4 ms·

If it’s trivial for a bar to validate, why not the same for a web site?

by op00to 3y ago

o_nate 3y ago
Seems like a good opening for a service that could validate your age for a low cost and provide a token good for logging on to adults-only sites.
wizzwizz4 3y ago
With websites, you can have one person serving ten million people, and support that on a single income. With bars, you can only fit about a hundred people in, and enough of them have to be paying customers that you can afford to keep the bar running – but that also means you can physically look at everyone's identification papers.
- op00to 3y ago
  If you can’t validate the age of the people using Omegle, perhaps the service is not appropriate to exist.
  - malfist 3y ago
    I think my right to privacy out weighs a "think of the children" argument.
    - wizzwizz4 3y ago
      The anything goes / mass surveillance dichotomy is false. It is possible to have small-scale, individually-moderated websites, if the software to host them is available and easy to run, without sacrificing privacy (or even accountability). Pseudonymity is usually good enough, especially for things like Omegle. Unfortunately, that requires a return to the days when most people's primary computing device was capable of acting as a web server, and computer literacy implied empowerment: that might be tricky, but if we work hard enough I'm sure we can get there.
      - malfist 3y ago
        How do you propose verifying a users age without sacrificing privacy? Even knowing their age at all is giving up some privacy. If it can be done at small scale, it will get sold to data brokers and exploited at large a scale
        wizzwizz4 3y ago
        > How do you propose verifying a users age without sacrificing privacy? It's usually obvious if you can have a short conversation with the person in question. Throughout my childhood escapades, I'm certain that most, if not all, the responsible adults I interacted with knew pretty much exactly how old I was. (I'd managed to navigate a legal loophole that, I believe, still exists in GDPR today, so they weren't required to kick me off – but while I was treated as an equal, I wasn't treated the same way I'm treated now.) > If it can be done at small scale, it will get sold to data brokers and exploited at large a scale That's quite illegal, and quite easy to detect (just give slightly different data to everyone and see what leaks). Most people don't commit crimes: individuals just don't have the kinds of incentive to buy and sell people's personal data that organisations like Facebook, Taboola and Oracle have. (And what would they get for betraying these people's trust? $30? Sure… I'd totally go for that.)
        malfist 3y ago
        How do you propose to give slightly different data to everyone and see what leaks when you have to have a short conversation with the person in question?
Blahah 3y ago
Because you can't police who is using the device at the other end. You're authenticating a client device, not a person, and that doesn't keep children any safer from abuse - if anything it means they have an incentive to keep their use of a thing secret for fear of punishment, which makes them more vulnerable.

If it’s trivial for a bar to validate, why not the same for a web site?

by op00to 3y ago

If it’s trivial for a bar to validate, why not the same for a web site?

Seems like a good opening for a service that could validate your age for a low cost and provide a token good for logging on to adults-only sites.

wizzwizz4 3y ago

With websites, you can have one person serving ten million people, and support that on a single income. With bars, you can only fit about a hundred people in, and enough of them have to be paying customers that you can afford to keep the bar running – but that also means you can physically look at everyone's identification papers.

op00to 3y ago
If you can’t validate the age of the people using Omegle, perhaps the service is not appropriate to exist.
- malfist 3y ago
  I think my right to privacy out weighs a "think of the children" argument.
  - wizzwizz4 3y ago
    The anything goes / mass surveillance dichotomy is false. It is possible to have small-scale, individually-moderated websites, if the software to host them is available and easy to run, without sacrificing privacy (or even accountability). Pseudonymity is usually good enough, especially for things like Omegle. Unfortunately, that requires a return to the days when most people's primary computing device was capable of acting as a web server, and computer literacy implied empowerment: that might be tricky, but if we work hard enough I'm sure we can get there.
    - malfist 3y ago
      How do you propose verifying a users age without sacrificing privacy? Even knowing their age at all is giving up some privacy. If it can be done at small scale, it will get sold to data brokers and exploited at large a scale
      - wizzwizz4 3y ago
        > How do you propose verifying a users age without sacrificing privacy? It's usually obvious if you can have a short conversation with the person in question. Throughout my childhood escapades, I'm certain that most, if not all, the responsible adults I interacted with knew pretty much exactly how old I was. (I'd managed to navigate a legal loophole that, I believe, still exists in GDPR today, so they weren't required to kick me off – but while I was treated as an equal, I wasn't treated the same way I'm treated now.) > If it can be done at small scale, it will get sold to data brokers and exploited at large a scale That's quite illegal, and quite easy to detect (just give slightly different data to everyone and see what leaks). Most people don't commit crimes: individuals just don't have the kinds of incentive to buy and sell people's personal data that organisations like Facebook, Taboola and Oracle have. (And what would they get for betraying these people's trust? $30? Sure… I'd totally go for that.)
        malfist 3y ago
        How do you propose to give slightly different data to everyone and see what leaks when you have to have a short conversation with the person in question?

Blahah 3y ago

Because you can't police who is using the device at the other end. You're authenticating a client device, not a person, and that doesn't keep children any safer from abuse - if anything it means they have an incentive to keep their use of a thing secret for fear of punishment, which makes them more vulnerable.