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

Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

news.dyne.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 486 posts

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#281

Post by gruez »

gosub100 wrote: post #185
gruez wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The resistance to the release of the files including redactions and outright refusal of Congressional order is enough to reveal the magnitude of what's going on. I agree this makes him look suspect, but it's hardly conclusive. Moreover Democrats did a similar U-turn a few years before. The only difference is that they weren't bombastically pushing the conspiracy theory during the election campaign, which made it eas…

I dont disagree with anything you have written in the above reply. But why does democrats' reversal somehow annul or invalidate the claim about trump? Do you honestly believe it could all be an overly-embellished fable? If you do, then do you think the hundreds, some-say-thousands, of women who claim they were raped are lying? Another explanation could be the democrats' AIPAC handlers told them to back off because it…

>But why does democrats' reversal somehow annul or invalidate the claim about trump? Do you honestly believe it could all be an overly-embellished fable? If you do, then do you think the hundreds, some-say-thousands, of women who claim they were raped are lying?

What claim about Trump? That's he's a pedophile? Based on the rest of your comment it seems like the goalposts are subtly getting moved from "Trump raped kids" to "Trump committed sexual crimes".

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#282

Post by fc417fc802 »

dmix wrote: post #228
taurath wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies create the environment - the government is supposed to be “small” - and it must remain small so the US “consumer” can be leeched from

The US government is very far from small. That said, I'd be open to rules on the data broker industry though considering it's scale and how the foreign governments can buy/hack them bypassing all of Tiktok-esque national security handwaving.

> Tiktok-esque national security handwaving.

Algorithmic feeds are propaganda tools. A foreign government being able to propagandize your citizens is a legitimate threat, not handwaving.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#283

Post by Dylan16807 »

girvo wrote: post #139
pipes wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I might be misreading you, but are you saying that the whole Qanon thing isn't a baseless conspiracy theory?

Qanon is absolutely a baseless conspiracy theory. The overall idea that far too many of those in power politically and economically are involved in CSA isn't though, it seems.

The threshold for "far too many" is like, a single digit number. It's an extremely weak claim. Even if those in power were half as likely to be involved as the average adult, that would still be far too many.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#284

Post by gruez »

theshackleford wrote: post #235
gruez wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The president of the United States was friends with the alleged ring leader of a large pedophile network. You're making some leaps logic here here. If someone's outed as a pedophile, everyone who's friends with him should be assumed to be a pedophile? Surely not, given that pedophilia is considered taboo, we'd expect them to hide it, and therefore at least some friends might not be in the know. That's not to say the…

> You're making some leaps logic here here. No, you’re just shifting the goalposts. The original claim was “The president of the United States was friends with the supposed leader of a pedophile ring.” Your response to that was to imply that over time, they had a falling out. To which my point was, so what? It doesn’t materially change the original claim you challenged. A falling out in NO way changes that the origin…

>To which my point was, so what? It doesn’t materially change the original claim you challenged. [...]

It changes the claim in the same way that "he ran over a kid" isn't "materially changed" by the addition of the detail that the kid jumped in front of the car and he had no time to stop. The original statement is still technically true, but it's a massive omission to leave the latter part out. That's doubly true if you're invoking that fact in the context of trying to imply the person did other crimes.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#285

Post by gruez »

foltik wrote: post #277
gruez wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/see-the-alleged-tr ... 1. "alleged" 2. I'm not sure what you're trying to refute. I specifically quoted a passage saying that they broke up in 2004, which implies they were together prior to that. 3. For the specific claim that Trump's a pedophile, a "drawing of a curvaceous woman" is hardly proof. At best it's a proof that he's a womanizer, but we hardly need proof of that…

[flagged]

Sounds like you don't have any arguments, if you have to resort to thinly veiled personal attacks.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#286

Post by sfRattan »

gzread wrote: post #227
sfRattan wrote: post #72

It's irksome that these laws and bills in multiple countries are trying to put limits on the general purpose computer. It's the wrong solution and arguably put forward in bad faith. If you want access control, the appropriate point for regulation is with ISPs and cellular providers, and the appropriate mode of regulation is requiring these companies to provide choice and education for families, and awareness of liabi…

> filtering those devices' network requests at the network gateway, or filtering one hop up onto the provider's infrastructure These things are not possible with any reliability, we spent two decades encrypting everything.

I'm not imagining filtering based on the path. Even with https, hostname is visible before the handshake. And even when Encrypted Client Hello is widely implemented, it's also easy enough for network providers to drop any ECH packets from devices flagged as "for children" and signal to those devices that their handshake must reveal the hostname, at least to the router doing the filtering.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#287

Post by gruez »

totetsu wrote: post #269
yalogin wrote: post #102

The big issue isn’t even age verification. The end goal is verified user identification. They want every transaction on the internet to be associated with the exact identity of the user. No more anonymity. In the short term the way it will be implemented is this — age verification will not be a binary, it will also want to push your DoB, name, location etc and they say “the choice is with the user” but the default wi…

It’s not very soon, it’s already the case that if one wants to enable the latest models in the OpenAI api you have to submit your details to their “identity provider”.

Given the recent mexican telecom hacks were allegedly done with significant help from openai/anthropic's chatbots, it seems at least somewhat prudent to require some sort of identity verification for API access? I'm struggling to see how this isn't the tech community's version of "no background checks for gun purchases" or "no KYC for bank accounts".

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#288

Post by nirui »

You all saw the Epstein scandal, right? If you saw one cockroach this randomly, then you know there are thousand hiding. Maybe that's why Epstein is un-lived.

So I found it very ionic that, to quote on quote "protect" child from online harms, they asks you to upload the photo ID of you and your child to, guess what, real potential pedophiles.

Of course they're going to claim your information is totally safe... just like Bill Gates told his wife it's safe to have sex with him after his STD infestation.

Sure, I don't really know how the companies will actually handle your personal photos, but there's a history where a tech CEO made an attractiveness comparison website using photo obtained from their user uploads without user agreeing. So go figure.

The best way to protect your child is to tech them how to use Internet for their own benefit, and only allow them to create accounts after they've learned how to use Internet correctly. The companies and governments will NEVER do that for you, they'll only steal and steal even more.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#289

Post by bigfatkitten »

gruez wrote: post #110
bigfatkitten wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has been on Labor’s agenda, in various forms for many years. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-09/government-abandons-p...

That doesn't change the conclusion, unless you're trying to imply the entire party is full of pedophiles.

My point is that this has been consistent with their policy for the last couple of decades, and that the recent round of scandals have nothing to do with it.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#290

Post by ndriscoll »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #271
ndriscoll wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can be in favor of privacy while simultaneously thinking porn, gambling, and advertisers shouldn't be targeting children. The age verification bills I've read have steep penalties for retaining information, so that seems fine since that's literally more protection than you get in person. It's really more just concluding that those corporations should be liable for their behavior. It also has nothing to do with "t…

If you implemented that simple solution the expected outcome is businesses collecting ID at the door. But unlike the age verification bills there'd be no prohibition of or penalty for misuse of the collected information. It's a strictly worse outcome. You can make intentional targeting illegal without criminalizing the accidental. And mandating self categorization of content by service providers would enable standard…

Okay, so make it illegal for them to record any information which is what the actual laws do (or better, explicitly criminalize all the other current stalking). The point is you don't need to be prescriptive about how to prevent children from accessing the sites. Just make it so you can face massive fines and be arrested if you don't. They can figure out how to comply with the law, and they can be effective or be shut down.

They're not actually owed a solution for how to make their business model work. They can just be told that what they're doing is unacceptable, and they can figure out what they'd like to do next. If you're worried they might react with some other unacceptable thing, we can clarify that that's not okay either.

Post reply on HN