271–280 of 520 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why possess the card when you can just buy the UUID on the dark web
If they have access to the "dark web" they can already do anything that requires age verification there. In the same way you expect that the rule to "not sell UUIDs" wouldn't be respected there, I wouldn't expect other age-verification rules to be respected, no matter the verification method.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>You need to pay for a drivers license or a passport and so on. I have a government ID and I didn't pay for it. I can use it to travel to nearby countries in lieu of a passport. The assumption that IDs are necessarily non-free (to the issuee) is pretty funny to me. >it's something that is procured in order to access specific services on the internet, which is not free. The maintenance of the Internet is already paid…
I mean, if you really want to make the government subsidize an ID verification scheme or mandate that certain real-world locations provide age verification as a social service for everyone, that's fine. It's orthogonal to the discussion, though, which is about whether we should do it or not, because the costs here aren't significant and don't change the terms of the debate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about taking some personal responsibility for your life? This shouldn't even be a consideration concerning adults.
> This shouldn't even be a consideration concerning adults. Ban the boxes for kids
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…
It's not even just about the current people in charge or with access. Who's next? The "trust us" approach doesn't work when trust has already been broken with the people, or in a scenario where the data will change hands to an unknown future administration.
The best way to win my trust is to not even want the data in the first place.
Hilarious that the author doesn't think that this isn't already happening.
>"Age verification" means that everyone who does anything online will have to submit to fine-grained tracking and recording of all their online activities. Hilarious that the author doesn't think that this isn't already happening.
Parents largely control what their kids have access to, whether it requires a device, a data plan, home Wi-Fi, whatever. Where parents don't/can't control their kids' access, no amount of regulation and technology will fix it. This applies not just to social media, but drugs, alcohol, porn, etc. Yes, laws and IDs add friction and that's good, but if a kid really wants those things they are going to find a way. Social…
This was always the problem going way back. Lots of responsible parents pushed back hard and advocated for doing everything in person during the scheduled times. Even before that there were already concerns that kids were stuck indoors and addicted to entertainment.
They ultimately lost out to the lazy majority who kept mindlessly repeating "who cares?" and "oh every generation says that when they get old!". Organizers also saw it as a way to do less work.
Well here we are now. Even the younger people agree this is dumb.
Same as Regulatory Encryption Backdoors are not about “protecting kids from child predators”
This is framing. Abusing kids is bad. But that is not what this about. Let’s keep the discussion on topic: the goal is 1984-level oversight… not just of the kids
[Edit: I guess HN agrees: meanwhile the title changed from “saving kids from spying” to “is actually mass-surveillance” - good]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
you generate a random number and send it to website you want to visit. Website you want to visit generates a one-time private/public key for the purpose of this login attempt, hashes your random number, and sends the hash back to you. You connect to the government auth platform, auth yourself to your government, and ask them to sign the hash you received. You pass the signed hash as well as the original random number…
> Sure, it won't hold up against collusion between website and government, but nothing would. Right, so it's just privacy theatre.
If your government is paying private third parties to collect data on you (hello USA), the issue is much wider, and nothing would protect you from such a government. Even without age verification, if the government is interested in spying on you, and the sites are willing to sell, they would gladly trade your IP and connection log.