This seems great - one question (ideally for Alan stapleberg) why is this not available for everyone? Seems like this is only applicable to the EU? Genuine question - Why would other governments not want this for their people ? I am sure there is a flip side that EU thinks is not worth more than thier people getting this kind of privacy. But what’s has to be true for some govts to think that the flip side is more beneficial than the privacy aspect. Appreciate if someone can break down how incentive structures are different and hence the resultant choices/positions
Opening up 'Zero-Knowledge Proof' technology to promote privacy in age assurance
41–50 of 302 posts
Re: Opening up 'Zero-Knowledge Proof' technology to promote privacy in age assurance
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I'd seen all the shock websites by age 12. Kids love to prank each other. None of this is a real harm. The real harms are the government being able to put a muzzle on speech, track who says what, and begin to cordon off areas of thought and expression. You might think it's a win that this is happening, but you won't be the one in charge and you won't have a say how it's used against you.
I don't think it is a win, I'm not sure how you got that from my comment. There should be enough room for nuance to acknowledge that the internet is uniquely unhealthy for young people. I don't find 'I saw all the bad stuff and look how great I turned out' very compelling.
If empirical research showed that some kind of intervention would be helpful, I'd be in favor of it even if it comes at a cost. But I don't think age-gating will prove effective as an intervention. If anyone needs to be reined in, it is tech companies that exploit attention and gather data, and the age-gating controversy is a costly distraction.
Re: Opening up 'Zero-Knowledge Proof' technology to promote privacy in age assurance
#43Unfortunately ZKP's aren't magic. When not doing privacy oriented cryptocurrency ( cough money laundering cough ) with ZKP's, if you really want private verification you are in a position where a single actor can authenticate the entire world and no one will know it happened. And to prevent it you assemble the pieces necessary to deanonymize anyone. Make no mistake. ZKP age verification, as proposed, will just requir…
Assuming that perfect is the enemy of good, this is still better than all the proposed alternatives, isn't it?
Better than no age verification (and therefore, privacy) coupled with parents doing their job?
Re: Opening up 'Zero-Knowledge Proof' technology to promote privacy in age assurance
#44I've been trying to figure out how zero-knowledge stuff would work in practice for age verification, where "when issued" (or extremely coarse, like what year), "to whom", and "where it's used" are hidden from everyone except the individual holding the proof (since that's the gold standard, and the only one worth accepting). I get that ZK techniques work, and reveal "nothing". That's useful. But if they reveal nothing…
> But if they reveal nothing, isn't it wide open for abuse? Couldn't one over-18-person's proof become everyone's proof, because they can't tell it's the same proof, and the issuer can't tell where or how often the proof is being used? Yep! This is why the concept of zero knowledge age gating is such a trap for technically minded people. They imagine receiving a private cryptographic object that can be used to anonym…
We might be over complicating things here.
The governments’ focus might be on protecting genuine users (adults or not), not fighting fraudsters.
In other words if ZKP works for the vast majority of technically illiterate people with their EU ewallet, the job is done.
Re: Opening up 'Zero-Knowledge Proof' technology to promote privacy in age assurance
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
Assuming that perfect is the enemy of good, this is still better than all the proposed alternatives, isn't it?
Better than no age verification (and therefore, privacy) coupled with parents doing their job?
That would be ideal. However, this is tech proposal which takes so much of the slop out of the entire thing. With this implementation, there is no profit in it, unless your government is directly cooperating, aka a scandal in many countries.
Re: Opening up 'Zero-Knowledge Proof' technology to promote privacy in age assurance
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
zero-knowledge proofs are a well-known tool in cryptography [1]. All Google is sharing is the library to implement it. Google would not have access to the information any more than they have access to the bank info of people who use Android or Gmail. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-knowledge_proof
It's my understanding that they are sharing the library but they will also be involved as a facilitator, at least to the extent that people use their identity wallet service. It also seems like they will have access to who you are sharing information with, which seems like the most valuable information for a company in their position, with nothing but a pinky promise that it will not be tracked. Let me know if any of…
Here is a good explainer of an ideal implementation of this (maybe). If its this, you would be incorrect.
https://blog.vrypan.net/2026/06/29/260629-whats-wrong-with-e...
Re: Opening up 'Zero-Knowledge Proof' technology to promote privacy in age assurance
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I'd seen all the shock websites by age 12. Kids love to prank each other. None of this is a real harm. The real harms are the government being able to put a muzzle on speech, track who says what, and begin to cordon off areas of thought and expression. You might think it's a win that this is happening, but you won't be the one in charge and you won't have a say how it's used against you.
Shock sites are materially different to the harm kids do to one another on social media.
Re: Opening up 'Zero-Knowledge Proof' technology to promote privacy in age assurance
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But if they reveal nothing, isn't it wide open for abuse? Couldn't one over-18-person's proof become everyone's proof, because they can't tell it's the same proof, and the issuer can't tell where or how often the proof is being used? Yep! This is why the concept of zero knowledge age gating is such a trap for technically minded people. They imagine receiving a private cryptographic object that can be used to anonym…
We might be over complicating things here. The governments’ focus might be on protecting genuine users (adults or not), not fighting fraudsters. In other words if ZKP works for the vast majority of technically illiterate people with their EU ewallet, the job is done.
Absolutely. We don't look at the use of false identity documents as a failure of age gating tobacco and alcohol, it's just an accepted consequence that we try to mitigate knowing that we cannot stop all instances.
Re: Opening up 'Zero-Knowledge Proof' technology to promote privacy in age assurance
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a millennial-aged person I saw a fair amount of content I would not want the young people in my life to see, but it's probably not nearly as harmful as the non-age gated content that they will still have access to. There is a lot creepy youtube and tiktok content that isn't off limits but still unhealthy and my younger relatives are fascinated by it.
We need to stop this helicopter civilization bullshit. We're building 1984 to protect from god knows what imaginary harms. Stop putting plastic wrap around people's freedoms, liberty, and right to privacy.
The harms of smartphones and social media are about as far from imaginary as it could get. The data is screaming at us.
We will look back at handing kids phones with instagram like giving kids cigarettes and think wtf were we doing.
Re: Opening up 'Zero-Knowledge Proof' technology to promote privacy in age assurance
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, they have ignored that. I did my part and sent an email. Now what?
Violent revolution I guess. Genuinely what are the other options? I made a formal submission to the Australian Government in the very small consulting window they held for the Access and Assistance bill. Pleading with them to consider simply not introducing the law, as there was no justification for it at all. Google also made a submission against the bill, as did many large local and overseas corporations. The gover…
The vast majority of the population supports banning social media for kids so revolution isn't happening. Of course the social media companies object to their product being banned. It's like cigarette companies objecting to plain packaging.