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

451–460 of 486 posts

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#451

Post by tim333 »

yalogin wrote: post #102

The big issue isn’t even age verification. The end goal is verified user identification. They want every transaction on the internet to be associated with the exact identity of the user. No more anonymity. In the short term the way it will be implemented is this — age verification will not be a binary, it will also want to push your DoB, name, location etc and they say “the choice is with the user” but the default wi…

It's easy to say that but I don't see evidence. Who is this 'they' who wants my ID for every transaction? Where is the proposal?

I've used the internet for 30 years, built websites etc. I've never been asked ID for general transactions. On the other hand we've had restrictions on porn for kids since before I was born. I'm skeptical much is new.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#452

Post by mindslight »

moveaxebx wrote: post #425
Aurornis wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 privil…

> can be used to construct something that confers greater privileges in other contexts

Then this wouldn't be zero knowledge, as it would convey whatever other greater information is available in that other context.

Are you perhaps thinking of the ecash double spending protocols? Where by double spending the same token to two different receivers, you leak enough information for your bank to recover your identity? That wouldn't be applicable here since each token would only be used once, there would just be many generated to share.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#453

Post by code_duck »

tim333 wrote: post #451
yalogin wrote: post #102

The big issue isn’t even age verification. The end goal is verified user identification. They want every transaction on the internet to be associated with the exact identity of the user. No more anonymity. In the short term the way it will be implemented is this — age verification will not be a binary, it will also want to push your DoB, name, location etc and they say “the choice is with the user” but the default wi…

It's easy to say that but I don't see evidence. Who is this 'they' who wants my ID for every transaction? Where is the proposal? I've used the internet for 30 years, built websites etc. I've never been asked ID for general transactions. On the other hand we've had restrictions on porn for kids since before I was born. I'm skeptical much is new.

Same as ever, advertisers and the government. Plus, it would mean platforms could ban troublesome people or those they deem undesirable more effectively.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#454

Post by mindslight »

txrx0000 wrote: post #348
mindslight wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can still get hardware that you can install your own OS on. But you have to be deliberate about picking it out before a purchase, rather than hoping to unlock a random carrier phone down the line. For example my phone is a Pixel running Graphene. It has a locked down bootloader that could only be unlocked with the online consent of Google. While this most certainly chafes me (and if I could snap my fingers and ma…

I don't think it's a market failure. The reality that password-gating software installation at the OS level can be done on most desktops but not most phones is the opposite sign of a market failure. Mobile OSes have increasingly stripped down capabilities in recent years precisely because of anti-competitive practices. The reason standard desktops have not evolved even better parental control features is not because…

You're focused on "password gating" for installing apps, but the largest subject here is websites. (also a nit: very few Linux systems are set up with noexec on home directories, I know "portable apps" exist for Windows, and I assume MacOS has similar dynamics)

> the absolute level of demand for parental control features has been low until recent years, and even this recent wave of demand is somewhat manufactured.

I don't agree with this. I think the demand has always been there and has been sort of discarded. I've personally done some of that discarding, in my younger days when the worry was of violent content but still on desktop/laptop computers where use was generally socially legible to parents. But these days we're dealing with pocket-sized devices that are no longer socially legible, plus malevolent commercial interests drawing kids in to get them hooked on dopamine drip loops.

But you seem to think the problem is solved, so tell me: what exactly are parents supposed to do here? I'm a new parent, we're still at the stage of watch videos with mama/dada, and play with the calculator app. The next step is probably curated sources of content/apps with general web browsing locked down (including self-curated things like perhaps a local copy of wikipedia). But then after that? What's the next level of expanding their scope look like, without them being subject to attack by corpos showing them ads/social media/weird slop shit/etc? Especially if they are going to have a SIM card such that I can't just filter most of this at the network level.

I haven't researched it all, and I'm sure there are some solutions. But I'm also more capable of seeking out bespoke solutions and actively choosing to use one, as opposed to the average person who wants things to "just work" and isn't going to delve too hard. Can't we agree that the pressure for this shitty legislation is coming from somewhere beyond merely Faceboot's money?

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#455

Post by martin-t »

watwut wrote: post #365
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The arguments for background checks generally have to be split into two separate classes of people. The first is the mentally ill. Intuitively it seems desirable to say that someone undergoing treatment for e.g. depression shouldn't buy a gun. The problem here is the massive perverse incentive. If you're pretty depressed but you're not inclined to forfeit your ability to buy firearms, you now have a significant incen…

Third, non career violent people. Domestic violence or other interpersonal viole ce should prevent you from having a gun. Regardless of whether you are career criminal

> interpersonal viole ce should prevent you from having a gun

Nitpick but violence is not wrong on its own. Self defense is also violence and should not prevent your from having a gun for next time. Defense of others or reasonable defense of property likewise.

Forcibly removing a person from power who has gained or maintained that power without consent of those he has power over is also violence and even most current states allow us to celebrate it (usually as long as we don't argue it should be repeated against the current government).

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#456

Post by martin-t »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #355
martin-t wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just yesterday I thought about the right middle ground for KYC when buying guns. The issue with centrally registering guns is than when you country is taken over by hostile forces (whether an invading army or a democratically elected abuser who turns it into a dictatorship), they know who has the guns and can force those people to surrender them (politely at first, authoritarians always use a salami slicing technique…

The arguments for background checks generally have to be split into two separate classes of people. The first is the mentally ill. Intuitively it seems desirable to say that someone undergoing treatment for e.g. depression shouldn't buy a gun. The problem here is the massive perverse incentive. If you're pretty depressed but you're not inclined to forfeit your ability to buy firearms, you now have a significant incen…

> And if you have a policy that doesn't even solve most of the original problem while creating several new ones, maybe it's just a bad idea?

Are you saying everyone should be allowed to have a gun?

Because that's genuinely an interesting position. My proposal came from the view that if we need gun control, we should make sure it cannot be abused into a self reinforcing loop where a completely disarmed population is the end state (and possible end goal).

I would be interested if there is research into these indirect effects you talk about. For example I'd like to know how often people actually snitch, whether there are attempts/procedures to protect info about who snitched, how often they are killed for snitching, how often having a gun helps them, etc. E.g. because if a hit can come at any time from anywhere, having a gun might only give a feeling of safety.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#457

Post by [deleted] »

gruez wrote: post #294
_moof wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi, I've been openly queer for over 20 years. Using trans people as a wedge to pry apart the entire LGBTQ community is a tale as old as time. This isn't theoretical or a slippery slope argument; it's recent history. It's effective because it sounds "reasonable" on its face, but it's a ploy. Just one of the many, many, many reasons that trans rights are human rights.

>This isn't theoretical or a slippery slope argument; it's recent history. It's effective because it sounds "reasonable" on its face, but it's a ploy. It quite literally is the slippery slope argument. You just don't want to call it that because the term is almost always used in the context of a fallacy, and you think you're right. It's like "freedom fighters" vs "terrorists". Nobody calls themselves terrorists, even…

[deleted]

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#458

Post by _moof »

gruez wrote: post #294
_moof wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi, I've been openly queer for over 20 years. Using trans people as a wedge to pry apart the entire LGBTQ community is a tale as old as time. This isn't theoretical or a slippery slope argument; it's recent history. It's effective because it sounds "reasonable" on its face, but it's a ploy. Just one of the many, many, many reasons that trans rights are human rights.

>This isn't theoretical or a slippery slope argument; it's recent history. It's effective because it sounds "reasonable" on its face, but it's a ploy. It quite literally is the slippery slope argument. You just don't want to call it that because the term is almost always used in the context of a fallacy, and you think you're right. It's like "freedom fighters" vs "terrorists". Nobody calls themselves terrorists, even…

Please engage with the substance of my comment:

I have personally witnessed this tactic being used by anti-LGBTQ bigots for decades.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#459

Post by martin-t »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #440
watwut wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Third, non career violent people. Domestic violence or other interpersonal viole ce should prevent you from having a gun. Regardless of whether you are career criminal

That isn't a third category, those are people who have been convicted of a crime and want to commit another one. It's the same general category of not being able to solve people committing crimes by making already-illegal things even more illegal. And on top of that you get to add two new problems. The first is the deterrent to reporting, both before and after a conviction. In the original case the victim now can't e…

> those are people who have been convicted of a crime and want to commit another one

FWIW, this is why i said "anti-social" and not criminals in my original post. I think with many habitual abusers, the warning signs are there for a long time (often from childhood) before they break the law and before they are convicted.

> "permanently can't own a gun"

This points to other issues with the current system of punishments. OOH you have people claiming prison is meant for rehabilitation and released prisoners are to be considered fully rehabilitated, having paid their debt (which they argue is to society and not the victim) and not longer a threat to society. OTOH you have the reality that many people are repeat offenders and that also some people can genuinely change (or at least maintain the facade of internal change for the rest of their life).

Maybe what we need is a post-prison evaluation to determine which case we're dealing with and whether restrictions (if any) should be temporary or permanent.

---

FWIW regarding domestic violence, I think any target of it would be crazy to stay with the aggressor in the same household. People who commit it are often deeply and inherently anti-social without a way to treat them. Instead, as a society, we should be looking for ways to ease the process of their targets separating from them permanently. Case studies of what this kind of abuse looks like should be part of primary education, the abuser should be required to pay for housing for a reasonable period of time so the target can move away, etc.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#460

Post by cluckindan »

bluegatty wrote: post #450
cluckindan wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody is arguing that gun shops shouldn’t check buyers’ ID. That’s a strawman. The situation is more like we set up a new system of checkpoint booths on every highway at city limits, and anyone entering the city gets their ID checked, and that is justified by claiming that it’s so children can’t buy guns.

References to 'nanny state' are the strawman. Also - your analogy is wrong - we are not 'age verifying' the whole web, we're 'age verifying' things that ostensibly should be 'age verified'. Let's just say - 'porn' - to keep it simple. Porn is to be 'age verified' on the web literally like it is in the city shop . You don't have to present your ID to read CNN. They're not saying 'present your id to get into the city,…

You seem to have misunderstood the situation completely. The laws being passed in US states force OS level age and identity verification, shifting the responsibility away from individual websites.
Post reply on HN