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

Age verification is just a precursor to automated attribution of speech

nonogra.ph

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 663 posts

Re: Age verification is just a precursor to automated attribution of speech

#501

Post by AnimalMuppet »

ShinyLeftPad wrote: post #491
drtgh wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But chat control and age verification are different things. Although they appear to be different different things at first sight, they share the same agenda and objective, mass surveillance and identification of the citizens. Once the door is opened, it can be expected that things will not end there; Politicians and their patrons will exploit this data under "committees" (and of course be excluded from such surveil…

Well, here's a case when police did their work. A massive international bust happened because the police was able to trick gangs to use an app that was not actually e2ee. And chances that it happens again are almost zero.

I have some faith in the lack of wisdom of (most) criminals. Most of them aren't geniuses, aren't super sophisticated, aren't good at following technical rules with 100% discipline.

So it's likely to work again - not as often as a law-abiding citizen would like, but not never.

Re: Age verification is just a precursor to automated attribution of speech

#502

Post by Nursie »

simoncion wrote: post #333
Nursie wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I suppose you missed the part where I said The part that I quoted? That would be quite a feat. Either way I think it's definitely a choice to entirely ignore what a country is doing in this area due to historical reasons, when the country you're interested in making changes to appears to be doing worse. > Mmm. No, there are three systems being described here. There are more than three options here. Here are more po…

> So you're also implicitly ignoring solution 6, which a lot of people elsewhere in this thread are arguing for, which is parents using existing parental control systems built into their devices, which work 100% client side? I'm 100% fine with those, but people report that they're "insufficient" for vague reasons. That's why I suggest we beef them up. Also... > Why? Parental controls at the moment are patchy, poorly…

> Unless you're using the "Two or more people get together to plan something" definition of the word "conspiracy" -which happens to neatly cover planning to go to lunch-, I don't consider this to be a conspiracy.

Yes that's the entire point of this whole thread, congrats for getting there in the end.

You don't consider this a conspiracy.

People like the article author do, and in doing so they miss the mark on having any effect on the wider conversation because they aren't willing to even acknowledge the existence of the problem. You are actually engaging with the topic and putting forwards ideas and engaging with solutions. You have thoughts about how something might be made to work. You are not who I1 am complaining about.

(As an aside, why not actually try reading the link about anonymous credentials? It's very informative and it shows you what's possible even if you're too cynical to believe anyone would ever implement it)

Re: Age verification is just a precursor to automated attribution of speech

#503

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

abecedarius wrote: post #481
pc86 wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that "the authoritarians" (read: almost every politician at every level of government, but a drastically increasing percentage the higher you go) only need to get something passed once then it is there forever. Every law should have an automatic sunset period of 1-10 years that requires it to pass the entire legislative process again, or at least both full chambers + signing.

Increasingly wishing for this from a fictional constitutional convention: > I note one proposal to make this Congress a two-house body. Excellent — the more impediments to legislation the better. But, instead of following tradition, I suggest one house of legislators, another whose single duty is to repeal laws . Let the legislators pass laws only with a two-thirds majority... while the repealers are able to cancel a…

>Increasingly wishing for this from a fictional constitutional convention:

There's an interesting, one-time shakeup that we could actually accomplish. While it's true that there will never again be another constitutional amendment... there's already one out there that will never expire, partially ratified. Completely beyond Congress's ability to rescind it or cockblock it. Article the First.

Were it to be ratified, nearly immediately (whenever the next Census is), the House of Representatives has over 6000 seats. So many that the existing party apparatus wouldn't be able to vet candidates or manipulate. Lobbyists, even, would have a hard time allotting the slush funds to bribe them all.

And what would it take to do all of this? Maybe 10 or 12 people hammering (gently) on some state legislator in Nevada or Kansas. Convince him or her to pass the resolution to ratify. Nothing more than that. A single state even attempting to ratify it would start the ball rolling, and no one would be able to stop it.

Re: Age verification is just a precursor to automated attribution of speech

#504

Post by oarsinsync »

ligne wrote: post #407
oarsinsync wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No one cares about UK having a king, because it doesn't change a thing. Which is the position the Monarchy absolutely wants you to have, and they definitely don't want you to know that they have veto power over all laws, and regularly intervene and get laws modified so that they're not included in scope. Meanwhile they just gave themselves a massive pay rise, at a time when government is cutting public spending in…

In theory the King can veto any law he wants. In practice he couldn't without causing a monumental constitutional crisis that would probably end his reign. His unofficial ability to influence government policy is the real issue, but one that is definitely not limited to that one guy with the special blood.

> In theory the King can veto any law he wants. In practice he couldn't without causing a monumental constitutional crisis that would probably end his reign.

His mum Lizzie2 had no problem doing it without causing any problems:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-que...?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vette...

I think it's likely that Chuckie3 is continuing this grand tradition with impunity.

Re: Age verification is just a precursor to automated attribution of speech

#505

Post by ligne »

ShinyLeftPad wrote: post #489
buellerbueller wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Criminals used to speak in code, meet clandestine, use burner phones and websites were easy to shut down. And none of these things were ever made illegal. >Ordinary people do not care about e2ee. I am an ordinary person, and I care about the right to be secure and private in my communications. The founders of the United States put it in our Bill of Rights. Mail in America can't just be read without a warrant; it is…

> And none of these things were ever made illegal. Those things are barriers that make it more difficult to be criminal. We're talking about a factor that removes those barriers and makes it easier.

Not sure it's ever been particularly difficult to be a criminal. If anything, the tricky part has always been establishing who you can and can't trust.

Re: Age verification is just a precursor to automated attribution of speech

#506

Post by probably_wrong »

recursive-call wrote: post #463
akoboldfrying wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. But it's not clear to me that the downsides of this outweigh the upsides. The government has control over many areas of life, and in most cases I feel that to be on balance a good thing, even though governments can be corrupt or inefficient. Consider some other domain, like roads. In every country, the government issues licenses that include photographic ID to residents to drive on roads; driving without a l…

That’s because the consequences of unsafe driving is people dying or being maimed. Other than suicide and that one incident with facebook, people do not die in appreciable numbers due to things that happen on the internet.

> Other than suicide and that one incident with facebook, people do not die in appreciable numbers

Is your argument that "no one is dying other than those who are dying"?

I became radicalized against social media when I saw the statistics for suicide rates in teenage girls [1]. With Facebook having been found legally guilty of addicting teenagers, I can't in good conscience say "kids will figure it out" when there's clear evidence that the richest men alive are investing millions and armies of behavioral scientist to keep them addicted.

There are most definitely consequences for things that happen on the Internet, including depression and death. I don't like that age verification mechanism are raising so many problematic issues, but I also don't like that so far we've tried nothing and are running out of ideas.

[1] https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2023/05/03/suicide-... or https://archive.is/wY1OH

Re: Age verification is just a precursor to automated attribution of speech

#507

Post by stronglikedan »

akoboldfrying wrote: post #444
Nevermark wrote: post #379

Age verification starts the gating of Internet access by governments. Any site, with any concern about age of user liability, is likely to adopt the practice. Strong laws, sold on their face value safety benefits, will increase that liability. You won’t see any laws removing or limiting that liability. The trend will be many more sites becoming government-gated, than we are imagining now. Beyond surveillance, it’s a…

I agree. But it's not clear to me that the downsides of this outweigh the upsides. The government has control over many areas of life, and in most cases I feel that to be on balance a good thing, even though governments can be corrupt or inefficient. Consider some other domain, like roads. In every country, the government issues licenses that include photographic ID to residents to drive on roads; driving without a l…

I can walk those roads, or in many cases use a vehicle that doesn't meet licensing requirements such as a moped. Vehicles that do require licensing requirements do so because they've met a minimum threshold for potential danger. All this to say - none of that is like age gating the internet.

Re: Age verification is just a precursor to automated attribution of speech

#508

Post by monssooon »

ShinyLeftPad wrote: post #488
monssooon wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the below comments answer rather well for me. But of course you are rigth that criminals use technology... I just don't see it as the main issue here. I think that most common currency for criminals are still just cold cash... But maybe some use crypto yes. And maybe criminals use e2ee. And Marybe you are rigth that it is a problematic thing for law enforcement. That is not the point though. The point is crim…

> I think that most common currency for criminals are still just cold cash It doesn't scale as well. Can't go cross-border easily etc. I agree that it's wrong but I'm talking about common people (and lawmakers who care about) perception. Until they get burned they won't care and might not take your side like that.

Millions and millions of euro and dollars are being "talen" in white washimg scemes for organised crime ever year. It is a crime-business in it self.

Re: Age verification is just a precursor to automated attribution of speech

#509

Post by graemep »

graemep wrote: post #318
shevy-java wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But Brexit was a vote, by the people. Yes, the pro-leave campaign lied to no ends, but people still made a choice on their own and the majority for leave was quite slim. This is very different to age sniffing here. Age sniffing is not being queried via public votum - lobbyists push it through without any resistance. It's amazing how this works.

The pro-remain campaign lied too and I would argue a great deal more. Take a look at the predictions of the immediate effect of Brexit vote (for 1017-18) on page 9 of the Treasury report: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a80772140f0b... This whole argument is why we do not have more direct democracy. The people in power and people who benefit from the status quo do not want the hoi polloi taking the "w…

That should read for 2017-18

Re: Age verification is just a precursor to automated attribution of speech

#510

Post by buellerbueller »

ShinyLeftPad wrote: post #489
buellerbueller wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Criminals used to speak in code, meet clandestine, use burner phones and websites were easy to shut down. And none of these things were ever made illegal. >Ordinary people do not care about e2ee. I am an ordinary person, and I care about the right to be secure and private in my communications. The founders of the United States put it in our Bill of Rights. Mail in America can't just be read without a warrant; it is…

> And none of these things were ever made illegal. Those things are barriers that make it more difficult to be criminal. We're talking about a factor that removes those barriers and makes it easier.

What are you talking about? Thieves' cant, burner phone, clandestine meetings--these are all things that make crime easier, and none of them are illegal. We ban crime, not things that allow crime.
Post reply on HN