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

E621, Pornhub, and others block North Carolina residents

foxcarolina.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 172 posts

Re: E621, Pornhub, and others block North Carolina residents

#141

Post by Keeeeeeeks »

BobaFloutist wrote: post #104
jxdxbx wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zero-knowledge methods for verifying age are possible but there is almost no political will or interest in them. Sites would get a “yes” or “no” as to whether someone is of age, and no other information.

They could verify ID, associate you with an "ID verified" token, and immediately trash all the information they collected other than that token.

they could, but a law enforcement agent looking for a suspect will send a lot of subpoenas to every porn site. When a porn site says "we wipe that data instead of storing it," the law enforcement agent will say "what do you mean you wipe KYC and identity verification trails once you get them? Are you letting sanctioned people use your site and covering your tracks?"

Similar thing happened to Valve; people were trading gun skins, and regulators fined them for not having AML/KYC controls because the state argued "the business didn't do enough to stop money laundering."

This trickles out to porn companies (and the vendors that use them for identity verification), and implies that they need to store this data to prove that they didn't delete it to help terrorists.

Re: E621, Pornhub, and others block North Carolina residents

#142

Post by omeid2 »

swells34 wrote: post #140
omeid2 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why is it bad for our kids to see two humans have sex? Because porn is not sex. In the same way that candies are not food.

Porn isn't sex the same way pictures and videos of food is not food... You picked a very strange and convoluted analogy instead of the very simple and very straightforward one that is an accurate 1:1 analogy. Strange way to announce an agenda.

You're making the absurd assertion that porn reflects real life sex. It does not.

A more forgivable analogy to pictures would be that porn is to food, what artificial, constructed, and edit advertisements of food is to food.

https://www.businessinsider.com/fast-food-advertisements-vs-...

The only agenda is the push for normalisation of porn everywhere. We see it.

Re: E621, Pornhub, and others block North Carolina residents

#144

Post by omeid2 »

lilboiluvr69 wrote: post #133
omeid2 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why is it bad for our kids to see two humans have sex? Because porn is not sex. In the same way that candies are not food.

Yeah but people let their kids have candy, you're just supposed to guard them against overindulgence or damage to their health... Also by definition porn /is/ visual depictions of sex.

Porn is a visual depiction of sex as much as advertisement of fast food is a real depiction of food.

Re: E621, Pornhub, and others block North Carolina residents

#146

Post by lilboiluvr69 »

omeid2 wrote: post #144
lilboiluvr69 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah but people let their kids have candy, you're just supposed to guard them against overindulgence or damage to their health... Also by definition porn /is/ visual depictions of sex.

Porn is a visual depiction of sex as much as advertisement of fast food is a real depiction of food.

Mainstream porn may be unrealistic, but that doesn't mean you can't find realistic depictions of sex.

Re: E621, Pornhub, and others block North Carolina residents

#147

Post by omeid2 »

lilboiluvr69 wrote: post #146
omeid2 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Porn is a visual depiction of sex as much as advertisement of fast food is a real depiction of food.

Mainstream porn may be unrealistic, but that doesn't mean you can't find realistic depictions of sex.

Exceptio probat regulam.

Re: E621, Pornhub, and others block North Carolina residents

#148

Post by no_time »

tedivm wrote: post #103
LammyL wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is one thing to show ID. It is an other thing to show ID and have the details stored in a database in perpetuity by companies who don’t have huge budgets for data privacy and security.

These days when you buy alcohol there's a good chance that data is being stored. A lot of restaurants and stores that sell alcohol scan or swipe cards as part of the purchase now. Just one example: https://okcfox.com/news/local/cyber-security-experts-be-wary...

I wonder if merely paying with your credit card leaves a monetizable paper trail.

Does anyone know if Mastercard gets any data relating to whats actually being purchased? Or does the store get a globally unique ID to associate with every purchase made with a specific card?

Re: E621, Pornhub, and others block North Carolina residents

#149

Post by tzs »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #123
BobaFloutist wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could verify ID, associate you with an "ID verified" token, and immediately trash all the information they collected other than that token.

Does this require users trust several parties? Any one of which could sell out, get a court order, be tapped en mass by the NSA?

It is possible to design a system where there are three parties, you, the site R that is requesting you prove your age, and a site D that you are willing to show documentation that will prove your age, with these properties:

1. There is no direct communication between R and D related to your proof of age. You will receive a message from R, send a message to D, receive a message from D, and send a message to R.

2. R gets no information other than (1) your age information, (2) what site D checked your documents, (3) the timestamps of when you exchanged messages with them.

3. The site D just gets (1) the documents you provide to prove your age, (2) a binary blob that you generate that is for all practical purposes random to anyone other than you [1], and (3) the timestamps of when you exchanged messages with them.

If someone compromises D all they get is copies of your documents (assuming D kept them) and those for all practical purposes random blobs (if they kept them), and timestamps. They don't get the identity of R, the site you were verifying your age to.

If someone compromises both R and D, they might try to match up timestamps to try to figure out who people really are. If D is busy enough and you add some delays in your message sending it should be possible to make this risk negligible.

[1] The blob is some data you receive from R, transformed by a random permutation chosen by you. To anyone who does not know the random permutation it is indistinguishable from random.

Re: E621, Pornhub, and others block North Carolina residents

#150

Post by lilboiluvr69 »

omeid2 wrote: post #147
lilboiluvr69 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mainstream porn may be unrealistic, but that doesn't mean you can't find realistic depictions of sex.

Exceptio probat regulam.

Yes but generally when curtailing free speech courts apply strict scrutiny, and even minors are generally understood to have the right to produce and accept speech, banning someone from viewing all visual depictions of sex outright seems overbroad even if only a minority is not 'harmful', whatever that means.
Post reply on HN