831–840 of 1001 posts
I work at a European identity wallet system that uses a zero knowledge proof age identification system. It derives an age attribute such as "over 18" from a passport or ID, without disclosing any other information such as the date of birth. As long as you trust the government that gave out the ID, you can trust the attribute, and anonymously verify somebodies age. I think there are many pros and cons to be said about…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> EU's planned system requires highly invasive age verification EUDI wallets are connected to your government issued ID. There is no "highly invasive age verification". We are literally sending a request to our government's server to sign, with their private key, message "this john smith born on 1970-01-01 is aged over 18" + jwt iat. There are 3 claims in there. They are hashed with different salts. This all is signe…
> We are literally sending a request to our government's server to sign You've already lost. You're at the government's mercy. They can simply refuse to sign. "Mr. John Smith, we noticed you've published some poorly-worded comments online. Why are you locked out of your account, you say? Oh, that's just an unfortunate technical issue with our signing system, happens all the time. Anyway, this is a friendly reminder f…
You live in a democracy?
YES) the violation you describe is verifiable to a journalist. You publish story, and you keep the government accountable.
NO) Why are you even discussing if age verification is a good idea or not, you freak. It's not really up to you anyway. Go fix your country first.
I work at a European identity wallet system that uses a zero knowledge proof age identification system. It derives an age attribute such as "over 18" from a passport or ID, without disclosing any other information such as the date of birth. As long as you trust the government that gave out the ID, you can trust the attribute, and anonymously verify somebodies age. I think there are many pros and cons to be said about…
It's crazy to me that we want to force age verification on every service across the Internet before we ban phones in school. I could understand being in favor of both, or neither, but implementing the policy that impacts everybody's privacy before the one that specifically applies within government-run institutions is just so disappointingly backwards it's tempting to consider conspiracy-like explanations. The advant…
France banned phones in elementary and noddles schools in 2018. It's not the only European country to have done so.
I can understand the need to restrict some stuff kids can see, like when I was a teen it me hours and hours to download one 2 minute porn clip from kazaa, but these days you could download a lifetime worth in one weekend. That can't be healthy. That being said nothing about these laws is about protecting children; their primary purpose is to crack down on the next Just Stop Oil or Palestine Action so for that reason…
Could you explain to me how a digital id standard involving a mechanism for zero knowledge proof of identity is supposed to help the government crack down on activists (skipping the fact you are using UK examples for a EU spec)?
Take into account the reality we live in where every communication platform already requires you to provide your phone number and you can't get a phone number without providing an ID the European Union please, not some disconnected threat model.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to the EU Identity Wallet's documentation, the EU's planned system requires highly invasive age verification to obtain 30 single use, easily trackable tokens that expire after 3 months. It also bans jailbreaking/rooting your device, and requires GooglePlay Services/IOS equivalent be installed to "prevent tampering". You have to blindly trust that the tokens will not be tracked, which is a total no-go for pr…
> It also bans jailbreaking/rooting your device, and requires GooglePlay Services/IOS equivalent be installed to "prevent tampering". Regulatory capture at its finest. Such a ruling gives Apple and Google a duopoly over the market. Maybe worse, it encourages the push of personal computers to be more mobile like (the fact that we treat phones as different from computers is already a silly concept). So when are we goin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to the EU Identity Wallet's documentation, the EU's planned system requires highly invasive age verification to obtain 30 single use, easily trackable tokens that expire after 3 months. It also bans jailbreaking/rooting your device, and requires GooglePlay Services/IOS equivalent be installed to "prevent tampering". You have to blindly trust that the tokens will not be tracked, which is a total no-go for pr…
> It also bans jailbreaking/rooting your device, and requires GooglePlay Services/IOS equivalent be installed to "prevent tampering". Regulatory capture at its finest. Such a ruling gives Apple and Google a duopoly over the market. Maybe worse, it encourages the push of personal computers to be more mobile like (the fact that we treat phones as different from computers is already a silly concept). So when are we goin…
I'm curious about the 'day after' scenario: what's the move if the state decides to regulate these into "illegality" because they bypass official channels? We have to remember that the devices aren't the problem... the real hurdle is the bureaucratic gatekeeping of communication. The problem are people, not devices.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I just like, can't help but start with fuck these companies. All other arguments are downstream of that. The solution would then be to break them up or do things like require adversarial interoperability, rather than ineffective non-sequiturs like requiring them to ID everyone. The perverse incentive comes from a single company sitting on a network effect. You have to use Facebook because other people use Facebook,…
> ineffective non-sequiturs like requiring them to ID everyone. Is that really a non-sequitur though? Cigarettes are harmful and addictive so their sale is age gated. So too for alcohol. Gambling? Also yes. So wouldn't age gating social media be entirely consistent in that case? Not that I'm necessarily in favor of it. I agree that various other regulations, particularly interoperability, would likely address at leas…
You have something (human communication) which is not intrinsically harmful -- indeed it is intrinsically necessary -- but has been made harmful on purpose. That is very much unlike those other things, where the harm is in their very nature and isn't prevented by the provider just not being a schmuck on purpose.
That makes age gating a farce, because kids need to be able to communicate with other people, but you would end up in one of these scenarios, each of which is inane: 1) Providers all put up age restrictions and meaningfully enforce them and then teenagers are totally prohibited from communicating over the internet. 2) Providers all put up "age restrictions" which teenagers bypass in ten seconds and the whole thing is a pointless fraud. 3) You try to separate places for kids from places for adults, but then either a) Adults prefer adult spaces where they're not censored, so they congregate there and those spaces get the network effect, and then teens have to sneak in even if they're not looking for adult content because that's where the bulk of all content is, or b) Nobody likes to show ID even if they're an adult so adults congregate in the least restrictively moderated space where they don't have to show ID, and that space gets the network effect. Then to the extent that they censor, they're censoring the adults which is the thing that wasn't supposed to happen, and to the extent that they don't censor, you have a "kid space" that contains adult content.
It's a trash fire specifically because there's a network effect, which is an aggregating force causing adults and kids to be in the same space so they can communicate with each other. Then the space with the network effect would either have to censor the adults even though they can't leave because of the network effect, or not censor the adults and then have adult content in the space the kids have to be because of the network effect.
The way you fix this is not by trying to separate the kids ad adults into separate networks, it's by tagging specific content so the client device can choose not to display adult content if they're a kid. Which also solves the privacy issue because you don't have to provide any ID to the service when the choice of what content to display happens on the client and the service is only tasked with identifying the content.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a parent blocking websights is a joy, maybe the rule should be to allow guardians more ability to control that. Trying to block some services is not trivial As a human, I'd love to see the rest of you fools quit that. If HN ever starts to algorithm me I'll be gone too.
And as a bonus you can block your boomer parent's access to cnn and msnbc (or whatever its called now) and perhaps fox. It will make Thankgiving a lot more pleasant for all. PS Mom, I don't know why cnn doesn't work anymore. ;)
As for news, the art of discovering what in your subjective reality exists in the objective reality is something I don't expect well ever get gud at.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to the EU Identity Wallet's documentation, the EU's planned system requires highly invasive age verification to obtain 30 single use, easily trackable tokens that expire after 3 months. It also bans jailbreaking/rooting your device, and requires GooglePlay Services/IOS equivalent be installed to "prevent tampering". You have to blindly trust that the tokens will not be tracked, which is a total no-go for pr…
> EU's planned system requires highly invasive age verification EUDI wallets are connected to your government issued ID. There is no "highly invasive age verification". We are literally sending a request to our government's server to sign, with their private key, message "this john smith born on 1970-01-01 is aged over 18" + jwt iat. There are 3 claims in there. They are hashed with different salts. This all is signe…
It's not zero knowledge for me then. Also - if there is ANY possibility to track anyone. And/or centrally mark someone "nonverified" then it makes more problems than solves.
Even if I trust my govt (no way), even if it'd be fully ZK with no way to track anyone… still govt would have a way to just block some individual "because".
And the best part… Age verification will not solve "children problem". I think it's parents problem to take care of their children, AV will be pretty easy to bypass - kid will just borrow ID for a moment and… voila! Govts (or some people) are creating problem and solution that do not exists.
I do not like way internet went, I do not like more way it's headed now.