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

What we call "age verification" is actually mass surveillance

pluralistic.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 520 posts

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

#441

Post by intended »

fluoridation wrote: post #394
CPLX wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I, who don't have or plan to have children, should spend my money to protect other people's children from the Internet. For the same reason your taxes pay for schools even when you don't have kids. Because we live in a society. If you struggle to understand why that matters without reference to more direct personal stakes for yourself, just know that without a society, the children will grow up to rape you, kill yo…

>For the same reason your taxes pay for schools even when you don't have kids. But I have benefited from public education. Me paying for someone else's education in return is fair. >Because we live in a society. "Because we live in a society" is a phrase flexible enough that it can be used to justify anything, including outright theft: "we live in a society; us taking your stuff is the price you have been chosen to p…

Good God.

After reading this thread -

You are forced to pay to attest your age, because as a society we have decided not to, or are unable to, end social media firms and porn sites.

At the same time, we have decided that the harms that occur to kids and teens need to be mitigated.

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

#442

Post by pyrale »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #355
pyrale wrote: post #239

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…

So now I have to get permission from the government to browse the web? And they can revoke that permission at any time? And we need a great firewall to block citizens from communicating with foreign websites that don't comply with this scheme? This idea is worse than facial scanning, by a lot. (Better idea is OS level parental controls combined with government-mandated content tags to let the OS know what content is…

> So now I have to get permission from the government to browse the web? And they can revoke that permission at any time?

You're moving the goalpost on me, here. I'm merely arguing that if age verification was the goal, there is no need to disclose identity.

> This idea is worse than facial scanning, by a lot.

Let's agree to disagree.

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

#443

Post by fluoridation »

intended wrote: post #441
fluoridation wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>For the same reason your taxes pay for schools even when you don't have kids. But I have benefited from public education. Me paying for someone else's education in return is fair. >Because we live in a society. "Because we live in a society" is a phrase flexible enough that it can be used to justify anything, including outright theft: "we live in a society; us taking your stuff is the price you have been chosen to p…

Good God. After reading this thread - You are forced to pay to attest your age, because as a society we have decided not to, or are unable to, end social media firms and porn sites. At the same time, we have decided that the harms that occur to kids and teens need to be mitigated.

No. My question was not why am I forced to pay, my question was why should I pay. Obviously if I have to pay, I will (that's a logical necessity, because if I could avoid it then it was untrue that I had to, to begin with). Why should I pay? That is to say, by what mechanism am I saddled with the moral responsibility that justifies me having to spend my money to protect someone else's children? Given your line of argumentation, I'm going to guess that you don't have an answer to this question; your answer is that I should GFMS and just pay. Prove me wrong.

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

#444

Post by gambiting »

palata wrote: post #374
gambiting wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Government builds a website where you can log in using any government issued ID or using one of the many many many available services that hold your details already(at least in the UK nearly everyone will have a DLVA account, HMRC account, HMPO account, NHS account.....all of these are government services which we can only assume hold our data securely already). On that website, you can click "give me a verification…

> but then the government will know you've authenticated with pornhub! If you do your cryptography right, the government will not know that you've authenticated with pornhub. That's the whole goddamn point of privacy-preserving age verification.

On the other hand, you can't implement single use codes this way, right?

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

#445

Post by gambiting »

Epa095 wrote: post #323
gambiting wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Government builds a website where you can log in using any government issued ID or using one of the many many many available services that hold your details already(at least in the UK nearly everyone will have a DLVA account, HMRC account, HMPO account, NHS account.....all of these are government services which we can only assume hold our data securely already). On that website, you can click "give me a verification…

Why does the government need to know what pages you visit? It could just encode a string representing the date and 'above 18' and sign it with its private key. PH then just needs to verify it using the public key.

Actually, thinking about it some more - it has one major downside. You can't have a single use key this way.

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

#446

Post by intended »

fluoridation wrote: post #443
intended wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good God. After reading this thread - You are forced to pay to attest your age, because as a society we have decided not to, or are unable to, end social media firms and porn sites. At the same time, we have decided that the harms that occur to kids and teens need to be mitigated.

No. My question was not why am I forced to pay, my question was why should I pay. Obviously if I have to pay, I will (that's a logical necessity, because if I could avoid it then it was untrue that I had to, to begin with). Why should I pay? That is to say, by what mechanism am I saddled with the moral responsibility that justifies me having to spend my money to protect someone else's children? Given your line of arg…

This is orbiting the issue of personal responsibility and social burdens.

I get the impression that you recognize that there are certain costs that are distributed on members of a society, because it is the least problematic way to address some collective action issue.

You could migrate to the libertarian ideal, if that is what suits you. if this counts as GFMS, I sadly don’t mean in it those terms.

I dont know you well enough to know what specific harms would matter to your wellbeing.

It could range from what the state of the next voting cohort will be.

It could range from having a social environment of better adjusted adults creating art, science or just relationships that will impact you as you age.

It’s more capacity for families, mental resilience and less dead weight loss of kids getting trapped into emotional tar pits.

It’s a signal that as a society we don’t want to see our kids addicted, and that if we impose such costs on ourselves, we will impose heavier costs on the perpetrators. There is a reckoning with social media and addictive design that is to be had; this is a step on that path.

It makes it easier for parents who are struggling, and reduces harm to kids and teens.

It may give us a way to deal with the absolute scourge of non consensual intimate imagery.

I’ve personally had to flag and remove stuff of that nature, and even in a country like america, that kind of content is life ending.

In a religiously conservative country, that can lead to much, much worse.

However this is a smorgasbord of ills that society as a whole is struggling to deal with.

You are a standing member of that society.

I don’t know you well enough to make a case that makes sense.

I will add, You also don’t look to be a passive member of society, so you are doubly screwed.

You get the bonus burden of having to think about how to solve the problem in the best manner possible.

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

#447

Post by fluoridation »

intended wrote: post #446
fluoridation wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. My question was not why am I forced to pay, my question was why should I pay. Obviously if I have to pay, I will (that's a logical necessity, because if I could avoid it then it was untrue that I had to, to begin with). Why should I pay? That is to say, by what mechanism am I saddled with the moral responsibility that justifies me having to spend my money to protect someone else's children? Given your line of arg…

This is orbiting the issue of personal responsibility and social burdens. I get the impression that you recognize that there are certain costs that are distributed on members of a society, because it is the least problematic way to address some collective action issue. You could migrate to the libertarian ideal, if that is what suits you. if this counts as GFMS, I sadly don’t mean in it those terms. I dont know you w…

>It could range from [...] as a whole is struggling to deal with.

I thought you said you read the thread. You've fallen into the same mistake CPLX has made. You're answering why children should be protected. I've already granted that premise, there's no need to argue for it. My question was why people who don't have children should bear the burden of that protection instead of their parents.

If a more concrete question would help, why should all adults pay to be able to prove that they're adults (just to be able to retain a freedom they already had, I should add), instead of being given that ability for free by the government, and the government collecting the costs of the program from parents?

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

#448

Post by atoav »

GrinningFool wrote: post #235
atoav wrote: post #169

I grew up during the 90s/2000s and I used the internet, first social media platforms, messengers, etc. – a lot. My parents had no idea of computers, how to use them, how to use the internet, what is out there etc. Yet I am convinced that the way my parents dealt with it is still the gold standard. Their parenting equipped me well to deal with weird, dangerous or otherwise harmful things I encountered. They were the k…

When the dangers consist of invisible targeted manipulation of thought processes it's a whole different category of risks that kids (and most adults) are not equipped to handle. The effects are playing out around the world as we speak. I don't know that universal tracking is the answer. I also don't think unrestricted access to children by manipulative predators (companies in this case) is the right answer. But then,…

Don't get me wrong I believe there are certain things kids should only be exposed to once they are at the appropriate age. I myself was probably one of the last kids too get a modest mobile phone in my class for example. Especially in this day and age it is important to not train your kid as a screen-junkie from young age onwards as tempting as it may be for young parents. As you rightly mention, this also means parents have to keep their own habits in check.

Please understand that my point was something else. Even with surveillance and bans you can't shield a kid 100%. At school or outside it other kids will bring things your kid will get in contact with. Obviously turning your kid into an forcefully isolated hermit to avoid that risk isn't a good solution, because it comes at a cost. The better solution is to prepare your kid to be confident and rational enough to draw the line themselves as you may not always be there when it needs to be drawn. And you do that be repeatedly let them judge small risks themselves while you're present while showing them you trust their decision.

In practise that basically means letting your kid do things where they could eventually fall and hurt themselves instead of helicopter parenting and padding them in safety cushions constantly.

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

#449

Post by XChrispy »

The main concern with age/identity verification tools seems to be the concern with storing your personal data for mass surveillance. Yet, their privacy policies say they'll remove it soon after the verification. Is the main pessimistic concern that they will not do that? And that it could be proved they do, age/identity verification wouldn't be an issue?

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

#450

Post by intended »

fluoridation wrote: post #447
intended wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is orbiting the issue of personal responsibility and social burdens. I get the impression that you recognize that there are certain costs that are distributed on members of a society, because it is the least problematic way to address some collective action issue. You could migrate to the libertarian ideal, if that is what suits you. if this counts as GFMS, I sadly don’t mean in it those terms. I dont know you w…

>It could range from [...] as a whole is struggling to deal with. I thought you said you read the thread. You've fallen into the same mistake CPLX has made. You're answering why children should be protected. I've already granted that premise, there's no need to argue for it. My question was why people who don't have children should bear the burden of that protection instead of their parents. If a more concrete questi…

So I don’t have kids, and I have worked in trust and safety.

As stated, society is finding a sub optimal solution for a person in a narrow read of my situation.

I (and you) are impacted by the second order effects of the decision to do something or to do nothing.

Our freedoms do not exist in a vacuum, or as platonic ideals. They must be enacted through some actions or rulings.

I have a longer spiel on how social media and news media are currently not functioning as a fair and efficient market for information. For now I will just assert this as true.

The broken state of the market, means that I and you live in a world where it is more likely that the worse political decisions get made, polarization and autocracy are more likely not less, and complex coordination challenges do not get solved.

Building ways to ensure a market which does not devolve into a “might makes right”, or “abuse is good” scenario, is to build guard rails and limiters.

This is the current limiter which is being proposed.

In essence, it’s not like we live in a world where things are perfectly fine, even for us.

Do note - I don’t know you well enough to know what things you value, but it is clear you value some things more than just what is optimal for you. So there is a set of values you have, some of which are going to be injured by these solutions, and others served.

One wrinkle in your argument - If the costs could be taken from parents, that would be great, however one group of bad actors in these situations is adults. So as a class, there is some case that could conceivably be made for adults to bear that cost.

Post reply on HN