagged]
https://www.consumermedsafety.org/safety-articles/how-childr...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the equivocation of online and real life is a massive mistake. When you go into a grocery store you are constantly on CCTV. Does that mean when you shop on Amazon them recording you via webcam should be considered? Obviously not. The restrictions in real life are temporary. If you try to buy port, go into a bar, etc you are asked for ID and they look at it and hand it back. They don't take your ID, your pictu…
> They don't take your ID, your picture and store it forever and then sell information about you to other people. It would not surprise me in the least if there are brick-and-mortar businesses doing this, especially larger companies in jurisdictions (such as the majority of the United States) with weak/nonexistent privacy protections.
But yeah, walmart is for sure logging their transactions and selling the data. It's practically free money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The issue I'm trying to sound the horn on is that the current push for AF in the US and EU has nothing to do with kids . I think you could put together a working group on ZKPs and Age Verification, write up a paper and run experiments, and when you bring it to the lawmakers they're gonna say something to the tune of: The EU is currently doing large-scale field tries of the EU Digital Identity Wallet, which they hav…
I appreciate the mention - i had not yet heard of this EU DIW thing. That said, I can't find any resources on it that mention the use of ZKPs. Could you share a link?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you aware of any age verification systems that do not have this property? (This includes being robust against law enforcement action, legal or otherwise.)
Like many mention in other comments on this post, it's possible to implement using ZKPs. There are likely other methods that would be effective without compromising privacy. None of them are part of the Age Verification discussion because kids are not the actual point of Age Verification. When I say "if we have to know you're not a kid, we have to know who you are" I'm not stating an actual truth , but the argument a…
The EU age verification solution says implementations SHOULD implement[1] their ZKP protocol[2]. Not linking it to the user is stated as an explicit goal:
Unlinkability: The goal of the solution is to prevent user profiling and tracking by avoiding linkable transactions. Initially, the solution will rely on batch issuance to protect users from colluding RPs. Zero-Knowledge Proof (ZKP) mechanisms will be considered to offer protection. More details are provided in Section 7.
[1]: https://ageverification.dev/av-doc-technical-specification/d...
[2]: https://ageverification.dev/av-doc-technical-specification/d...
I understand this is a technology forum, frequented mostly by liberal adults, who built a lot of their internet nous on totally free internet of 90s and 00s. I am one of them. Equally, I think insisting that there must be no controls to internet access whatsoever is not right either. There is now plenty of evidence that eg. social media are very harmful to teenagers - and frankly, before I noticed, going on FB got me…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If we have to know that you're not a minor, then we also have to know who you are That is untrue
Are you aware of any age verification systems that do not have this property? (This includes being robust against law enforcement action, legal or otherwise.)
2) Cigarette vending machines accept VISA cards and government IDs and they're offline.
3) A medium-sized social media network required photos (not scans) of GovIDs, where only year of birth and validity date need to visible. The rest could be blacked out physically.
4) You can guess users' age and only request solid proof only for those you are unsure about.
The problem is that we technical users think of a one-size-fits-all technical approach that works, without a single fail, for all global users. That is bound to fail.
It is only a law and you can break it big time or small time. Reddit's approach might proof way too weak, it'll be fined and given a year to improve. Others might leave the market. Others will be too strict and struggle to get users. Others might have weak enforcement and keep a low profile forever. Others will start small, below the radar and explode in popularity and then enforcement will have to improve.
You can also request identity and then delete it. (Yes, some will fail to delete and get hacked.)
Giving Facebook a free pass is stupid. They're selling your age cohort "10-11" within 0.0037ms for 0.$0003 to the highest bidder on their ad platform.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you aware of any age verification systems that do not have this property? (This includes being robust against law enforcement action, legal or otherwise.)
Like many mention in other comments on this post, it's possible to implement using ZKPs. There are likely other methods that would be effective without compromising privacy. None of them are part of the Age Verification discussion because kids are not the actual point of Age Verification. When I say "if we have to know you're not a kid, we have to know who you are" I'm not stating an actual truth , but the argument a…
The law does not mandate identity, so your argument does not hold.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If we have to know that you're not a minor, then we also have to know who you are That is untrue
Are you aware of any age verification systems that do not have this property? (This includes being robust against law enforcement action, legal or otherwise.)