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

Opening up 'Zero-Knowledge Proof' technology to promote privacy in age assurance

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 302 posts

Re: Opening up 'Zero-Knowledge Proof' technology to promote privacy in age assurance

#101

Post by vasco »

miki123211 wrote: post #92
Groxx wrote: post #13

I'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…

That's where trusted computing comes in. Your proof proves two claims. That the person proving their age is over 18, and that they're using a device and software that hasn't been tampered with. That software requires human presence at every age check. ZKPs for age assurance are trading off privacy at the expense of software malleability. Note that this has nothing to do with open source; it's perfectly fine to releas…

> Note that this has nothing to do with open source; it's perfectly fine to release the source code for the relevant software. You can even allow for reproducible builds and full auditability if that's what you want

The released code can do all of that, and then nothing still assures me that they didn't implement just a POST to their partner and called it ZKP and pointed at google's repo.

Re: Opening up 'Zero-Knowledge Proof' technology to promote privacy in age assurance

#102

Post by Balinares »

pphysch wrote: post #87
kentm wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not that I want my kids looking at porn or violent content, but I’m far more concerned about man-o-sphere influencers than that other stuff.

Manosphere content is toxic and harmful but the hyperviolence and desensitisation of the former should not be downplayed. That's where the mass shooters evidently come from.

A hundred thousand furries consuming unfathomable amounts of porn without shooting up anyone kind of cast doubt about that point.

Re: Opening up 'Zero-Knowledge Proof' technology to promote privacy in age assurance

#103

Post by sciencejerk »

It is suspicious to me that "age assurance" is trending EXACTLY as AI agents become capable of autonomously operating a personal computer in the same way a human office worker would.

I'm afraid "age assurance" has nothing to do with "the children".

Re: Opening up 'Zero-Knowledge Proof' technology to promote privacy in age assurance

#104

Post by vlian2088 »

intended wrote: post #89
vlian2088 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The vast majority of the population supports banning social media for kids so revolution isn't happening. reddit isn't the vast majority of the population, fren. it's 1% of 4%. unless you've got polls you could show to back up your claim? polls, not opinion pieces. polls asking unambiguous questions like "are you in favor of banning social media?" or "are you in favor of age verification laws?", not vague ones like…

> 6 in 10 parents worldwide support social media ban for under 16s - but children are divided > Support among parents for a social media ban for under-16s is highest in Malaysia (77%) and India (75%), Argentina (55%) and lowest in Japan (38%) and Nigeria (39%) > Globally, the majority of Gen Z (51%) – the first true digital natives – support a social media ban for under-16s. Support for the ban is highest in India (7…

>among parents

increasingly few people are parents, so these numbers are don't reflect 'the vast majority' of the population.

Re: Opening up 'Zero-Knowledge Proof' technology to promote privacy in age assurance

#105

Post by sciencejerk »

Balinares wrote: post #102
pphysch wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Manosphere content is toxic and harmful but the hyperviolence and desensitisation of the former should not be downplayed. That's where the mass shooters evidently come from.

A hundred thousand furries consuming unfathomable amounts of porn without shooting up anyone kind of cast doubt about that point.

Who is talking about furries? But Tyler James Robinson and Benjamin Jeffrey Smith. I guess that's only 2/100k to your point?

Re: Opening up 'Zero-Knowledge Proof' technology to promote privacy in age assurance

#106

Post by grey-area »

sciencejerk wrote: post #97
kentm wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not that I want my kids looking at porn or violent content, but I’m far more concerned about man-o-sphere influencers than that other stuff.

I had to Google "man-o-sphere". Is it particularly more dangerous or toxic than other identity-based activist communities? Genuinely curious to know

Yes, a lot of it involves denigrating women and an entitled and very rigid attitude towards the male place in society (alphas etc).

This is incredibly toxic for young men growing up and the women they interact with.

Some of the more prominent proponents are actual pimps (the Tate brothers).

Re: Opening up 'Zero-Knowledge Proof' technology to promote privacy in age assurance

#107

Post by flipbrad »

ambicapter wrote: post #58
anon-3988 wrote: post #51

Age is just one metric. I don't want zero proof tech about information X. I don't want to have an identity. Full stop.

This can be used to have zero-proof knowledge of "over 18" or "not over 18". So they don't really get your age, except that you are in two broad ranges.

The point perhaps is that these things enable discrimination based on extremely gross grained and defective criteria - in some ways the least relevant parts of your identity.

Re: Opening up 'Zero-Knowledge Proof' technology to promote privacy in age assurance

#108

Post by nubg »

ekr____ wrote: post #63
coppsilgold wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With ZKP age verification, services will not be able to track you without help from the CA. The CA will not be able to track you without help from the services. Both will contain the necessary information in their databases that when combined deanonymize you. The CA is the central authority/certificate authority. So you should assume the government can track you, because you should assume both will be streaming those…

This isn't correct. With ZKP-based systems even the CA can't track you. That's the "zero-knowledge" part.

but how is that possible? that even the CA cannot track you?

Re: Opening up 'Zero-Knowledge Proof' technology to promote privacy in age assurance

#109

Post by hexasquid »

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #74
Aurornis wrote: post #23

Earlier 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…

> Some people want to require device attestation, so you could only do this handshake from a government approved device running a government approved operating system. Forget using Linux or maybe even a general purpose computer at all. The reason this is a non-problem for the purpose being discussed (age verification on social media) is that you can simply allow anyone with a de-Googled phone or using Linux on a lapt…

This is interesting in light of the discussion on hacker news yesterday, where folk were talking about how they had to learn how to make games work on early PCs, given limitations that aren't present to the young today.

Motivated kids can find a way! Perhaps evading age gates will produce the next generation of hackers.

Re: Opening up 'Zero-Knowledge Proof' technology to promote privacy in age assurance

#110

Post by PeterStuer »

echelon wrote: post #34
doginasuit wrote: post #19

Earlier 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.

"We" are building 1984 to make sure "We" stay in power of our EU Animal Farm.
Post reply on HN