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

Texas app store age verification law blocked by federal judge

macrumors.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 263 posts

Re: Texas app store age verification law blocked by federal judge

#191

Post by RiverCrochet »

andrewflnr wrote: post #101
devsda wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Law is a strange and possibly the only aspect in human societies where people are by default assumed to know, understand and follow it to the letter when everybody acknowledges that law is open to interpretation. You cannot in most cases claim ignorance as it can be abused by criminals. But there is whole industry of education, profession, journals, blogs, podcasts and videos trying to teach, interpret and explain th…

Strange and destructive. I believe comprehensible law is a human right that is critically underacknowledged. Like, up there with the right to speech and a fair trial. If you cannot understand the law as it applies to you, you cannot possibly be free under that law, because your actions will always be constrained by your uncertainty.

One of the awesome things about the American Constitution is that it's not really written in complicated language. Of course this hasn't made things straightforward or easy.

Re: Texas app store age verification law blocked by federal judge

#192

Post by fc417fc802 »

marcosdumay wrote: post #185
fc417fc802 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I prefer to only report genuinely malicious behavior. As long as there's no active attempt at block evasion I figure reporting it is just increasing noise and generally making things worse for everyone. It's the active block evasion crowd that make any and every network communication protocol a pain in the ass to use at scale. It wasn't simpletons using a single static IP address that triggered such widespread adopti…

How is that not genuinely malicious behavior?

Look I'm just trying to distinguish "active circumvention of blocks" from pretty much everything else. Because the former is what destroys the usefulness of protocols while the vast majority of other things can be trivially resolved by blocking the offending party. Including { corporate service } that I don't use sending me { unwanted thing }.

If a bot that sends a fixed set of headers and is behind a single static IP is behaving poorly and slowing down your server you can block it and move on. Whereas when an abhorrently selfish operator with a client that actively hinders fingerprinting rapidly rotates through hundreds of thousands of IPs you end up with mass adoption of solutions like Anubis.

Re: Texas app store age verification law blocked by federal judge

#193

Post by smt88 »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #134
CrossVR wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This does nothing to protect anonymity as you are still assigned a unique code that has been tied to your ID at the liquor store.

Historically liquor store checks were purely visual. These days they are often digital, meaning claims about privacy might (or might not) be outdated. The general principle still applies though. The physical infrastructure already exists, the ID checks do not necessarily need to be digitized or recorded, and even if they are the issued tokens don't need to be tied to the check. Grocery stores already sell age restric…

I live in the US and haven't had my ID digitally scanned at a bar or liquor store in 10 years, and it only ever happened a couple of times.

Re: Texas app store age verification law blocked by federal judge

#194

Post by Y_Y »

triceratops wrote: post #180
CrossVR wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This does nothing to protect anonymity as you are still assigned a unique code that has been tied to your ID at the liquor store.

I've never had my ID recorded at any liquor store in my life. I've bought alcohol in multiple countries. If that happens where you live I'd fight to have that practice banned legally for alcohol and tobacco purchases. Stores are definitely selling it to insurance companies. Also after I had a certain number of birthdays, clerks have stopped demanding my ID. So my purchases are pretty much anonymous. The card should b…

And there should be the possibility too win cash prizes! You know what, forget the age thing.

Re: Texas app store age verification law blocked by federal judge

#195

Post by triceratops »

Y_Y wrote: post #194
triceratops wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never had my ID recorded at any liquor store in my life. I've bought alcohol in multiple countries. If that happens where you live I'd fight to have that practice banned legally for alcohol and tobacco purchases. Stores are definitely selling it to insurance companies. Also after I had a certain number of birthdays, clerks have stopped demanding my ID. So my purchases are pretty much anonymous. The card should b…

And there should be the possibility too win cash prizes! You know what, forget the age thing.

This, but seriously. Maybe some age token company might also run a raffle or other promotion.

EDIT: Because age verification tokens will likely be a commodity, low-margin business with little differentiation. So I assume companies will do stuff to make their token more attractive than the competition.

Re: Texas app store age verification law blocked by federal judge

#196

Post by Permik »

owisd wrote: post #157
Aloisius wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Every book in a bookstore can be verified because the content can be known and audited A bookstore with a single employee can no more verify the content of every new book or periodical put up for sale than Apple can verify all new content on the internet. Books and periodicals come out far, far too quickly for an independently owned bookstore to read first. Never mind new books which have set release dates where bo…

That’s an argument that sounds convincing in principle, but in reality I can walk into any independent bookstore and find it’s not filled with porn and AI slop, so clearly there is a successful vetting process going on. Namely, the publishers vet the books then the bookstore owner only has to vet the publishers. A proof of concept internet equivalent is if I scrape a bunch of trusted YouTube channels onto a NAS and g…

Hello, it's me, your billionaire friend, Broizoz, take a look at my book store.

[Image with a bookstore filled with AI slop]

Re: Texas app store age verification law blocked by federal judge

#197

Post by FergusArgyll »

immibis wrote: post #168
etchalon wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because that's the way our courts have ruled on it. Nothing more complicated than that. The courts are empowered by the Constitution to interpret the Constitution, and their interpretation says kids can have their rights limited.

IIRC didn't the courts empower themselves to interpret the constitution? Nothing in the constitution says they can. Of course, since they interpret the constitution, they can just insert an interpretation that says they interpret the constitution...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

Re: Texas app store age verification law blocked by federal judge

#198

Post by shkkmo »

irishcoffee wrote: post #59
shkkmo wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon's echo and other such IoT devices do extend this to "houses" but isn't quite as ubiquitous.

My house, papers, and effects aren’t not tied to whatever you’re calling out about the internet, not in the sense you’re insinuating. You’re conflating ideas to make a point. I admire the effort, you’re just not correct.

> You’re conflating ideas to make a point

I am talking specifically about the ideas you are disputing:

>> partially signed off to corporate entities who are more than happy to consent away their access into our effects.

I haven't conflated anything. You may be confused and think we're talking about ownership or physical access though.

Re: Texas app store age verification law blocked by federal judge

#199

Post by tomnipotent »

ralferoo wrote: post #184
robkop wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Occam's Razor - this complexity arises from the human nature to try and build consistent abstractions over complex situations. It's exactly what we do in software too. To an outsider it's going to look nonsensical. I want to share a thought experiment with you - atop an ancient Roman legal case I recall from Gregory Aldrete - The Barbershop Murder. Suppose a man sends his slave to a barbershop to get a shave. The bar…

> The legal question is posed: Who is liable under Roman law? My question is why does anybody have to be liable at all? Most normal people would consider this just to be a freak accident. Sure, there's learning points that can be taken from it to prevent similar incidents - e.g. erecting a fetch around the field (why didn't you suggest that the field owner be liable) as it can be reasonably foreseen the situation of…

> nobody seemed to act in any way negligently

The whole point is that there's a legal system that allows a plaintiff to make an argument that there was negligence at play, and OP outlined a logical list of examples of how it could be argued up to the government itself being negligent for zoning. It's the job of the legal system to remove the ambiguity of "seemed", particularly in the context of tort and compensation.

This example just happens to be less obvious than a construction company building a house or bridge that collapses and kills people, and most cases in front of a court are equally ambiguous.

Re: Texas app store age verification law blocked by federal judge

#200

Post by tennysont »

ralferoo wrote: post #184
robkop wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Occam's Razor - this complexity arises from the human nature to try and build consistent abstractions over complex situations. It's exactly what we do in software too. To an outsider it's going to look nonsensical. I want to share a thought experiment with you - atop an ancient Roman legal case I recall from Gregory Aldrete - The Barbershop Murder. Suppose a man sends his slave to a barbershop to get a shave. The bar…

> The legal question is posed: Who is liable under Roman law? My question is why does anybody have to be liable at all? Most normal people would consider this just to be a freak accident. Sure, there's learning points that can be taken from it to prevent similar incidents - e.g. erecting a fetch around the field (why didn't you suggest that the field owner be liable) as it can be reasonably foreseen the situation of…

That's such a strange interpretation that disagrees with my intuition.

If the Yankees hit a practice ball out of their stadium and into my house, causing bodily harm to a loved one, I wouldn't be satisfied with any of the reasoning in your comment.

More generally, people are allowed to take on risk as per their own appetite, but legal liability allows risk-hungry individuals to be incentive-aligned with everyone else.

Post reply on HN