Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hard disagree. Corporations running the government instead of a nation's people is the problem.
Government should be so powerless as to be unattractive targets for corporate influence.
Name checks out.
US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification
321–330 of 369 posts
Re: US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification
#322Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is horribly vague. >a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device. It leaves open to interpretation if it applies to all computers, or just general purpose ones. Does a car count as a mobile device?
"General Purpose Computing Device" A car houses numerous Turing-complete computation systems.
I'm wondering how I'm going to age verify on my abacus and stacks of napkins...
Re: US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification
#323Earlier quoted context omitted.
Check out the two vendors of mobile solutions, they want a photo of your state ID. Here's Persona's page about it. https://withpersona.com/blog/what-is-drivers-license-verific... My understanding is that if you are under 18, you can get away with uploading a selfie.
That doesn't answer my question though, sorry.
Maybe you mean where in bill does it say a US photo ID is required.
I think your are correct, I don't believe such a requirement exists in the bill itself and that's a big part of the article. Because the law doesn't require this, there's a very real risk that people won't realize that, if you are an adult, you will be required to upload a photo of your state ID. Prople might support the bill and only realize what it means in practical terms once it is too late and it has become law.
It isn't clear to me if requiring photo ID is a practical requirement or a decision the two incumbent vendors have made for their own reasons. My guess is that it is the cheapest and easiest solution.
Re: US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification
#324Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no other technology to do age verification at scale. Apple, Google and such will contract out this age verification to a third-party which will ask you to upload your ID and a 3D face captcha, which the third party will delete within 15 days, but somehow magically still make it into an unfortunate, unavoidable data leak a couple of years later.
I think you are assuming what their definition of "verify" is going to be, but it's not actually written in the text of the bill, so we don't know. Similar laws in some states only asked the OS to collect the age, it specifically doesn't say that the information must ever be accurate, stored or used for anything.
Collecting the age will be done via a photo of a legal US state ID. We can take bets but, as the article points out, only two vendors can do this and this is how they do it.
Re: US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification
#325Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where does it say a "full ID" must be uploaded?
how do you validate citizenship and authenticity without a full ID?
I believe you can get a valid US state ID without being a citizen. In regards to this bill, IMHO, they are looking only to verify age.
Re: US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification
#326Earlier quoted context omitted.
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/
eIDAS in Europe uses ZKP and seems to be working.
I have no idea what you mean by that.
1) It's one thing to use secure auth to access government services, banks etc. that need to know beyond reasonable doubt who you are to function at all. It's something else entirely to require every person in the EU (not just citizens) to ask the government for permission to speak online.
2) What does eIDAS fundamentally have to do with ZKP? There's one reference to ZKP in the 2024 update (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=OJ:...) which merely says states "should" use it. Doesn't mean much of anything by itself. To my knowledge, the ZKP-based AV shit is only being prepared to run and hasn't been in use yet - https://www.politico.eu/article/online-age-checks-are-coming...
Re: US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification
#327Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you are assuming what their definition of "verify" is going to be, but it's not actually written in the text of the bill, so we don't know. Similar laws in some states only asked the OS to collect the age, it specifically doesn't say that the information must ever be accurate, stored or used for anything.
Collecting the age will be done via a photo of a legal US state ID. We can take bets but, as the article points out, only two vendors can do this and this is how they do it.
> Collecting the age will be done via a photo of a legal US state ID
Do you have a source for this claim?
Re: US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification
#328Do we know who is funding this? is this one of these things where Meta doesn't want the responsibility for this, so they are pushing to have the OS have the responsibility or something like that?
It must be OS responsibility because that’s the only place that allows the next step. Everyone is so concerned with kids pretending to be adults, what about adults pretending to be kids? Any service that has any kind of private chat or picture sharing option will be a playground for “verified” kids. Next step, “we must go further with the verifications until everyone is verified everywhere”. This is where the OS part…
The "children's version" has to be engineered to assume some adult users anyway-- since you're going to have some types of helicopter parents logging into the same platforms the kids are on to make sure they're all right. So the threat model of "what if a paedophile gets a Club Penguin account" is already wargamed out.
In many cases, this consists of dramatically limiting user-to-user comms, hyper-aggressive filtering, sometimes even to restricting to pre-canned messages only. (I'm sure someone is already encoding morse code ethnic slurs into patterns of friendly gestures, but that's another story).
Re: US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification
#329Earlier quoted context omitted.
Government should be so powerless as to be unattractive targets for corporate influence.
Sure, but this is only tenable as a technical position that aims to reduce all forms of centralized power. It completely fails as a political position applied to the nominal "government". Politically, pushing in this direction seems to only ever play out as reducing the power of governments over corporations, while often even increasing the power of government over individuals (spurred on by corporations looking to w…
Would you believe that I agree with what you wrote completely?
I’m pretty much a pure anarchist in terms of principles, but I’m a pragmatist in practice. I’d describe my approach in politics as “What do you wish the government would stop doing? Let’s focus on making that happen.”
You can’t change a culture by changing the political system, but my hope is that you can change a political system by changing the culture. I want to be as independent of the state as I can possibly be, and I want to encourage others to do the same. My hope is that this sort of cultural shift will eventually lead the shrinking of the state. I don’t expect to live to see that happen, but I hope my children and their children do.
Aside from the above, just don’t harm others. That’s it.
Re: US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification
#330Earlier quoted context omitted.
Government should be so powerless as to be unattractive targets for corporate influence.
That just creates a power vacuum that corporate techno-feudalists (or violence specialists) fill in. It's not a solution to anything. For example of powerless governments - look at literally any war-torn African country and their standard of living.
If you’re interested, see my response to a sibling comment of yours for a more complete description of my mindset.
Specific to this, though: there’s a big difference between a stateless society and a failed state. You’re describing failed states.
I also very much agree with you about the result of a power vacuum. I argue that a power vacuums exist not because of the absence of a state, but because of the absence of a state where the populace expects and relies on a state to be.
I didn’t say we should get rid of it all tomorrow morning :)