Why isn't online age verification just like showing your ID in person?
51 points
2 hours ago
| 10 comments
| eff.org
| HN
zug_zug
24 minutes ago
[-]
Cryptographically there are techniques that let you prove you're one of the several hundred million adults in the US that don't reveal anything about which adult you are. It's much less complicated than bitcoin.

I'm bringing this up because it's the perfect litmus test to show whether you really care about age verification, or if you want personal trackability for all internet behavior.

I'd be okay with this for certain situations (e.g. a forum that doesn't want to foreign agitators to pretend they are US voters), but the whole porn thing is a ridiculous farce because there are still going to always be millions of non-us porn sites that don't enforce US laws.

reply
miguelbemartin
55 minutes ago
[-]
In my opinion, access to internet should always be behind a device controlled by an adult. And it should be this adult's responsibility to set appropriate restrictions for minors.
reply
bennyp101
7 minutes ago
[-]
Yea, I think anyone who grew up at the start of the internet in homes realises just how different it is now, and that teaching your kids about how to be safe online etc is an important part of parenting. But we are at the point where we have some parents who always had access to what it is now, and don't see it as a bad place.

"Stranger Danger" is no longer don't get into a van with someone who promises you sweets kinda thing.

reply
dbbk
26 minutes ago
[-]
I'm not sure why we don't just make a law that parents must set parental controls on their kids' devices. We do this for most other things.
reply
quentindanjou
6 minutes ago
[-]
Because the main purpose of these regulations isn't protecting the kids. It's surveillance control. An easy way to better kill online anonymity.
reply
SunshineTheCat
19 minutes ago
[-]
We should then make laws that parents must tell their kids to clean their room. Next we can make laws that parents must tell their children to eat their veggies. What about chore laws? Teeth brushing laws? Stop arguing with your sister laws! More laws!
reply
bennyp101
3 minutes ago
[-]
There's a giant difference between stopping kids having full reign on what is now essentially the whole world of information - and instant access to strangers, than there is making sure they eat healthy, help out, and don't have bad teeth .... but I'm sure you know that :)
reply
dom96
6 minutes ago
[-]
Honestly, there should be more laws on how children should be brought up.
reply
Tostino
16 minutes ago
[-]
What is the punishment you want to give to parents who don't?

That's the implication of making a law.

reply
dbbk
2 minutes ago
[-]
Same punishment as not sending them to school
reply
bennyp101
15 minutes ago
[-]
They get blacklisted from being able to have internet
reply
michaelmrose
3 minutes ago
[-]
How do they work find and keep a job keep up with their kids school and keep government benefits.

It doesn't matter that you could do those things before the internet the normal and often only or only practical flow involves the net.

Counter offer we keep letting people manage their own kids' shit and they can control access to the degree they deem appropriate

reply
everdrive
38 minutes ago
[-]
Agreed. My kids are young right now, but I'm wondering if we can just have a shared family room computer like in the 90s. (school-based laptops might thwart this, but maybe by the time they're school-aged people will realize that constantly putting kids in front a screen is a bad thing to do?)
reply
bennyp101
11 minutes ago
[-]
Yep, I bought a separate all-in-one computer that is in the living room, in full view of everyone else, so we can keep an eye on what is going on when they are using it.

We also have pi-hole running that blocks a lot of things, and can turn on and off certain domains (so they can play roblox etc for a short while, then its blocked again) and their devices are pretty locked down

reply
bombcar
31 minutes ago
[-]
You can be pretty effective with not much - school laptops can be router-blocked to the needful, the main familyroom computer can be visible to all but also have rudimentary DNS blocking, etc.

The key is to be open about it and “more” than reasonable; allow things when requested that aren’t harmful.

If we’re too perfect at protecting them from the world they’ll have no tools to deal with the world, which they will have to do eventually.

reply
krupan
28 minutes ago
[-]
You can have a shared family room computer! It works really well. No screens in the bedroom is a great idea. iPhones with strict Screen Time settings are awesome when the kids get old enough to use a phone for communication but not old enough to handle a phone with games and the full Internet
reply
wiredfool
20 minutes ago
[-]
My 16 yr old just had his phone update and apply his old screen time settings from 4 or 5 years ago. Sorry kiddo, don’t remember the screen time password.

Now why they came back, and weren’t working before? The restrictions were so full of holes that they didn’t really work as anything other than a speedbump.

reply
rawgabbit
24 minutes ago
[-]
With my family, I shut down and threw away my last PC; too many security head aches. I bought the cheapest large screen iPad(s) and promptly locked them down. One of my best decisions.
reply
everdrive
13 minutes ago
[-]
I think that's the idea behind the family room PC -- you have parental observation rather that attempting to rely on (necessarily-imperfect) security software.
reply
michaelmrose
7 minutes ago
[-]
Define controlled and define appropriate in a fashion that almost everyone can agree on which is in line with the constitution and enforceable.

You can't.

reply
johnnienaked
27 minutes ago
[-]
You want parents to parent? God speed and good luck
reply
saghm
3 minutes ago
[-]
No, I think what they want is not to have the rest of us have to jump through hoops (and sacrifice privacy) to achieve the same thing. Some of us don't have kids (or live in a household with any), so passing a law that potentially limits our internet access to solve a "problem" that already is dubious is ridiculous.
reply
rzerowan
1 hour ago
[-]
Paradoxically this is one of those features/requirements that i feel should be on the end-user-device with zero knowledge proof.

It would make sense to have the enduser verification ondevice with a simple reply to any online property : Passed age verification/or not.

Otherwise the centralization and eventual leak of this data is a can of worms in waiting.

reply
Bender
1 hour ago
[-]
Here [1] is the zero knowledge solution. It has existed for ages but not adopted likely due to not providing a name, SSN, location and credit card. No third parties, no dependency on CDN's, no sharing or leaking ... anything.

Given that solution is unlikely to be legislated into action I would suggest people are just going to share adult content on Usenet, Tor, P2P, within G/PG rated video games by plonking down a virtual theater and streaming from a throw-away VM and fully automating syncing with LFTP+mirror+SFTP, sharing USB NVME drives, mobile ephemeral websites over WiFi and other methods when people get tired of this Top/Bottom relationship lobbyists want us to participate in. As a plus side, driving people underground means zero tracking, rules, taxes, obligations, leaking email addresses, etc...

[1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46152074

reply
vermon
58 minutes ago
[-]
EU implementation of age verification is actually base don zero knowledge proofs https://ageverification.dev/
reply
consp
23 minutes ago
[-]
Hasn't this been made "optional", aka not going to happen, in the digital wallet specification?
reply
danaris
54 minutes ago
[-]
Any on-device solution that simply sends back a yes/no result as you describe is guaranteed to have one of two problems:

1) It is vulnerable to modifications and hacks on the local device that get it to send back a "yes" result without actually verifying anything

OR

2) It requires the device to use some kind of closed, proprietary system that allows the service to guarantee that #1 cannot happen

Now, in general, the tech world is pretty happy to accept #2, but many of the people around here would object to it on very reasonable grounds.

reply
rzerowan
9 minutes ago
[-]
I mean most mobile devices have already accepted closed ROMs in their baseband and all/most browsers that try to interact with streaming sits require Widevine . As longas its going to hapen one way or another better it be local , and not a gov thing or a monopoly.

At the end of the day the tool should be there enforcement down to the relevant local authorities or not.

reply
knollimar
40 minutes ago
[-]
I don't want it in my hardware but I'd buy an accessory that does this.
reply
danaris
37 minutes ago
[-]
Would you be OK with everyone who wants to browse the web unhindered being required to buy an accessory that does this...?
reply
baby_souffle
16 minutes ago
[-]
And if it’s such a high adoption rate for an “optional” accessory, may as well just build it right in…

Oh look, we’re back where we started. The only winning move is to not play.

reply
simion314
1 hour ago
[-]
Exactly, on my Play Station I setup for my son I enter his real birthday, then Sony knows what can he do in the Store or chat etc. So we could have the big tech Apple, Google, Microsoft, Canonical ensure to make an idiot prof setup screen and the parent is responsible to set the age of the birthday of the child if they give a device to them . Then the store can be filtered and the browser can have a standard way of adding in the headers an age range or something.

Big tech did not want to cooperate to do this for some weird reason so now we get a much more complicated solution.

Yes I know that if your kid uses a live USB stick he could watch porn on his laptop but IMO is much easier for such a smart kid to find a website that does not respect the browser headers and torrent adult content.

reply
3rodents
36 minutes ago
[-]
I don’t like this article. Irrelevant technical nuance is comingled with a philosophical opposition. The technical issues are all solvable. The free speech argument is foolish too: if limiting who can jerk off to pornography is an issue of free speech, surely so is limiting who can enter a bar and converse with the patrons.

Opposition to ID checks because you believe the internet should be open and free is reasonable but this article twists itself into knots throwing everything at the wall. And it is reasonable to believe it is a free speech issue. But we can’t say, at the same time, that the same arguments don’t apply outside of the internet.

(Convenience stores scan ID, bars scan ID, hotels take copies of passports…)

reply
Havoc
8 minutes ago
[-]
This tries to make a logical argument against an attack that isn’t that - it’s linked to age and „think of the children“ precisely because it isn’t really disprovable and anyone daring to take a stance against it can be hit with a „oh so you’re against protecting children“.

Scratch out the age in „online age verification“ and you get to real reason

reply
delusional
11 minutes ago
[-]
Are we to assume that the people at the EFF haven't heard of how European nations, like Denmark, are building government infrastructure to verify your age without disclosing sensitive information?

Are we also at assume that the EFF fail to see the similarity of age-gating porn websites and age-gating entrance to strip clubs?

That doesn't seem likely to me, and I find it way more likely that the EFF is purposefully excluding the best argument against their chosen position.

reply
magicalhippo
2 hours ago
[-]
Discussion on the mentioned age verification hub here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46223389
reply
johnnienaked
28 minutes ago
[-]
I'm never verifying my ID to access anything on the internet. I'll just stop using it.
reply
catapart
1 minute ago
[-]
That's kind of the point of all this. They force websites to enact the verification because they have leverage over businesses that they don't have over citizens, and then they expect that the citizens will hate it so much that they don't go to the "bad" sites at all. Thank you for your cooperation!
reply
jagoff
2 hours ago
[-]
It's not about age verification and it never was, that is a distraction at best and a delusion at worst. This is about tying your real name to all of your online activities, and about getting the current generation of children used to it and accepting of it before they reach voting age.
reply
minusLik
39 minutes ago
[-]
This. The German government issues electronic IDs which can provide proof of age in a privacy-saving way, but I've never seen that being used in the wild.
reply
taylodl
1 hour ago
[-]
BINGO!!!
reply
Simulacra
1 hour ago
[-]
I would counter that they already have that. Would go so far to say that the government knows pretty much everything you do online by name. What they can't control, it's access. I think the reason for this is for an eventual license to get on the Internet. The same way you need a license to drive a car, you will need a license tied to your real identity, to use the Internet.
reply
hexbin010
1 hour ago
[-]
Look at the Overton window rapidly shrinking. Thanks EFF!
reply