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

81–90 of 109 posts

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

#81

Post by elektronika »

kkfx wrote: post #71

The Sinicization of the West continues, yet people still aren't pushing back; there are no indefinite general strikes, nor is there anyone foaming at the mouth demanding the arrest of the coup plotters in power... I suggest to (re)read - https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Global%20Trends_Mapping%... - https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Newsroom/Reports%20and%2... These predictions have largely come true.

If you can't beat them join them. The rest of the world is getting the same thing as China, but less transparent and more hypocritical.

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

#82

Post by wmf »

KoolKat23 wrote: post #35
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…

I have not once seen a proposal actually contain zero knowledge proof. This isn't something exotic or difficult. It is clear to me there is ulterior motives, and perhaps a few well meaning folks have been co-opted.

Apple and Google age verification are both zero knowledge based.

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

#83

Post by wmf »

pdonis wrote: post #61

Instead of lobbying for taking away everyone's privacy, why isn't the government going after those they say are the actual culprits? From the article: "The attorneys general argue that social media companies deliberately design products that draw in underage users and monetize their personal data through targeted advertising. They contend that companies have not adequately disclosed addictive features or mental healt…

https://www.njoag.gov/ag-platkin-41-other-attorneys-general-...

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

#85

Post by pdonis »

wmf wrote: post #83
pdonis wrote: post #61

Instead of lobbying for taking away everyone's privacy, why isn't the government going after those they say are the actual culprits? From the article: "The attorneys general argue that social media companies deliberately design products that draw in underage users and monetize their personal data through targeted advertising. They contend that companies have not adequately disclosed addictive features or mental healt…

https://www.njoag.gov/ag-platkin-41-other-attorneys-general-...

Ok, so then why do they need all this other Federal legislation?

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

#86

Post by nitwit005 »

glenpierce wrote: post #78
struant wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This gets complicated when you need to start giving your kids some degree of independence. I would also argue this could be implemented in a more accessibility-oriented approach. Also, not all 13-year-olds are of equal level of maturity/content appropriate material. I find it very annoying that I can’t just set limits like: no drug-referencing but idgaf about my kid hearing swear words. On other machines: I do not wa…

But, in essence, they want to strip the ability of parents to give their kids the responsibility you describe. No letting your kids use social media, look adult content, or whatever else. It's simply banned.

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

#87

Post by 9x39 »

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…

> I think they genuinely want to protect kids, and the privacy destruction is driven by a combination of not caring and not understanding.

Advancing a case for a precedent-creating decision is a well-known tactic for creating the environment of success you want for a separate goal.

It's possible you can find a genuine belief in the people who advance the cause. Charitably, they're perhaps naive or coincidentally aligned, and uncharitably sometimes useful idiots who are brought in-line directly or indirectly with various powerful donors' causes.

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

#88

Post by mindslight »

digiown wrote: post #67
KoolKat23 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have not once seen a proposal actually contain zero knowledge proof. This isn't something exotic or difficult. It is clear to me there is ulterior motives, and perhaps a few well meaning folks have been co-opted.

A ZKP will work as a base, but the proof mechanism will have to be combined with anti-user measures like device attestation to prevent things like me offering an API to continually sign requests for strangers. You can rate-limit it, or you can add an identifier, both of which makes it not zero knowledge. Parent's proposal is better in that it would only take away general purpose computing from children rather than fr…

> A ZKP will work as a base, but the proof mechanism will have to be combined with anti-user measures like device attestation to prevent things like me offering an API to continually sign requests for strangers

Spot on! The "technical" proposal from Google of a ZKP system is best seen as technically-disingenuous marketing meant to encourage governments to mandate the use of Google's locked down devices and user-hostile ecosystem.

The only sane way to implement this is to confine the locked-down computing blast radius to the specific devices that need child protection, rather than forcing the restrictions onto everyone.

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

#90

Post by digiown »

mindslight wrote: post #88
digiown wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A ZKP will work as a base, but the proof mechanism will have to be combined with anti-user measures like device attestation to prevent things like me offering an API to continually sign requests for strangers. You can rate-limit it, or you can add an identifier, both of which makes it not zero knowledge. Parent's proposal is better in that it would only take away general purpose computing from children rather than fr…

> A ZKP will work as a base, but the proof mechanism will have to be combined with anti-user measures like device attestation to prevent things like me offering an API to continually sign requests for strangers Spot on! The "technical" proposal from Google of a ZKP system is best seen as technically-disingenuous marketing meant to encourage governments to mandate the use of Google's locked down devices and user-hosti…

I'm not sure what I feel about depriving teens of general purpose computing devices, either, which is the logical consequence of both the pseudo-ZKP scheme and parent's "underage signal". I believe most of us here learned programming through being able to run arbitrary programs, and that would never have happened if we only had access to locked down devices. And that habit of viewing computers as appliances controlled by other people isn't going to go away on their 18th birthday either.

Overall I think while there is a reasonable argument in favor of age verification for some types of sites, the harms of implementing it would drastically outweigh any benefits that it should not be done.

Post reply on HN