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

111–120 of 520 posts

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

#111

Post by js8 »

classified wrote: post #91
js8 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're wrong, it still matters. It's the first step, and it's an important step in maintaining fairness.

> it's an important step in maintaining fairness. When there are no consequences, it by definition isn't.

Well there can be no consequences at T=0, but thanks to transparency, consequences can happen, by a collective decision, at T=1. Therefore having transparency is important on its own, it facilitates change towards fairness.

And that's what I am saying - we should still ask for transparency even in the environment of no consequences.

It's also possible that people are not sure about the lack of consequences, and again, transparency then prevents them doing bad thing even if actually there are no consequences.

But of course tautology is tautological by definition. (I am almost 50 and kinda tired of these eristic games on the Internet.)

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

#112

Post by pluralmonad »

ninalanyon wrote: post #103
Aaargh20318 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way identity wallets work: The government issues an eID to your wallet. The ID is signed by the government and linked to the device to prevent transferring the credential. A public/private key-pair is generated by the secure enclave in your phone, the public key along with proof of possession of the private key is included in the request for the government eID. The government signs individual attributes combined…

So now I have to have a mobile phone?

And one you don't fully own/control. Fully owned devices will be unsupported, obviously.

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

#113

Post by choo-t »

utopiah wrote: post #61
john_strinlai wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Could you be more specific as to what you're imagining? sure, i'll put my favorite two. though you'll find much more detailed and thought-out versions of these (and others) in the dozens of other giant threads on the same topic. - buy a card with a UUID from anywhere that sells alcohol/tobacco that is valid for some period of time. most people are comfortable with flashing their ID at the clerk. the UUID card is no…

> UUID card is non-identifying. Kids aren't going to trade Pokemon cards in the playground anymore...

Well, they could trade identifying ones too or even stollen ID cards if you want to go this way.

They could also trade porn-filled thumb drive or old-school glossy paper magazine. There no way to prevent kid's exposure to stuff at a 100% success rate.

There no way to avoid exposure completely

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

#114

Post by micromacrofoot »

inigyou wrote: post #52
actionfromafar wrote: post #14

Could we instead disallow algorithmic skinner-box addiction machines for everyone ?

How can you tell what one is? Reddit in 2010? Facebook in 2005? IRC in 1999?

That's the problem, recommendation algorithms on networks beyond a certain scale should be publicly auditable.

If they're not, I should be able to opt-out of them.

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

#115

Post by CPLX »

donmcronald wrote: post #60
john_strinlai wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Could you be more specific as to what you're imagining? sure, i'll put my favorite two. though you'll find much more detailed and thought-out versions of these (and others) in the dozens of other giant threads on the same topic. - buy a card with a UUID from anywhere that sells alcohol/tobacco that is valid for some period of time. most people are comfortable with flashing their ID at the clerk. the UUID card is no…

> buy a card with a UUID from anywhere that sells alcohol/tobacco that is valid for some period of time Why should I pay continuously to prove I'm an adult? And those cards will be getting sold to kids faster than you can blink. I bet a lot of parents would buy them for their kids.

Why should you pay for an internet connection, or a computing device with a screen? This isn't a serious counterargument.

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

#116

Post by glaslong »

gampleman wrote: post #37

What an exceptionally bad faith way to put this whole thing. A five year old watching hours of the most depraved porn available is harmful to that child. Even if you disagree with that statement, you surely must acknowledge that it is an entirely reasonable opinion to hold and one our societies have generally held to this sort of thing for ages. I also acknowledge that there is a reasonable debate to be had if the di…

Who gave the child access to that?

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

#117

Post by john_strinlai »

pwg wrote: post #105
john_strinlai wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this happens with alcohol and tobacco every day. i cant think of the last time it reached headline news.

It does not reach headline news because everyone just accepts that the "filter" is imperfect. But, for some reason, little twelve year old Jimmy obtaining access to porn evokes some kind of far more visceral reaction in Jimmy's parents (or if not Jimmy's parents, some "busybody" who wants to "protect all the children") than Jimmy managing to get himself a pack of Salem's or a Pabst Blue Ribbon tallboy.

right, that's exactly what i was getting at with my original comment. none of the laws we have are 100% effective. so i find it weird that this specific topic always devolves into "well some kid will be able to get access, so your proposal sucks".

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

#118

Post by fl4regun »

john_strinlai wrote: post #67
donmcronald wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> buy a card with a UUID from anywhere that sells alcohol/tobacco that is valid for some period of time Why should I pay continuously to prove I'm an adult? And those cards will be getting sold to kids faster than you can blink. I bet a lot of parents would buy them for their kids.

> And those cards will be getting sold to kids faster than you can blink. there's a reason i said 90% and not 100% effective. alcohol and tobacco get resold to kids, too.

What makes you think this will be close to 90%? Unless these cards are expensive I don't see that happening.

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

#119

Post by akmiller »

bluebarbet wrote: post #94
XorNot wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am convinced that no one will make any progress on this issue so long as they refuse to understand that their aren't a group of shadowy figures pushing for this but rather a sizeable chunk of the general population, buoyed on by various moral outrage interest groups including a great many HNers who have been happily stoking the narrative that social media is the cause of every negative statistical ill. Who wants th…

In fairness (i.e. looking at the data with an open mind), social media does seem to be the cause of (or at least strongly correlated with) a bunch of ills.

That's true but has anyone studied the good things that have happened from younger people being able to find community or other positive aspects?

Either way the solution again is not age gating, it's real meaningful data privacy laws that if enacted would have a huge effect on many companies today.

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

#120

Post by farfatched »

BigJono wrote: post #88
gampleman wrote: post #37

What an exceptionally bad faith way to put this whole thing. A five year old watching hours of the most depraved porn available is harmful to that child. Even if you disagree with that statement, you surely must acknowledge that it is an entirely reasonable opinion to hold and one our societies have generally held to this sort of thing for ages. I also acknowledge that there is a reasonable debate to be had if the di…

You can't use the words "reasonable debate" in your post after you've immediately jumped straight to some mythical worst case scenario of a 5 year old being given a device with no supervision and somehow managing to immediately find their way to some sort of super duper snuff porn that will scar them for life.

I agree going to the worst-case is a weak technique, and this is what the OP does:

> "Age verification" means that everyone who does anything online will have to submit to fine-grained tracking and recording of all their online activities.

Post reply on HN