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

State Attorneys General Want to Tie Online Access to ID

reclaimthenet.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 109 posts

Re: State Attorneys General Want to Tie Online Access to ID

#51

Post by OutOfHere »

dynm wrote: post #30

What I find puzzling about these proposals is that it SEEMS like they could be designed to achieve 90% of the stated goals with almost 0% of the loss of privacy. The idea would be that devices could "opt in" to safety rather than opt out. Allow parents to purchase a locked-down device that always includes a "kids" flag whenever it requests online information, and simply require online services to not provide kid-unfr…

It has nothing much to do with kids and everything to do with monitoring and suppressing adults.

Re: State Attorneys General Want to Tie Online Access to ID

#52

Post by cowboylowrez »

struant wrote: post #46
c22 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Better yet, require online services to send a 'not for kids' flag along with any restricted content then let families configure their devices however they want. Even better, make the flags granular: , , , 13+, profane language, user, text 17+, violence, self, video 18+, unmoderated content, user, text 13+, drug themes, self, audio and so on...

Just say the whole internet is not for kids without adult supervision and leave it at that. It doesn't even matter if you can get something that technically works. Half the "age appropriate" content targeted at children is horrifying brainrot. Hardcore pornography would be less damaging to them. Just supervise your damn children people.

yep, 18+, show id at the time of purchasing access soooo easy and zero technical issues.

Re: State Attorneys General Want to Tie Online Access to ID

#53

Post by sneak »

mothballed wrote: post #40
tired-turtle wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain the connection between KYC in banking and the Fourth Amendment? How does KYC constitute a government search/seizure?

The government requires the bank to search your identity documents to open an account, even when there is no individualized suspicion you've broken the law as to why your papers need to be searched, as part of the KYC regulations passed post 9/11. Technically it's not in the statute that they actually search your documents, but rather enforced through a byzantine series of federal regulatory frameworks that basically…

I’d happily host that blog. Contact info is in my profile.

Re: State Attorneys General Want to Tie Online Access to ID

#54

Post by rolph »

hammock wrote: post #47
rolph wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i think the worst that can happen is you could be put on a list of dissention.

Isn’t that the point? Our lawmakers keep track of how many constituents approve or disapprove of pending legislation so they can act accordingly

so they can act accordingly is the variable, a simple headcount is one thing, but when it creeps like a census, then it is prone to polyusary.

putting the consiracy hat on, the exploit is to direct as many installed AGs to push for such bills, with no big letdown if they dont pass, why/because, the demographics on dissention are valuable and are, passed to a hostile federal government.

Re: State Attorneys General Want to Tie Online Access to ID

#56

Post by DennisP »

mothballed wrote: post #40
tired-turtle wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain the connection between KYC in banking and the Fourth Amendment? How does KYC constitute a government search/seizure?

The government requires the bank to search your identity documents to open an account, even when there is no individualized suspicion you've broken the law as to why your papers need to be searched, as part of the KYC regulations passed post 9/11. Technically it's not in the statute that they actually search your documents, but rather enforced through a byzantine series of federal regulatory frameworks that basically…

Fwiw I lean to your side and would be interesting in reading what you have to say about it.

Re: State Attorneys General Want to Tie Online Access to ID

#57

Post by mjevans »

c22 wrote: post #41
dynm wrote: post #30

What I find puzzling about these proposals is that it SEEMS like they could be designed to achieve 90% of the stated goals with almost 0% of the loss of privacy. The idea would be that devices could "opt in" to safety rather than opt out. Allow parents to purchase a locked-down device that always includes a "kids" flag whenever it requests online information, and simply require online services to not provide kid-unfr…

Better yet, require online services to send a 'not for kids' flag along with any restricted content then let families configure their devices however they want. Even better, make the flags granular: , , , 13+, profane language, user, text 17+, violence, self, video 18+, unmoderated content, user, text 13+, drug themes, self, audio and so on...

No - Kid friendly should be something site's Attest to and claim they ARE. That becomes an FTC enforceable market claim (or insert other thing here).

Foreign sites, places that aren't trying to publish things for children? The default state should be unrated content for consumers (adults) prepared to see the content they asked for.

Re: State Attorneys General Want to Tie Online Access to ID

#58

Post by rolph »

dynm wrote: post #30

What I find puzzling about these proposals is that it SEEMS like they could be designed to achieve 90% of the stated goals with almost 0% of the loss of privacy. The idea would be that devices could "opt in" to safety rather than opt out. Allow parents to purchase a locked-down device that always includes a "kids" flag whenever it requests online information, and simply require online services to not provide kid-unfr…

it may be simple to sleuth out over time kid status or not, but i would be very uncomfortable with a tag that verifies kid status instantly no challenges, as it would provide a targeting vector, and defeat safety.

Re: State Attorneys General Want to Tie Online Access to ID

#60

Post by duskwuff »

c22 wrote: post #41
dynm wrote: post #30

What I find puzzling about these proposals is that it SEEMS like they could be designed to achieve 90% of the stated goals with almost 0% of the loss of privacy. The idea would be that devices could "opt in" to safety rather than opt out. Allow parents to purchase a locked-down device that always includes a "kids" flag whenever it requests online information, and simply require online services to not provide kid-unfr…

Better yet, require online services to send a 'not for kids' flag along with any restricted content then let families configure their devices however they want. Even better, make the flags granular: , , , 13+, profane language, user, text 17+, violence, self, video 18+, unmoderated content, user, text 13+, drug themes, self, audio and so on...

Other advantages include:

- It's much easier for web sites to implement, potentially even on a page-by-page basis (e.g. using tags).

- It doesn't disclose whether the user is underage to service providers.

- As mentioned, it allows user agents to filter content "on their own terms" without the server's involvement, e.g. by voluntarily displaying a content warning and allowing the user to click through it.

Post reply on HN