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

Never Give Them Your Face

nevergivethemyourface.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 468 posts

Re: Never Give Them Your Face

#91

Post by jupr »

btilly wrote: post #80
jupr wrote: post #23

Im sure a lot of people know about tor on this site...but let me remind everyone. Tor is not for criminals. It's for you and me. And happens to be good enough that criminals use it too. This is the two sided nature of technology. Tor is a networks of peers across the globe volunteering their network bandwidth to support people under oppression by their government. The amount of privacy that can be gained from tor is…

Tor is not for criminals. It's for you and me. No. Tor is for the CIA. It won't work for them unless we use it as well. Criminals also find it useful. It's easy to verify this. Tor was originally written by Paul Syverson, Michael G. Reed, and David Goldschlag. While all three were working at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory.

These are the origins of Tor yes. The same technology that protects the spy, protects the journalist, or the citizen whose government blocked them, or placed a wall of ID verification checks.

I encourage everyone to learn about the origins. Even study these people and what they have said in the past. Don't for get https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Mathewson.

Re: Never Give Them Your Face

#92

Post by andrewla »

fl4regun wrote: post #31

This is a little bit of a tangent compared to the post, but can someone explain to me why it's NOW that we have multiple countries (USA, Canada, UK, Australia, and probably others that I am not aware of) all looking at age verification for a technology (the internet and all the things it lets you access) has existed for over 2 decades, and has been mature for at least 10 years? You could buy illicit drugs and watch p…

I'm maybe a bit of an outlier here in that I do think that this is a genuine grassroots good faith effort to "protect the children" that does not have sinister ulterior motives. I know plenty of parents who have expressed enthusiasm for the idea of age-restricting websites.

"Why now" I think is pretty obvious -- the age limitations that exist currently are easily circumvented, but have given enough of a plausible deniability aspect that politicians have been able to skate by. There has been increasing research and media dedicated to the idea that there are aspects of the internet which we should be shielding children from. While many of this research is dubious, there's a rising moral panic around it.

The core of the problem is that there is no possible implementation of age verification that does not also require identity verification. In this I am in strong agreement with the article, but the use of paranoid and dramatic language as in this article only alienates people who find the conspiratorial tone to be reverse polarizing.

Re: Never Give Them Your Face

#93

Post by bflesch »

esseph wrote: post #39
fl4regun wrote: post #31

This is a little bit of a tangent compared to the post, but can someone explain to me why it's NOW that we have multiple countries (USA, Canada, UK, Australia, and probably others that I am not aware of) all looking at age verification for a technology (the internet and all the things it lets you access) has existed for over 2 decades, and has been mature for at least 10 years? You could buy illicit drugs and watch p…

Combination of factors, but mostly because Meta is pushing it globally: https://www.reuters.com/world/meta-lobbies-congress-protecti...

One would think that after the Burma genocide the millionaires at Meta would have learned a lesson and keep their fingers out of politics.

Re: Never Give Them Your Face

#94

Post by codedokode »

There is actually a way to prove the age anonymously. Yubikey-like devices support attestation - they can have a private key proving authenticity of a device.

So some organization could release Yubikeys with a certain private key and distribute them in stores that allow only adult customers - like liquor stores or sex shops. Owning a key proves that one is adult without disclosing identity. Keys support USB and bluetooth and can be easily supported on any device.

Also, OS developers should implement simple parent mode - such that parents only need to flip a switch and set a password, and do not have to whitelist apps or websites - the OS should use government-provided lists. You might not like the government, but 99% of parents do not want to bother compiling white lists manually.

Re: Never Give Them Your Face

#95

Post by [deleted] »

fl4regun wrote: post #31

This is a little bit of a tangent compared to the post, but can someone explain to me why it's NOW that we have multiple countries (USA, Canada, UK, Australia, and probably others that I am not aware of) all looking at age verification for a technology (the internet and all the things it lets you access) has existed for over 2 decades, and has been mature for at least 10 years? You could buy illicit drugs and watch p…

[deleted]

Re: Never Give Them Your Face

#96

Post by bflesch »

btilly wrote: post #80
jupr wrote: post #23

Im sure a lot of people know about tor on this site...but let me remind everyone. Tor is not for criminals. It's for you and me. And happens to be good enough that criminals use it too. This is the two sided nature of technology. Tor is a networks of peers across the globe volunteering their network bandwidth to support people under oppression by their government. The amount of privacy that can be gained from tor is…

Tor is not for criminals. It's for you and me. No. Tor is for the CIA. It won't work for them unless we use it as well. Criminals also find it useful. It's easy to verify this. Tor was originally written by Paul Syverson, Michael G. Reed, and David Goldschlag. While all three were working at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory.

Nah, those people use plaintext Gmail as Epstein demonstrated.

Re: Never Give Them Your Face

#98

Post by skinfaxi »

ekall wrote: post #81
harel wrote: post #44

It ends with "The platforms need you far more than you need them". And I think this is the misconception. No, they don't. The amount of people who will sign this, is a fraction of a fraction of a "platform"'s users. They will not care if they lose 50,000 users out of 2 Billion. A drop in the ocean. Not the target audience anyway. And that is the real shame. Because I don't want to have to give my face or do age verif…

I think this kind of comment where you share the sentiment that you will ultimately admit defeat emboldens the factions that are hoping for people to be like you. I also think these kinds of comments may also bring doubt to people considering resisting these kinds of concessions. In other words I think the people pushing these kinds of "identification" methods would love you for spreading their silent message of this…

There is a term for what you describe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

Re: Never Give Them Your Face

#100

Post by outime »

jerf wrote: post #85
fl4regun wrote: post #31

This is a little bit of a tangent compared to the post, but can someone explain to me why it's NOW that we have multiple countries (USA, Canada, UK, Australia, and probably others that I am not aware of) all looking at age verification for a technology (the internet and all the things it lets you access) has existed for over 2 decades, and has been mature for at least 10 years? You could buy illicit drugs and watch p…

Do not for a split second operate under the assumption that there aren't coordinating forces working on this. I know this trips the "conspiracy theories!!1!" flag in most people, but you can literally come up with organizations dedicated to things like this in mere seconds of googling. Here's a comment about US state-level coordination I made earlier, with a challenge to produce some examples that I then produced: ht…

I personally don't think there are many people left yelling "conspiracy" when you say that globalized decisions are being pushed, especially if you've been alive for the last 10 years. Nowadays it's more about who is actually making these decisions and that discussion gets muddy quickly.
Post reply on HN