• Zier@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Are we really “protecting” the children? Or is there a huge amount of powerful and wealthy individuals searching for an easy way to get to the children. With the global Trump Epstein Files scandal currently happening, how do we know they are not just stalking more kids? Not a conspiracy theory, just a different point of view. So many horrid groups in the world claim to be protecting children, but they always have a hidden nefarious agenda.

  • CosmicTurtle0 [he/him]@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53
    ·
    3 hours ago

    The problem with “age” verification is that politicians are confusing it with identity verification.

    I should not have to prove my name and other biometrics to prove age.

    Age verification is the fascist way to get people to identify themselves and their online activity. Almost every state that has some sort of age verification law has zero method to actually verify age. No digital ID service, no way to share a credential for verification.

    They want people to upload an ID.

    This isn’t about keeping children safe and it never is. It’s about identifying critics of the government.

    • lost_faith@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Force the building of a light “honour based” age verification system (just enter your birthday, we trust you not to lie to us), then as more comply add more requirements to it til all accounts are linked and they know when you shit

  • TheLeadenSea@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 hours ago

    This is just more child abuse disguised as “parental rights”. It becomes clear how harmful this is when you realise that not all parents have their childrens best interests at heart (even if they think they do and sincerely mean well) and allowing parents to censor the information children have available to them allows them to censor information that the children learn only too late to prevent harm.

  • thesmokingman@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    3 hours ago

    In the US it is becoming common for federal services to require ID.me verification. I’ve never really had a problem with social security requiring ID verification. I do have a problem with data portals requiring it.

    • dan1101@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 hour ago

      I even have a problem with ID.me, it’s a private company that the US government wants you to give your driver’s license and other information to. I don’t trust that.

      • thesmokingman@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        55 minutes ago

        Absolutely valid. In the context of identity verification, I trust ID.me more than random companies that do not have government contracts because government contracts come with security and compliance regulations that require regular audit and make the chances of breach less likely. In either case, it’s a private company and, as any security nut would have told you, when it gets sold all bets are off like 23andme. Even more importantly, in the US, any kind of ID verification is a terrible idea, government or private, because we have no data regulation or privacy constraints. I call out the US here because we have no GDPR equivalent (CCPA wouldn’t hold up to federal data). Even if ID verification were conducted by the government, it can still be used for gnarly shit like we saw with ICE and DOGE.

        On a sliding scale of evil, ID.me is the evil I know will currently fight to continue remaining the only evil which is the only solace I have in the US.

    • Patrikvo@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Identifying yourself for official business on a government site is not the same as providing official ID to a random picture sharing site. Pretty much every service has had a leak which required heaps of people to change their trusted password. How would you fix this when they leaked your full official identity?

      • thesmokingman@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 hours ago

        The theme of this post is “what things online would I be okay giving my government ID to.” The author did not mention government services in the article, so I brought those up and differentiated which government services I think are reasonable for ID verification. In the US, social security is basically a retirement fund and a huge target for scammers. I’m willing to verify there or for my taxes (although those should just be done for me; different argument). A data portal eg census data is not something I am willing to verify my ID for because it should be public. US trademarks, for example, now require ID verification for an account. An account gives expands some access on the website and allows the ability to file. If I file a trademark, I am fine with verifying my identity. If I make an account, I don’t need to verify my identity until I file.

        I didn’t mention picture sharing websites because I agree with the author’s stance.

  • ExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    70
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    5 hours ago

    I am actually not fundamentally against the idea of age verification for some things online. We have many things with age restrictions in real life, for various reasons, it kind of makes sense to have it online as well for some things.

    but…it has to be done with zero-knowledge proof so we limit the amount of private data exposed to the absolute bare minimum.

    • chunes@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 hours ago

      There is already age verification. It’s called an internet service provider bill.

    • Deestan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      55
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Zero-knowledge proofs are a good concept. They’ve been possible for a long, long time, and allow age check without surveillance.

      So why are they not being used? Because age check is just a cover. These people want to do surveillance, not protect kids.

      So it’s a good counter. Want age check? Do it like this. Oh, you don’t want it that way? Why not, pray?

      Whether it works (it has, previously) or not (as with the current bullshit from the US), it does bring to the public debate that this is unnecessary surveillance.

      • Kissaki@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        There’s also precedent you can point to. Germany has implemented a reasonable system of digital identification and (seperable) condition confirmation (age gate).

    • Wammityblam@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      Maybe in alternate timeline where tech companies have historically acted ethically.

      In this timeline where each new company and/or ceo is more slimey than the last, I know that any type of identification will be mismanaged at best or used maliciously at worst

      All trust is gone between these companies.

    • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Plenty of companies you already deal with already know who you are, thus how old you are. Cell carriers, ISPs, banks, stock brokerages, utility companies, and so on. It would be much more secure, done properly, for a service like this to provide a simple “yes/no” answer to the age question.

    • MareOfNights@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 hours ago

      I also want zero knowledge personhood/Nationality verification for social media. Maybe with age too. I want to know where the accounts come from and whether they are a bot or not.

      It can be optional, as long as I get a filter to remove all non-verified people.

      • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        It’s already easy as fuck. Most parents just don’t bother. The mandates should be on ISPs and cell carriers to provide network-level filtering. I filter adult sites on my home network and there’s no getting around that without cracking the password on the service or factory resetting the gateway.

    • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Best our corporate dictatorships can offer is requiring you to surgically implant a microchip into your brainstem. Everyone without the chip will be classified as woke, and cleansed by the AI killbots on judgement day.

      All heil skkkynet.

    • username_1@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Your point of view: We have so many fascists in reality, why couldn’t we tolerate some fascism on the internet?

          • ExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 hours ago

            Care to elaborate which you think are fascist?

            Regarding age verification I think that things we generally don’t allow kids access to in real life could make sense to age restrict online as well. Something like gambling comes to mind, and I wouldn’t personally consider it a fascist action to limit access to that.

            Edit: again, under the prerequisite of properly implemented zero-knowledge proof so the site only knows if you’re old enough but not actual age, name or anything.

            • username_1@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              4 hours ago

              The definition of fascism is trivial: only one ideology is permitted (no matter what that ideology is exactly), anything else is forbidden.

              So any forced limitations without objectively obvious/proven reasons that are welcome by community is fascism. As simple as that.

              Limitations of theft and killings are not fascism because most people are against those activities. Limitations on education access is fascism because most people welcome education.

              Those who have different opinions can impose their own private limitations in the non-fascist community. Like age restrictions for this or that activity.

  • NominatedNemesis@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Banking and other finance related services are the only place where I don’t mind KYC. Others I drop as soon as they request it and I seek alternatives.

    But I will drop my online bank as well as soon google enforce the ‘only verified developer applications’. 90% of my applications, incuding system applications like laucher, are not installed from the play store. I plan to switch to a linux ‘phone’ and only use services which are usable from a browser / without google securnet.

    • Cherry@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      4 hours ago

      The thing is usually for the bank account you have gone through rigourous checks already to open or maintain and account to prove your age. So face verification via an app is redundant.

      We know it’s bull anyway but it’s at least a valid reason for no.

      I’m the same as you. I’ll switch to browser and TBh if they piss me off enough I’ll start using cash

      • plateee@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        34 minutes ago

        Someone else in here said the laws are confusing age verification for identity verification. If anything, I’d be okay with identity verification for banking as an additional check. (Plus my bank already knows what I spend money on)

    • brvslvrnst@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      I’m currently pushing back against discover requiring me to upload my ID to log in to my account. The amount of support people I’ve gone through that have certified me without needing to upload anything has been my main argument against it, but “they’re still investigating”

  • 0x0@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 hours ago

    It’s just a new “Think of the children”, only worse than going after backdoors in cryptography.
    Now it’s “OS-level” identity checks, which means TPM+secure boot hardware lockout.

  • stoy@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 hours ago

    The issue is that any software is a blackbox when running.

    There is no way for a user to know what code is running let alone verifying that a specific code is actually running on a device, combine that with a sector that keeps wanting more data.

  • Iconoclast@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 hours ago

    I have no issue with an online service knowing my age for as long as that’s all they know and will ever know about me.

    • whaleross@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 hours ago

      As a Texan oil baroness I feel confident with myself being known to the algorithm and it tracking my habits of dropping snakes into police stations, as is our tradition as reminder to not be treaded upon.