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

US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification

reclaimthenet.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 369 posts

Re: US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification

#241

Post by Neikius »

stephbook wrote: post #91
GuestFAUniverse wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What for? I use family link for my kids devices. It works good enough. Everything else seems way too intrusive. Apple is horrible in this regard. Their solutions never really work. A joint venture for an (optional) cross-platform family app would be more than enough. This, plus a (voluntary) content rating that's offered via an API (could even be simple meta data on a webpage). Done.

Nice. How does pornhub.com "verify" your age when accessing it from your family computer's Ububtu account "my kids account"? Oh, there is no config to retrieve, no We API to speak to. "I'm 18 or older"-button it is. Is that a workable solution?

Well let's postulate parent set age on that up Ubuntu account to 13. Pornhub will query browser spi, which will query os API. Very elegant.

Ofc as soon as you give your child root access it is over but that is on you

Re: US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification

#242

Post by Neikius »

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #161

Well I'm going to keep using GrapheneOS and whatever version(s) of Linux refuse to comply. Makes me even more glad that I've already transitioned off Windows.

Just make your OS say you are 99.

This is all fine until they put some Id verification in. Then anything open is cooked.

Re: US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification

#243

Post by Mordisquitos »

GaryBluto wrote: post #219
HumblyTossed wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would rather them write a bill that says all kids are provided lunches at schools ("free lunch" if you will). I believe that would help kids out much more than this shit bill would.

>("free lunch" if you will). TANSTAAFL.

>TANSTAAFL

Those Are Not Slogans That Are Applicable Followed Literally.

Re: US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification

#244

Post by philipallstar »

mcmcmc wrote: post #222
GaryBluto wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>("free lunch" if you will). TANSTAAFL.

Whoa you mean public services are funded by taxes? I knew those free books at the library were too good to be true

No, they're funded by the work of net taxpayers.

Re: US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification

#245

Post by Neikius »

BatteryMountain wrote: post #230

This is so dumb. There are 100 other ways to protect children that would be more effective than this. Not only will this approach not actually protect children, this will violate the privacy of billions of people. It will introduce identity theft at mass scale (good luck solving that on short notice) and it will make activist/journalists/military/political opposition vulnerable. Perhaps this is the purpose. Who would…

As a parent this is perfect. I am baffled why this is not a standard yet. So setting an account age in Netflix works but the child can access anything. Make new accounts even. So I have to block half the internet. Somehow. On a shared computer. And all companies would have to get your ID and track that. It's crazy.

This compromises 0 privacy until it requires an ID. EU solution actually does and only supports specific devices.

Re: US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification

#246

Post by Neikius »

iamnothere wrote: post #134
hackinthebochs wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article's analysis doesn't appear to be accurate. From the bill: (a) Requirements.—An operating system provider, with respect to any operating system of such provider, shall carry out the following: (1) Require any user of the operating system to provide the date of birth of the user in order to— (A) set up an account on the operating system; and (B) use the operating system. (2) If the relevant user of the opera…

Verification is explicitly required. (d) Regulations.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall promulgate, under section 553 of title 5, United States Code, regulations to carry out this section, including regulations relating to the following: (A) How an operating system provider can— (i) verify the date of birth of a parent or legal guardian describe…

Very well hidden. Ugh. So close to a really good solution but ofc there is always a rider somewhere.

Re: US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification

#247

Post by bluedino »

ergonaught wrote: post #199

Much of the USA accepts "gun deaths" as an unfortunate but acceptable price that must be paid for the widespread freedom to own guns. When those same people are hysterical about Protecting The Children, you should understand that "protecting the children" is a distraction from whatever the actual intent may be. The general public is thoughtless, and there's little reason to think the decision-makers are much more tho…

> Much of the USA accepts "gun deaths" as an unfortunate but acceptable price that must be paid for the widespread freedom to own guns.

Much of the USA recognizes that "gun deaths" are caused by criminals who aren't going to follow any gun laws in the first place.

Re: US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification

#248

Post by aes25423 »

> "Once the operating system knows your age with verified certainty, it can tell any app to deliver, restrict, or withhold content accordingly."

Instead of "age verification", call it (and everything like it) Epstein law. The government wants the information of who is a kid and who isn't broadcasted to all the apps, safe AND malicious. There's no good reason to let random developers freely collect lists of kids out of those people who choose to try an app. It's Epstein law.

Being able to easily bypass an age gate makes such info unreliable, verification removes the unreliability such that the data can then be used for both good and evil reasons.

Re: US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification

#250

Post by aes25423 »

gnarlouse wrote: post #203

Listen, I would actually be willing to support something like this, but Jesus Christ when will we put somebody in congress with a CS background who can literally just chime in and say "use Zero Knowledge Proofs for this, people might actually buy that you're not just building a surveillance state."

ZKP doesn't solve the problem of issuers colluding (or being forced to cooperate) with verifiers

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/07/zero-knowledge-proofs-...

https://nophonehome.com/

Post reply on HN