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

Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

news.dyne.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 486 posts

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#421

Post by ndriscoll »

choo-t wrote: post #367
ndriscoll wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can be in favor of privacy while simultaneously thinking porn, gambling, and advertisers shouldn't be targeting children. The age verification bills I've read have steep penalties for retaining information, so that seems fine since that's literally more protection than you get in person. It's really more just concluding that those corporations should be liable for their behavior. It also has nothing to do with "t…

> The age verification bills I've read have steep penalties for retaining information, so that seems fine since that's literally more protection than you get in person. The best way (and only way) to prevent retaining information is to not share them in the first place. > You can be in favor of privacy while simultaneously thinking porn, gambling, and advertisers shouldn't be targeting children. There are other metho…

Headers could maybe work in a world where the technology were ubiquitous and people knew how to set it up (c.f. v-chip's failures), and kids couldn't just buy their own device for $20 and use it on the actually ubiquitous free pubic wi-fi to avoid any restrictions.

And actually I think it's a better world where kids can obtain e.g. a raspberry pi that they completely control no questions asked and free public wi-fi exists all over, and the onus is on service providers to not deal with children if they're not supposed to. Basically, a high trust society.

In any case, "don't retain records" is actually a pretty easy task. Trivial, actually (use a device with no disk to handle PII, an API that just returns yes/no to the rest of the system, and heavily restrict the firewall, e.g. no outbound connections). Or you buy a token/gift card in person with ID check. If you think the penalties aren't steep enough to get compliance, just raise them (e.g. business ending fines plus jail time).

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#422

Post by fc417fc802 »

ndriscoll wrote: post #417
fc417fc802 wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TBH I think this is all either fundamentally flawed or incredibly weak except for your final paragraph. That one actually poses a somewhat interesting question - why the seeming disparity between online and offline porn regulations in the US? Still, it fails to address (or even acknowledge) the differences in the impact of requiring ID between those scenarios. Also I think you have this entire thing exactly backwards…

Sending a header is unworkable because nothing obeys it, there are embedded browsers all over, and even if you mandated that every app/browser do so, kids can get a computer/phone for $20 with no restrictions. There's no requirement for ID retention online either. In fact, unlike in person, it is banned. And a framework where you just say "you are liable for what you provide to children" actually allows for a site em…

The browsers don't support it because only a few major sites bother to send it. The issue here is not support by client software it is lack of participation. That could be fixed via legal mandate, no different than requiring ID checks or anything else.

Right now if you want to build out a filtering solution there's nothing to base it on. We could fix that via regulation and then filtering would just work.

> kids can get a computer/phone for $20 with no restrictions.

At that point ID checks are no good either. They can just visit a site from a different country that doesn't respect our legal framework or hop on tor or bittorrent or whatever else.

In fact when it comes to ID checks if you don't enable parental controls and filtering then they will be able to bypass it in the exact same way as above except using their regular device that you gave to them! No need to go purchase a new one!

So you're inevitably going to end up needing a client side filtering solution regardless. As I keep telling you, the solution you're gunning for here is strictly worse than content filtering based on mandatory headers.

> Except for crypto, I don't think I am familiar with any way to pay for something online without revealing my identity.

There are also virtual credit card services. Or gift cards (which you yourself mentioned earlier).

Of course anything shipped needs a name and address (and likely phone number) but there are plenty of services you can pay for that don't involve shipping a physical item.

> That's not some fundamental right of theirs.

Never said or even implied that to be the case. I think I've been pretty clear that I see it as a threat to privacy, that I don't personally want it, and that I don't think it's the best (or even a particularly good) solution for the stated problems.

It's bizarre to me. You are putting all this effort towards advocating for new regulation that would require a change to how services operate. Simultaneously you argue against a less intrusive solution on the basis that no one currently does it. For some reason everyone can start checking IDs but sending a header is a bridge too far? It's inconsistent.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#423

Post by dzogchen »

tzs wrote: post #147
dzogchen wrote: post #62

Am I the only one that simply disregards everything that follows an AI slop image?

Is there something wrong in particular with that image? The composition fits in well with the content of the article, and the art seems pretty well down. I'm only seeing one error that would make me think "a human probably didn't draw this" and took a while to notice that.

It is just awful and the entire composition does not make sense. Why is there a globe in the sky? Why is the text ‘open access’ there which is a completely different topic?

No thought or skill went into that image besides the prompt that the author wrote in 10 seconds. It signals that the author probably didn’t put any effort in the article as well.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#424

Post by gib444 »

Nursie wrote: post #408
gib444 wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably the 2011 riots: a college student with no criminal record was jailed for six months for stealing a £3.50 case of bottled water [0] Or perhaps our current Home Sec in 2014 declaring "Rioters face years in prison as Home Secretary Yvette Cooper promises ‘swift justice’" [1] [0] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8695988/London... [1] https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/riots-prison-justice-l...…

Those riots in 2011 were not protest in any meaningful way. I was in London at the time, it was a bunch of people stealing shit and setting fires because they thought they could. What was shocking was how hands-off the police were when they routinely kettle and arrest peaceful protestors. When confronted with people who were actually looting and burning stuff down, they were nowhere to be seen. And the second article…

I neither argued that the 2011 riots were protest nor that setting fire to a community library is justified.

Are there any strawmen left or did you buy them all? Jesus

"Are you seriously arguing...?" style of discussion belongs to Reddit, not here.

Though it's clear that you are part of the pearl-clutching group that wants any protest banned and would support any law and any new law dreamt up by a Home Sec, so thanks for doing your bit. No doubt you believe "the law is the law" and any law is just.

edit: You're not British are you (based on your English – it's pretty good, but not quite good enough). Where were you born, out of interest? I always enjoy a foreigner lecturing me about my place of birth

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#425

Post by moveaxebx »

Aurornis wrote: post #245
remcob wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is that required? The whole point of zero knowledge proofs is that it can run on untrusted devices.

Because true “zero knowledge” proofs are actually useless for age gating purposes. Conceptually, if a proof was truly zero knowledge and there were no restrictions on generating it, there would also be nothing stopping someone from launching a website where you clicked a button and were given a free token generated from their ID. If it was truly a zero knowledge proof it would be impossible to revoke the ID that gene…

> But the hacker fantasy of truly zero knowledge proofs is impossible because 1 hour after launch there would be a dozen “Show HN” posts with vibe coded websites that dispense zero knowledge tokens.

If I recall correctly, there exist variant cryptographic protocols that let you impersonate a user who provides such a service: that is, the token confers, or can be used to construct something that confers greater privileges in other contexts.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#426

Post by Nursie »

gib444 wrote: post #424
Nursie wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those riots in 2011 were not protest in any meaningful way. I was in London at the time, it was a bunch of people stealing shit and setting fires because they thought they could. What was shocking was how hands-off the police were when they routinely kettle and arrest peaceful protestors. When confronted with people who were actually looting and burning stuff down, they were nowhere to be seen. And the second article…

I neither argued that the 2011 riots were protest nor that setting fire to a community library is justified. Are there any strawmen left or did you buy them all? Jesus "Are you seriously arguing...?" style of discussion belongs to Reddit, not here. Though it's clear that you are part of the pearl-clutching group that wants any protest banned and would support any law and any new law dreamt up by a Home Sec, so thanks…

LOL. Home-counties born and bred, attended a minor public school and a Russel group university. Grandad was a Desert Rat, one grandmother was brought up in colonial India. I’m so English I’m a fucking stereotype, though it’s true I no longer live there.

Perhaps my English is so superior to yours that you’re having trouble understanding?

> Though it's clear that you are part of the pearl-clutching group that wants any protest banned

What were you saying about straw men?

Perhaps you could enlighten me here. If you believe that promising swift justice for arsonists and other rioters is a way to suppress effective protest, are you not categorising arson as a form of protest? If not, what is your objection to said swift justice for people who commit acts of criminal damage, arson etc?

I support the right to protest. I believe the UK state is on a bad path and has been for a long time with restrictions on this right. But it gives me no pause when rioting and looting is treated harshly.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#427

Post by gib444 »

Nursie wrote: post #426
gib444 wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I neither argued that the 2011 riots were protest nor that setting fire to a community library is justified. Are there any strawmen left or did you buy them all? Jesus "Are you seriously arguing...?" style of discussion belongs to Reddit, not here. Though it's clear that you are part of the pearl-clutching group that wants any protest banned and would support any law and any new law dreamt up by a Home Sec, so thanks…

LOL. Home-counties born and bred, attended a minor public school and a Russel group university. Grandad was a Desert Rat, one grandmother was brought up in colonial India. I’m so English I’m a fucking stereotype, though it’s true I no longer live there. Perhaps my English is so superior to yours that you’re having trouble understanding? > Though it's clear that you are part of the pearl-clutching group that wants any…

Sure, with those over-corrected "’" apostrophes. "I’m so English I’m a fucking stereotype" is such a contorted sentence.

"The UK has problems, but it's not very useful to throw all of these cases together to make a big number", "None of which is to say I think the UK has things right" – literally nobody native to the UK writes like that.

Again, nice try, but try harder.

I'm /actually/ from a home county ;)

edit: Home counties isn't hyphenated btw.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#428

Post by greenie_beans »

dmix wrote: post #15
taurath wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too many people making too much money - to be honest, people really should blame tech for it, all it takes is RSUs to look the other way. Morally most of the US is running far away from tech and the surveillance state but here it’s still okay to work for monsters and self justify building population control systems and ad networks (often one and the same)

The solution is always to constrain every level of government with more aggressive privacy laws. As long as they are allowed to do it then some private contractors will take the money to help make it ... or government will make their own in house tech teams. Relying on the morals of the general public to limit state surveillance is not a good strategy, but it is of course good when companies take a stand and the tech…

"morals of the general public" helps lead to "more aggressive privacy laws"

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#429

Post by Nursie »

gib444 wrote: post #427
Nursie wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LOL. Home-counties born and bred, attended a minor public school and a Russel group university. Grandad was a Desert Rat, one grandmother was brought up in colonial India. I’m so English I’m a fucking stereotype, though it’s true I no longer live there. Perhaps my English is so superior to yours that you’re having trouble understanding? > Though it's clear that you are part of the pearl-clutching group that wants any…

Sure, with those over-corrected "’" apostrophes. "I’m so English I’m a fucking stereotype" is such a contorted sentence. "The UK has problems, but it's not very useful to throw all of these cases together to make a big number", "None of which is to say I think the UK has things right" – literally nobody native to the UK writes like that. Again, nice try, but try harder. I'm /actually/ from a home county ;) edit: Home…

This has got to be the weirdest conversation I’ve ever had on here.

I have no reason to lie, nor do I have either a method or any particular desire to prove myself to you.

If you want to believe a foreigner is lecturing you on British society, you go ahead and live with that delusion I guess. :shrug:

> literally nobody native to the UK writes like that.

Have you hung around with many middle-aged ex public school types?

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#430

Post by Spivak »

xg15 wrote: post #391

This article seems to be mostly an AI reformulation of the standard retort in tech: "Protecting kids online should be the parents' responsibility, not ours!" > Guardianship is something else. It is the contextual responsibility of parents, teachers, schools, and other trusted adults to decide what is appropriate for a child, when exceptions make sense, and how supervision should evolve over time. Moderation is partly…

They don't get unsupervised internet access, there's always a supervising adult in between the child and the internet. For the child's devices it's the parent who has access to parental control software which will restrict access no matter where the device is, at the school it's the school, at the library it's the library, and for the friend's device it's that friend's parents. The answer for what pages do you block is that you use a service who does the work of categorizing pages for you. Every parental control software worth their salt will have this. It's basically the entire value proposition of paid filter software.

No matter the enforcement mechanism there is no way to defeat the "Shawn's parents are cool" problem because Shawn's parents will just give him their IDs to verify. And I know this because I'm for sure going to be that parent.

Post reply on HN