What we call "age verification" is actually mass surveillance • Hacker News Board

Re: What we call "age verification" is actually mass surveillance

#121

Post by Retr0id » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 3:38 PM UTC

dijksterhuis wrote: post #97

Retr0id wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where are these mythical sweet-spot solutions? Concretely, half the websites I visit from the UK want me to either scan my face or upload ID documents to access their full featureset. Now that users have been conditioned to accept this, nobody seems very interested in figuring out how to collect less PII - only insulating themselves from liability by having the data processed by a third party.

> half the websites I visit from the UK want me to either scan my face or upload ID documents to access their full featureset. what kind of websites are you visiting to get age checked on half of the sites you visit? i've only been asked to verify for dating apps and "sexy stuff". and i definitely don't spend 50% of my total browsing time on those sites. maybe this says more about the kind of content/sites you're acc…

reddit.com, discord.app, google.com with safe-search off (This one works sometimes, they are A/B testing force-enabling safe-search for unauth'd sessions)

Re: What we call "age verification" is actually mass surveillance

#122

Post by js8 » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 3:39 PM UTC

vaylian wrote: post #68

seethishat wrote: post #31

My main concern is transparency. How do we know that the ruling/governing class is not abusing these monitoring systems and exempting themselves from monitoring? If we are all subject to the same monitoring and there are no exceptions, that would be fair. However, if some people are exempt from monitoring because of their connections, relations, etc. then that would be unfair. And if some people are allowed to harass…

> If we are all subject to the same monitoring and there are no exceptions, that would be fair. Not everyone is an exhibitionist. Some people thrive when they are very public about their life. Some prefer a much more private life.

"Fair" doesn't always mean according to everyone's preferences. I might want to have a full cake but getting a slice is fair.

Re: What we call "age verification" is actually mass surveillance

#123

Post by staplers » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 3:39 PM UTC

bluebarbet wrote: post #83

js8 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're wrong, it still matters. It's the first step, and it's an important step in maintaining fairness.

>You're wrong As a rhetorical trick this is generally ineffective.

Unfortunately not when convincing a large populace..

Re: What we call "age verification" is actually mass surveillance

#124

Post by dpoloncsak » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 3:39 PM UTC

akmiller wrote: post #36

zug_zug wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure here's one example of decentralizing it -- it's going to be overly simple just as a toy example to show how easy it could be: Whenever you want to prove your adult you go to "am I an adult.gov" and you use your credit card or whatever to prove you are an adult. At which point you get a 1-time 5-digit code that is UNIVERSAL TO EVERY SINGLE HUMAN and good for 1 hour (everybody who uses the site gets the same code…

Same code for all people for 1 hour and you don't think we'd immediately have rotating codes to pass the gate?

I'd setup the .onion in a heartbeat. Take crypto donations, cash out in Monero

Re: What we call "age verification" is actually mass surveillance

#125

Post by oceansky » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 3:40 PM UTC

Sankozi wrote: post #100

simultsop wrote: post #8

This is a very strong argument simply put

This is a manipulation tactic not an argument. Almost nobody wants to prevent spying on kids. Main goal is to prevent harmful content like porn, gore and gambling.

Those digital surveillance rules passed in Brazil under the Digital Statute for Children and Adolescents law.

Protection of kids is definitely the most common arguments for them.

Re: What we call "age verification" is actually mass surveillance

#126

Post by staplers » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 3:40 PM UTC

buellerbueller wrote: post #92

shevy-java wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course. The lobbyists don't want to be called bribed people, so they only want to monitor the peons. Slavery 2.0.

>Slavery 2.0. Chat control is a lot of things, but Slavery 2.0 is not one of them. The hyperbole only hurts your position.

Slavery isn't a single mechanism, rather a system of many things that keep it all running smoothly

Re: What we call "age verification" is actually mass surveillance

#127

Post by lotu » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 3:41 PM UTC

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #16

john_strinlai wrote: post #2

> "Age verification" means that everyone who does anything online will have to submit to fine-grained tracking and recording of all their online activities. its been said 1000 times here, but: age verification doesn't have to be a nightmare dystopia of 24/7 fine-grained tracking and recording unless you are somehow hoping to achieve 100% success rate (something we have not done with any other law ever). there are sev…

Could you be more specific as to what you're imagining? I don't personally see a way to verify someone's age which doesn't involve either credit card verification, photo id verification, or some sort of facial recognition. If you know enough about someone to verify their age—even to a relatively low degree of accuracy—you probably know enough to pinpoint who they are in general. Heck—in most cases, we can't even tell…

Using existing parental controls parents could set their kids age and that could be used for the age controls. Could the parents let the kids around the age gate? Sure but they could do that even if a government ID and camera was required. This actually might be more effective than a lot of these systems because other adults could not let the kids use their IDs

Re: What we call "age verification" is actually mass surveillance

#128

Post by patrickmay » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 3:41 PM UTC

seethishat wrote: post #31

My main concern is transparency. How do we know that the ruling/governing class is not abusing these monitoring systems and exempting themselves from monitoring? If we are all subject to the same monitoring and there are no exceptions, that would be fair. However, if some people are exempt from monitoring because of their connections, relations, etc. then that would be unfair. And if some people are allowed to harass…

> If we are all subject to the same monitoring and there are no exceptions, that would be fair.

It might be fair, by some definition, but it would still be wrong. The government shouldn't be monitoring us to the extent required to implement age verification on the 'net.

Re: What we call "age verification" is actually mass surveillance

#129

Post by jMyles » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 3:42 PM UTC

actionfromafar wrote: post #53

jonathanstrange wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about taking some personal responsibility for your life? This shouldn't even be a consideration concerning adults.

I assume you are also for heroin vending machines at every school corner if you watch a 30 second ad slot. You don't have to use them, you know.

Your extreme example of a policy regarding distribution of heroin is far from perfect, but also far better than prohibition, which has visited upon the world more death, disease, crime, and cartel enrichment than perhaps any other policy in history.

But surely we can do better than either of these extremes.

Re: What we call "age verification" is actually mass surveillance

#130

Post by lo_zamoyski » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 3:42 PM UTC

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #16

john_strinlai wrote: post #2

> "Age verification" means that everyone who does anything online will have to submit to fine-grained tracking and recording of all their online activities. its been said 1000 times here, but: age verification doesn't have to be a nightmare dystopia of 24/7 fine-grained tracking and recording unless you are somehow hoping to achieve 100% success rate (something we have not done with any other law ever). there are sev…

Could you be more specific as to what you're imagining? I don't personally see a way to verify someone's age which doesn't involve either credit card verification, photo id verification, or some sort of facial recognition. If you know enough about someone to verify their age—even to a relatively low degree of accuracy—you probably know enough to pinpoint who they are in general. Heck—in most cases, we can't even tell…

This is a classic case for one time ZKPs. Sure, you can't get around attestation, but the party that needs to verify that you meet age criteria doesn't need to know your age or other private information.

I presume you're concerned by the attesting party's knowledge of both the signature and identify information. Yes, in principle these can be linked, but in practice, it may be difficult or made very difficult, and today, very little of our online activity is really anonymous anyway. It is generally not too difficult to infer identity based on the content someone generates and the bread crumbs they leave behind.

Of course, if the intent is to use age verification as a wedge to monitor everyone, then it will be difficult politically to secure the protections needed to prevent that sort of data fusion.