Live data from Hacker News

Fight Chat Control

fightchatcontrol.eu

501–510 of 528 posts

Re: Fight Chat Control

#501
post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Am I insane for being somewhat in favour of this? I think the accessibility of adult content on the internet is a disaster.

In principle, not at all. But there is no way to do this properly at all. No matter how secure the companies that do this say it is, it's another possible vulnerability. You can't play whack a mole with the internet. People will always find a way to move smut or whatever on the internet. It takes no time at all to spin up more and more sites, and there's a million ways around them (vpns, etc). All it does it just pus…

The European Commission's proposed interim solution for age verification (ageverification.dev) is actually pretty good vs the shitshow of the US and UK.

It works like this:

1. You contact an age verification provider (e.g., national eID schemes, banks, or mobile operators) and provide proof of identity, which they will verify possibly against government databases or whatever, etc. Once they confirm your age they will issue you with a bunch of Age attestations. At this point you don't even know where you will use these, so that info literally cannot be sent to the provider. The attestations are a JWT-like envelope with a payload conceptually equivalent to `{"nonce": "LARGE_RANDOM_HEX_STRING", "age_over_18":true}`, signed with the provider's public key. (The actual implementation is more complex).

2. This is stored in a local app, which will guarantee each attestation only gets used once (to avoid linking user across relying sites). There is no special authentication of the app in the protocol with the replying site, so you can write your own. The Commission provides an open source reference app. There is a standard protocol for communicating with verification providers, however it is not mandatory, so using the reference app might not support all verification providers, but should support a variety.

3. When you want to visit some site needing age verification, and you already have a verified account, you just sign in, otherwise, that site will use a standardized protocol to request proof from the app. The app will provide just the attestation token. The relying site does not get any info about your identity, other than the attestation token. Plus of course, the relying party must accept any age verification provider approved by the commission, not just its preferred one. The EC's solution also supports the app providing the relying site a Zero-Knowledge Proof of having such a token, which makes it possible for the relying site to learn the user's identity even if colluding with the age verification provider.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#502
post #476
post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you value democracy, I suggest not to trust any random website you read. Of course the French left (at least EELV/LFI) is not going to support this. This should be obvious if you know a bit what ideas they are defending (them and the others too), which you should as well if democracy matters to you.

Can you explain a little why it's obvious? Last time I checked, LFI was for and EELV against. https://mepwatch.eu/9/vote.html?v=167712&country=fr

Isn't this for the extension of the temporary measure that allowed providers to volontarily scan messages and which does not break E2E encryption?

Re: Fight Chat Control

#503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why is this Thought Policing tolerated? Because it's what everyone and their mother was calling for during covid to fight the dangerous for opposing authoritarian policies. Because we have to stop Russia, the republicans, extremists, anti war protests who are actually just , because we have to protect kids, or fight racism... It was all bullshit and people loved it. Now it's almost too late. If you don't reject it…

Should I be allowed to go on national news and present irrefutable evidence (AI-generated of course) that the president is a lizard person? By default, I should, because it's a free country. But what if enough people start believing me that the country falls apart? Should the country let itself fall apart or should it perhaps try to stop the whole thing?

Yours is a disingenous argument for authoritarianism and censorship.

You or your government of choice are the arbiters of truth and, of course, you wouldn't lie, only your political opponents who invent obvious malicious lies that are an immediate danger.

Your actions are good or mistakes and they don't present immediate dangers, only the criticism of your actions does.

In case my sarcasm wasn't obvious. A resounding rejection of all your propaganda for authoritarianism.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#504
post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So people should die of pandemix diseases for making sure that personal freedoms are never ever temporarily restricted, got it. One side seems busy with taking democratic institutions down, I wouldn't be surprised if freedom is next anyway. (well freedom of opinion is already disappearing)

> So people should die of pandemix diseases for making sure that personal freedoms are never ever temporarily restricted, got it. This is the authoritarian mantra. Accusing others of "harming" so you get to impose your bullshit unquestioned. It's always the same strategy. It's always "temporal" and yet the precedent stays. > One side seems busy with taking democratic institutions down, I wouldn't be surprised if free…

> Accusing others of "harming" so you get to impose your bullshit unquestioned. It's always the same strategy.

Pandemics do harm people and need containment. Virus don't care what we think or want.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fascist, autocratic impulse is a big in the human firmware and will never go away . We exist constantly balanced on the razor edge precipice because we are capable of little else. Self-governing humans are not a stable system.

Serfs and lords is pretty stable. But ya I get yr point.

Is it? Every human society has been an incredibly brief enterprise, on the scale of, for example, geologic time.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#506

Please also fight mandatory age verification with prison sentences. The European Parliament has already voted in favor of a law that mandates age verification for pornography with a one year prison sentence. It was included as a last minute amendment into this bill [1]. See "Amendment 186". It has been completely missed by news organizations and even interest groups. The full accepted article reads: "Disseminating po…

EU is like: We will protect your sensitive personal documents so that only trusted government institutions and ones held to the highest standards of privacy (such as banks) may have access to it. This is to prevent abuse and identity theft. Also please upload them to BigBootyXXX.com if you want to have a wank

Also, public officials like to be exempt because of professional requirements. They delivered the argument for it to be declared illegal violating a few constitutions.

Also because it is an undemocratic technocracy (warranted polemic) and the average citizen cannot sue before the EU judiciary, the national courts have to kill it. Of course such a process will take years...

Re: Fight Chat Control

#507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should I be allowed to go on national news and present irrefutable evidence (AI-generated of course) that the president is a lizard person? By default, I should, because it's a free country. But what if enough people start believing me that the country falls apart? Should the country let itself fall apart or should it perhaps try to stop the whole thing?

Yours is a disingenous argument for authoritarianism and censorship. You or your government of choice are the arbiters of truth and, of course, you wouldn't lie, only your political opponents who invent obvious malicious lies that are an immediate danger. Your actions are good or mistakes and they don't present immediate dangers, only the criticism of your actions does. In case my sarcasm wasn't obvious. A resounding…

Can you answer the question?

Re: Fight Chat Control

#508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should I be allowed to go on national news and present irrefutable evidence (AI-generated of course) that the president is a lizard person? By default, I should, because it's a free country. But what if enough people start believing me that the country falls apart? Should the country let itself fall apart or should it perhaps try to stop the whole thing?

By default, you should be allowed to say that the president is a lizard person, and show your "irrefutable evidence". On national news? Only if you can persuade a national news show that they should (or unless you own a national network). But if you don't own them, they're not going to show your "proof" (except perhaps as comedy), because they have a reputation they need to maintain. And if you own them, they're stil…

if I own them, they do what I say or they're fired and replaced with someone who does. That's how business ownership works.
Post reply on HN