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

US national level OS-level age verification bill proposed

congress.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 243 posts

Re: US national level OS-level age verification bill proposed

#221

Post by nemomarx »

tzs wrote: post #218
nemomarx wrote: post #94

I didn't even know a bill could be listed without the text being out. Too early to discuss much though?

There are several different approaches to trying to keep children from things that are probably bad for them on the internet that have been proposed or passed as laws. 1. Requiring sites in various categories (porn, social media) to make sure they aren't serving children, without specifying how they are to do that. 2. Similar to #1, but specifying specific means the sites must use. They are often pretty bad from a po…

4 is a more interesting pitch, but without knowing if the law requires the OS check the age somehow it's hard to say. I also think ideally it shouldn't be an actual age for privacy reasons? Ideally it should be a kind of adult / not adult flag that's on or off, presumably tied to other parental controls.

So if the legislation leans that way it would be interesting to discuss that part in particular.

Re: US national level OS-level age verification bill proposed

#222

Post by spicyjpeg »

srmatto wrote: post #220

Google did the hard work for everyone last year... >"In layperson’s terms, ZKP makes it possible for people to prove that something about them is true without exchanging any other data. So, for example, a person visiting a website can verifiably prove he or she is over 18, without sharing anything else at all." - https://blog.google/innovation-and-ai/technology/safety-secu... - https://github.com/google/longfellow-zk

The "hard work" in question is a death sentence for computing as we know it today. All implementations of zero-knowledge proofs require device integrity assurance to prevent the otherwise anonymous tokens from being passed onto another user, and Google has a vested interest in pushing solutions involving remote attestation as they would double as an effective weapon against ad blocking, YouTube downloaders, pirated games, sideloaded apps that don't pay the Play Store tax and more. Requiring remote attestation on all internet-connected devices would result in the complete overnight death of desktop Linux, contribute significantly to e-waste and pave the road for further initiatives such as mandatory client-side scanning of all files (of the kind Apple attempted to introduce not too long ago, with massive backlash); I am not sure this would be preferable to simply handing over your ID.

Re: US national level OS-level age verification bill proposed

#223

Post by phi-go »

srmatto wrote: post #220

Google did the hard work for everyone last year... >"In layperson’s terms, ZKP makes it possible for people to prove that something about them is true without exchanging any other data. So, for example, a person visiting a website can verifiably prove he or she is over 18, without sharing anything else at all." - https://blog.google/innovation-and-ai/technology/safety-secu... - https://github.com/google/longfellow-zk

Not sure why you are only crediting google. This is a big research area in cryptography.

Re: US national level OS-level age verification bill proposed

#224

Post by JumpCrisscross »

spicyjpeg wrote: post #222
srmatto wrote: post #220

Google did the hard work for everyone last year... >"In layperson’s terms, ZKP makes it possible for people to prove that something about them is true without exchanging any other data. So, for example, a person visiting a website can verifiably prove he or she is over 18, without sharing anything else at all." - https://blog.google/innovation-and-ai/technology/safety-secu... - https://github.com/google/longfellow-zk

The "hard work" in question is a death sentence for computing as we know it today. All implementations of zero-knowledge proofs require device integrity assurance to prevent the otherwise anonymous tokens from being passed onto another user, and Google has a vested interest in pushing solutions involving remote attestation as they would double as an effective weapon against ad blocking, YouTube downloaders, pirated g…

> Requiring remote attestation on all internet-connected devices

Is that what this bill requires? If it’s just remote attenuation for social media, done by the OS, I think that’s fine.

Re: US national level OS-level age verification bill proposed

#225

Post by mindslight »

mindslight wrote: post #205
srslyTrying2hlp wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm currently reading Foucault's history of sexuality, and the reason you might want this is because population! Obviously we are facing a population crisis, and we will need more bodies for the factories and retirement homes. Or at least this was the idea in the 1800s. We might have morally coated it with religion, but biopower is a real thing. The current hypothesis is that the ever evolving LGBTQ+ is a way to sell…

I'm wary of reasoning that boils down to using utilitarian arguments to back up moralistic fundamentalism - especially when there are so many other things that would achieve similar results but continue to go unaddressed. We could start with making sure every child has abundant access to food and healthcare so they grow up as healthy as possible. We could address the economic treadmill wherein two incomes have become…

@srslyTrying2hlp

FWIW I didn't say "no". I said it was dubious to place emphasis on that specific approach when there are other approaches that could help the same goal and are more in line with our Western values, but they aren't being followed (in fact they're closer to being actively rejected!)

In general it's extremely important to exercise one's judgement/heuristics of which arguments are worthy of focus, lest one end up being taken in by superficial criticisms and actually end up harming the thing you're claiming to want to fix. Like in this instance the proponents of religious fundamentalism are also responsible for pushing a lot of backwards policy that actively harms children once they've been born - their own heuristics are just wildly out of touch with the modern world.

Re: US national level OS-level age verification bill proposed

#226

Post by srslyTrying2hlp »

mindslight wrote: post #225
mindslight wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm wary of reasoning that boils down to using utilitarian arguments to back up moralistic fundamentalism - especially when there are so many other things that would achieve similar results but continue to go unaddressed. We could start with making sure every child has abundant access to food and healthcare so they grow up as healthy as possible. We could address the economic treadmill wherein two incomes have become…

@srslyTrying2hlp FWIW I didn't say "no". I said it was dubious to place emphasis on that specific approach when there are other approaches that could help the same goal and are more in line with our Western values, but they aren't being followed (in fact they're closer to being actively rejected!) In general it's extremely important to exercise one's judgement/heuristics of which arguments are worthy of focus, lest o…

[dead]

Re: US national level OS-level age verification bill proposed

#227

Post by mindslight »

mindslight wrote: post #225
mindslight wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm wary of reasoning that boils down to using utilitarian arguments to back up moralistic fundamentalism - especially when there are so many other things that would achieve similar results but continue to go unaddressed. We could start with making sure every child has abundant access to food and healthcare so they grow up as healthy as possible. We could address the economic treadmill wherein two incomes have become…

@srslyTrying2hlp FWIW I didn't say "no". I said it was dubious to place emphasis on that specific approach when there are other approaches that could help the same goal and are more in line with our Western values, but they aren't being followed (in fact they're closer to being actively rejected!) In general it's extremely important to exercise one's judgement/heuristics of which arguments are worthy of focus, lest o…

@srslyTrying2hlp

I'd say you're using this idea of "fallibility" as a license to make unsubstantiated assertions and then avoid responsibility for the implications. Or maybe you just need to put down the bong, detox, and touch grass. Nobody is "denying reality and science" here.

Re: US national level OS-level age verification bill proposed

#228

Post by srslyTrying2hlp »

mindslight wrote: post #227
mindslight wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

@srslyTrying2hlp FWIW I didn't say "no". I said it was dubious to place emphasis on that specific approach when there are other approaches that could help the same goal and are more in line with our Western values, but they aren't being followed (in fact they're closer to being actively rejected!) In general it's extremely important to exercise one's judgement/heuristics of which arguments are worthy of focus, lest o…

@srslyTrying2hlp I'd say you're using this idea of "fallibility" as a license to make unsubstantiated assertions and then avoid responsibility for the implications. Or maybe you just need to put down the bong, detox, and touch grass. Nobody is "denying reality and science" here.

[dead]

Re: US national level OS-level age verification bill proposed

#229

Post by tzs »

nemomarx wrote: post #221
tzs wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are several different approaches to trying to keep children from things that are probably bad for them on the internet that have been proposed or passed as laws. 1. Requiring sites in various categories (porn, social media) to make sure they aren't serving children, without specifying how they are to do that. 2. Similar to #1, but specifying specific means the sites must use. They are often pretty bad from a po…

4 is a more interesting pitch, but without knowing if the law requires the OS check the age somehow it's hard to say. I also think ideally it shouldn't be an actual age for privacy reasons? Ideally it should be a kind of adult / not adult flag that's on or off, presumably tied to other parental controls. So if the legislation leans that way it would be interesting to discuss that part in particular.

The main type 4 law right now is the one California passed and some others copied.

It requires that the parent be able to enter an age or birthdate. The API that the OS must provide to apps is required to let apps ask for age ranges, with these ranges required: [0, 13), [13, 16), [16, 18), [18, ∞).

The California bill is mostly fine, and just needs some tweaks. It is way narrower than 99% of the people who comment on it think it is.

From what little that has actually been disclosed about the federal bill it sounds like it too is taking a parental control approach, but it also sounds like it might be requiring the OS to actually verify the age.

The big question is what does that mean? If it just means the OS has to ask the parents for the age it may be similar to the California law and might just take some tweaking. If it means the OS has to be provided actual proof then it is quite different and much more problematic.

Post reply on HN