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

321–330 of 371 posts

Re: EFF launches Age Verification Hub

#321

Post by Bender »

yardstick wrote: post #274
no_wizard wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like the first part of the idea, which is the header. Heck, even enable it by default. As long as the tracking of the toggle isn't a thing its a perfect compromise. While we're at it, respecting do not track headers would also be nice. This completely leaves it up to the families / parents to control and gives some level of compliance to make the effort worth while. There may even be a way to generate enough noise…

They tried this years ago with ICRA and others. Long gone, but it worked by the webmaster adding metadata to self classify a site. Browsers and other agents could then allow/deny after inspecting the tags. https://sk.sagepub.com/ency/edvol/childmedia/chpt/internet-c...

I remember labeling all my sites with PICS ICRA using the header generator. For my SFW sites it was mostly straight forward. For my adult forum it was a pain in the ass. My forum members managed to come up with so many categories that the header at some point should have just said "ALL THE THINGS AND THINGS YOU DID NOT KNOW EXIST" hahaha... I can see why adoption was low. There were a couple of browsers that recognized ICRA PICS for a little while but there were no laws to make it stick.

That's why I am pleased with RTA. Just add one header, done. Most admins and developers could do that in their sleep.

Re: EFF launches Age Verification Hub

#322

Post by HolyLampshade »

exsomet wrote: post #311
dietdrpeppr wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are also, concerningly IMO, an extremely large amount of people willing to accept severe surveillance or privacy downsides so long as it helps achieve the goal about kids. I’m alive. Nice to meet you. I “accept severe surveillance”, not in the sense that I agree with it, but because I know that it already exists and has existed and that people that are against it are screaming into the wind. Many large and sm…

This is a fairly defeatist approach to the issue (read that as a statement of fact, not an accusation or argument). The problem with taking this stance, for many people, is that you’re giving a mouse a cookie, except the cookie is marginally more and more control over your life in the form of the ability to control what you see, what communities you’re allowed to engage with, and what you’re allowed to do online. Thi…

The issue here for me has always been about the difference between treating a symptom and treating the illness.

Excessive surveillance is necessary when you cannot convince people of the merits of your politics or morals on their own and need to use the power of the State to intimidate and control their access.

For the issue on minors, if you have a child (guilty here) you are obligated to actively raise and educate them on the nature of the world. For access to online interactions this doesn’t necessarily only mean active limits (as one might judge appropriate for the child), but also teaching them that people do not always have positive intent, and anonymity leads to lack of consequence, and consequently potentially antisocial behavior.

A person’s exposure to these issues are not limited to interactions online. We are taught to be suspicious of strangers offering candy from the back of panel vans. We are taught to look both ways when entering a roadway.

The people demanding the right to limit what people can say and who they can talk to do so under the guise of protecting children, but these tools are too prone to the potential for abuse. In the market of ideas it’s better (and arguably safer, if not significantly more challenging) to simply outcompete with your own.

Re: EFF launches Age Verification Hub

#323

Post by zamadatix »

godelski wrote: post #255
zamadatix wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As much as you (and I as well) don't want age verification to involve discussion about kids' access to content because we're more concerned about the surveillance push riding the popularity of that, repeating "it isn't about kids" loudly 3 times doesn't make the (extremely large) group of people pushing age verification for kids disappear. Telling that larger group their interest just isn't part of the conversation a…

For the folks in the back row: Age Verification is about Kids and Censorship: to track them and censor them Age Verification is about Kids: giving it to companies who will keep it as safe as they've kept your identity, email, and other information. Age Verification is about Kids and Censorship: taking control from you and giving it to corporations and government. Age Verification is about Kids and Censorship: to keep…

Hear, hear! I'll add another:

"Age Verification is about suppressing the 'undesirable' for kids, but also for you". I.e. having to share your personal identity for that taboo (but legal and harmless) sex site (or whatever someone in power might not approve of) sure is going to make you think twice and may even kill many smaller instances withojt making them illegal outright.

It may not sound bad in a single example, but eventually there is something you like that is fine but gets added to the list.

Re: EFF launches Age Verification Hub

#324

Post by MatteoFrigo »

sdwr wrote: post #240
MatteoFrigo wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am someone with "deep knowledge", but HN is not the proper place for this discussion. See https://people.cs.georgetown.edu/jthaler/ProofsArgsAndZK.htm... for the gory details. Here is a hopefully simple example of how this ZKP thing may even be possible. Imagine that you give me a Sudoku puzzle. I solve it, and then I want to prove to you that I have solved it without telling you the solution. It sounds impossible,…

> How do we implement the lock boxes? I tell you SHA256(NONCE, VALUE) where the NONCE is chosen by me. Given the hash you cannot compute VALUE. To open the lock box, I tell you NONCE and VALUE, which you believe under the assumption that I cannot find a collision in SHA256. That's the bit I was missing! The prover pre-registers the scrambled solution, so they can't cheat by making up values that fit the constraints.

Yes. The whole trick is a delicate balance between 1) committing to enough information that uniquely pins down the solution, assuming that one can open all the lock boxes, and 2) not opening too many lock boxes so that the verifier does not learn the solution.

Re: EFF launches Age Verification Hub

#325

Post by zamadatix »

edgineer wrote: post #252
zamadatix wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As much as you (and I as well) don't want age verification to involve discussion about kids' access to content because we're more concerned about the surveillance push riding the popularity of that, repeating "it isn't about kids" loudly 3 times doesn't make the (extremely large) group of people pushing age verification for kids disappear. Telling that larger group their interest just isn't part of the conversation a…

I'm sure those people exist, I just never happen to see anything they write online nor meet any of them in real life.

I suppose it depends on how much else you want to see. E.g. the recent discussion on Australia's social media band for teens https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46208348 has ~1500 comments covering nearly every possible angle I could have conceived and some positions I'm not sure I would have even been able to imagine. Focusing on about the kids is a popular position in threads like that, and one of the top 5 top level comments is even an example of "I care about the kids and don't want to discuss how it should be about these other things".

Re: EFF launches Age Verification Hub

#326

Post by nulbyte »

phatfish wrote: post #315
downrightmike wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"group of people pushing age verification for kids disappear." Parents need to parent then, but the amount that will are still larger than the people who want mass surveillance because they can't be arsed to raise their kids. If they are too lazy to raise their kids, they don't have the energy to push the nanny state forward.

This take is really detached from reality, I get down voted for this whenever I ask, but do you have kids? If not sorry, but your opinion means nothing. We all exist in a society and (as the other comment says) it take society to raise kids. I don't want a society where as a parent I have to fight against shitty parents and the potential immaturity of my kids (they are too young right now thank god) to stop them watc…

> This take is really detached from reality, I get down voted for this whenever I ask, but do you have kids? If not sorry, but your opinion means nothing.

The reason you get down voted is likely because you are neither sorry nor correct. Just because someone doesn't have children does not mean their opinion of technology that affects them just the same is invalid. You will get better results engaging others in meaningful debate without dehumanizing folks simply because they aren't like you.

Re: EFF launches Age Verification Hub

#327

Post by nulbyte »

phatfish wrote: post #314
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 […

Dude, parents don't want their kids wading through porn and whatever social media throws at them before they are even teenagers. Childless digital nomad privacy freaks are a minority, age gates are coming. I don't care that they will never be 100%, if it provides cover for parents to stop their kids consuming trash internet "culture" until they are more mature they are already a great benefit to socitey.

If it's really that difficult for parents to engage their children and parent them, maybe that says more about a society that doesn't prepare parents for parenthood than it does about those who don't have children.

Re: EFF launches Age Verification Hub

#328

Post by kappaking »

heavyset_go wrote: post #159
thinkingtoilet wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am someone who is very privacy focused. I've literally never had a social media account on any platform and I'm 42. From day one of facebook, I never wanted my information online. Like many here, I'm deeply concerned about privacy and surveillance. In real life, we think age verification is a good thing. Kids shouldn't buy porn. Teenagers shouldn't get into bars. etc... There has to be room somewhere for reasonable…

> In real life, we think age verification is a good thing. Kids shouldn't buy porn. Teenagers shouldn't get into bars. etc... These are not equivalent, I don't have to scan my face, upload my ID and share my personal biometric data with various 3rd parties, who will sell and leak my data, every time I want to look at porn or sip a beer. Also, there are countries where teenagers can drink and go to pubs, and society h…

> These are not equivalent, I don't have to scan my face, upload my ID and share my personal biometric data with various 3rd parties, who will sell and leak my data, every time I want to look at porn or sip a beer

Oh man, you must just not go out much anymore. I’ve seen a lot of bars with full blown facial scanners next to their bouncer.

Re: EFF launches Age Verification Hub

#329

Post by kappaking »

kmoser wrote: post #268
mikeyouse wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if you've bought alcohol lately, but at most large grocers near me, they're scanning licenses now instead of just verifying the birth date - and I'm pretty confident those scans aren't just checking the birthdate and then deleting all record of the interaction..

Pro tip: those scanners probably don't work with passports, so a human must still eyeball your passport to verify that you're old enough.

They can probably just deny you service at that point.

Re: EFF launches Age Verification Hub

#330

Post by kappaking »

wartywhoa23 wrote: post #284
zamadatix wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As much as you (and I as well) don't want age verification to involve discussion about kids' access to content because we're more concerned about the surveillance push riding the popularity of that, repeating "it isn't about kids" loudly 3 times doesn't make the (extremely large) group of people pushing age verification for kids disappear. Telling that larger group their interest just isn't part of the conversation a…

And now compare this comment with another comment ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46228900 ) I got in yet another "let's save children from the Internet" thread: > Your sci-fi distopia flash fiction is compelling, but not actually on topic in this discussion. > "Think of the children" is weaponized for censorious purposes, but also the harms of social media are well documented (unlike many of the other moral p…

The real problem with these people is they always just end up supporting pedophiles, so all their zealous justice is really moot.
Post reply on HN