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

EFF launches Age Verification Hub

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 371 posts

Re: EFF launches Age Verification Hub

#191

Post by jacobgkau »

dragonwriter wrote: post #87
imiric wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Way to split hairs. Something being against the ToS can still be legal. Prostitution obviously cannot physically happen on an online platform, but it sure is a convenient way to advertise and attract customers, and serve as the payment processor.

> Way to split hairs. Something being against the ToS can still be legal. Well, no, violating a binding legal agreement is illegal. > Prostitution obviously cannot physically happen on an online platform, but it sure is a convenient way to advertise and attract customers, and serve as the payment processor. Which is explicilty prohibited by the law in many places OF operates, and judging from the number of people who…

> Well, no, violating a binding legal agreement is illegal.

Not touching the rest of this thread's arguments, but that isn't really true. Breaking ToS, or any other contract, is not "illegal"-- it's not a crime. It opens you up to civil (not criminal) penalties if the other party sues, but that's it.

Re: EFF launches Age Verification Hub

#192

Post by pksebben »

delusional wrote: post #145
pksebben wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate the mention - i had not yet heard of this EU DIW thing. That said, I can't find any resources on it that mention the use of ZKPs. Could you share a link?

[flagged]

Ya got me. Nevermind that the DSA (which I have read, in part) and the DIW (new to me) are different things, and that one does not mention the other [0]. Also the DSA is happening now while the Wallet thing isn't rolled out.

There are actual discussions about VPN regulation in relation to AV in the US [1]. The UK's OSA [2] is blatant about the need to violate encryption. Australia's OSA [3] has also come under criticism for precisely the things I'm talking about. Is it a stretch to extend this reasoning to the EU's incredibly similar legislation? Honk my nose if you must but I don't think so.

Here's the thing - I don't want you to listen to me, or anyone else on the internet, as an 'expert'. Verify your information personally, even when you trust it.

0 - https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32...

1 -https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/11/lawmakers-want-ban-vpn...

2 - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50/contents

3 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Safety_Amendment

Re: EFF launches Age Verification Hub

#193

Post by pksebben »

jacobgkau wrote: post #184
like_any_other wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Age Verification isn't about Kids or Censorship, It's about Surveillance We know this because, instead of putting easy-to-use parental controls on new devices sold (and making it easy to install on old ones) with good defaults [1], they didn't even try that, and went directly for the most privacy-hostile solution. [1] So lazy parents with whatever censorship the government thinks is appropriate for kids, while invo…

Parental control software has existed for decades. It hasn't worked. Over 70% of teenagers Yes, there were other ways of trying to solve the problem. Governments could've mandated explicit websites (which includes a lot of mainstream social media these days) include the RTA rating tag instead of it being a voluntary thing, which social media companies still would've fought; and governments could've also mandated all…

Is porn the biggest problem here? What I've seen points the finger at social media as the worst offender for youth mental health.

Also, access to porn isn't new with the internet. When we cleared out my grandpa's house we had to pry open a desk that was chock full of hustlers.

Re: EFF launches Age Verification Hub

#194

Post by idkfasayer »

pksebben wrote: post #88

This keeps coming up and we keep having the same debates about what Age Verification isn't. For the folks in the back row: Age Verification isn't about Kids or Censorship, It's about Surveillance Age Verification isn't about Kids or Censorship, It's about Surveillance Age Verification isn't about Kids or Censorship, It's about Surveillance Without even reaching for my tinfoil hat, the strategy at work here is clear […

[dead]

Re: EFF launches Age Verification Hub

#195

Post by joe_the_user »

pksebben wrote: post #127
phyzome wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you aware of any age verification systems that do not have this property? (This includes being robust against law enforcement action, legal or otherwise.)

Like many mention in other comments on this post, it's possible to implement using ZKPs. There are likely other methods that would be effective without compromising privacy. None of them are part of the Age Verification discussion because kids are not the actual point of Age Verification. When I say "if we have to know you're not a kid, we have to know who you are" I'm not stating an actual truth , but the argument a…

The thing is that as far as I can tell, a ZKP of age involves a state or similar attestor to issue an ID/waller that can be querried for age without revealing identity.

But attestor has to have certainty about the age of the person it issues IDs to. That raises obvious questions.

What states are going to accept private attestors? What states are going accept other states as attestors? What state won't start using its issues ID/Wallet for any purpose it sees fit?

This system seems likely to devolve national Internets only populated by those IDs. That can all happen with ZKPs not being broken.

That is how states work.

Re: EFF launches Age Verification Hub

#196

Post by pseudalopex »

zmmmmm wrote: post #173
stvltvs wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What good solutions are there that prevent the age verification service and the website from comparing notes (because Big Brother told them to) and figuring out who you are and what you're doing?

If they voluntarily collude then yes, you can't avoid that. It's like third party cookies - once two parties collude it's game over. But that just outlines a situation where the user's chosen trusted service is hostile to their interests and they need to find one that isn't. If Big Brother starts mandating the collusion - then yes, there's a hill to die on. But in some ways that's the point here. There are hills to d…

> If they voluntarily collude then yes, you can't avoid that.

You may accept this. Others will not.

> But that just outlines a situation where the user's chosen trusted service is hostile to their interests and they need to find one that isn't.

Just?

Re: EFF launches Age Verification Hub

#197

Post by MatteoFrigo »

pksebben wrote: post #192
delusional wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Ya got me. Nevermind that the DSA (which I have read, in part) and the DIW (new to me) are different things, and that one does not mention the other [0]. Also the DSA is happening now while the Wallet thing isn't rolled out. There are actual discussions about VPN regulation in relation to AV in the US [1]. The UK's OSA [2] is blatant about the need to violate encryption. Australia's OSA [3] has also come under critic…

FWIW, not that it matters, the proper acronyms are EUDI (EU Digital Itentity) and EUDIW (EUDI Wallet). DIW is not used.

Re: EFF launches Age Verification Hub

#198

Post by parineum »

MatteoFrigo wrote: post #186
mzajc wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a good explanation of how ZKPs prevent attestation providers (which presumably know your identity) from linking an issued proof back to you if, for example, the website elects to store it? I can wrap my head around RSA and ECC and PKI, but I haven't managed to make sense of this yet. Assuming that's even a goal, of course. The cited paragraph mentions RPs (the websites, from what I understand), but makes no…

This is, of course, very technical, but here is how it works at a high level. In the non-ZKP presentation, the "holder" (phone) sends the credential to the relying party (website), and the RP executes some verification algorithm. In the ZK presentation, the holder executes the verification algorithm and sends to the RP a proof that the algorithm was executed correctly. The "proof" has this magical property that it re…

If it's not linked to an identity, why can't a kid use a parent's key?

Re: EFF launches Age Verification Hub

#199

Post by pseudalopex »

Seattle3503 wrote: post #179
stvltvs wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What good solutions are there that prevent the age verification service and the website from comparing notes (because Big Brother told them to) and figuring out who you are and what you're doing?

This is only hypothetical for government ID's, but in theory government IDs could provide pairwise pseudonymous identifiers with services. Your ID with a single service is stable, but it is different with each service.

They imagined a scenario where the state ordered 2 companies to identify users. How would replacing 1 company with the state improve this?

Re: EFF launches Age Verification Hub

#200

Post by pseudalopex »

jacobgkau wrote: post #191
dragonwriter wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Way to split hairs. Something being against the ToS can still be legal. Well, no, violating a binding legal agreement is illegal. > Prostitution obviously cannot physically happen on an online platform, but it sure is a convenient way to advertise and attract customers, and serve as the payment processor. Which is explicilty prohibited by the law in many places OF operates, and judging from the number of people who…

> Well, no, violating a binding legal agreement is illegal. Not touching the rest of this thread's arguments, but that isn't really true. Breaking ToS, or any other contract, is not "illegal"-- it's not a crime. It opens you up to civil (not criminal) penalties if the other party sues, but that's it.

Illegal means not legal. Not criminal.
Post reply on HN