5 ms·

Leaving aside free speech and spurious moral panic concerns for a moment — isn’t digital ID verification a solved problem? Getaround has to verify my ID before

Leaving aside free speech and spurious moral panic concerns for a moment — isn’t digital ID verification a solved problem? Getaround has to verify my ID before I can drive, and I’ve had to do digital ID verification for a number of other apps. This doesn’t really seem like a question of whether ID verification is possible or practical. AFAICT it definitely is.

ceejayoz 3y ago
I'd suspect a large percentage of people would prefer their porn browsing history not be concretely connected to their real-life identity. Especially in this era of data breaches.
- Izkata 3y ago
  Likewise I'd bet Pornhub doesn't want to risk that scandal if it leaks from them.
quesera 3y ago
Privacy?
- mbgerring 3y ago
  Then check the ID and then throw the PII away. All I’m saying is that there are absolutely ways to do this, and I keep hearing that these companies “can’t” accomplish this, but it just isn’t true. If you want to buy a copy of Playboy from a newsstand, in general, you’re going to get asked for ID at the counter. It’s been like that for a very long time and nobody seems to have a real problem with it. It’s unclear why people think this kind of requirement just goes away if it’s on the Internet.
  - kelseyfrog 3y ago
    So you're saying send PII with every GET request then?
    - mbgerring 3y ago
      No, I’m saying verify the user’s ID, don’t save the PII at all, and then authenticate the user for some length of time. Or let users make an anonymous account and have a bit in their profile that says the ID was verified, without saving any of the ID information. There’s no technical reason you couldn’t do this.
      - ceejayoz 3y ago
        Texas: "Prove you identified that user." Pornhub: "Uh... we promise? The database says we did." Now what?
        ndriscoll 3y ago
        The law specifically says they must not retain ID information, and there is a $10,000 fine per instance if they do: https://legiscan.com/TX/text/HB1181/id/2819916 https://legiscan.com/TX/text/HB1181/id/2819916 > 129B.002(b) A commercial entity that performs the age verification required by Subsection (a) or a third party that performs the age verification required by Subsection (a) may not retain any identifying information of the individual. So I suppose the court would take them at their word unless there were some evidence presented that they did not check ID or accepted an obvious fake (e.g. a sting operation), just like in person. I don't understand why everyone gets so up in arms about this topic without ever reading the laws being written. Absent any information, you might guess that the system ought to work exactly the way it does in person too, which seems to be the case. This was true of the (Utah?) parental controls law discussed on HN a couple weeks ago too. People start asking all these what-ifs about things the law explicitly thought about, and handled in a reasonable way.
        ceejayoz 3y ago
        It would hardly be the first time maliciously motivated legislating produced a Catch-22.
        3y ago
  - quesera 3y ago
    I would not feel that my privacy was any less threatened by a promise to discard my information after use. The difference between the Internet and the guy at the newsstand is that you know the guy at the newsstand doesn't have a photographic memory, a replicated database in multiple availability zones, SLAs with IDV providers which are vague about retention policies, or marketing partners who have special offers just for you.
  - smegger001 3y ago
    At a news stand you open you wallet wave it at them without evan taking the card out of the sleave and they hand you your purchase you hand them a $20. no ID is kept on file, no purchase/veiw history is kept, no record of the payment is made there at no middlemen and no chance of it being stolen by hacker and used for ID theft or blackmail. And most importantly no checking with a government database. Comparing in person purchase to online is unreasonable.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
anon-sre-srm 3y ago
Nope. Hell no.
renegade-otter 3y ago
I will verify my identity for unemployment benefits, but not for this. It's only a matter of time before a breach happens, especially since I am not verifying with a local government but rather a private entity, who do not have strict mandated security measures (or at least are likely to violate them).

ceejayoz 3y ago

I'd suspect a large percentage of people would prefer their porn browsing history not be concretely connected to their real-life identity. Especially in this era of data breaches.

Izkata 3y ago
Likewise I'd bet Pornhub doesn't want to risk that scandal if it leaks from them.

quesera 3y ago

Privacy?

mbgerring 3y ago
Then check the ID and then throw the PII away. All I’m saying is that there are absolutely ways to do this, and I keep hearing that these companies “can’t” accomplish this, but it just isn’t true. If you want to buy a copy of Playboy from a newsstand, in general, you’re going to get asked for ID at the counter. It’s been like that for a very long time and nobody seems to have a real problem with it. It’s unclear why people think this kind of requirement just goes away if it’s on the Internet.
- kelseyfrog 3y ago
  So you're saying send PII with every GET request then?
  - mbgerring 3y ago
    No, I’m saying verify the user’s ID, don’t save the PII at all, and then authenticate the user for some length of time. Or let users make an anonymous account and have a bit in their profile that says the ID was verified, without saving any of the ID information. There’s no technical reason you couldn’t do this.
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      Texas: "Prove you identified that user." Pornhub: "Uh... we promise? The database says we did." Now what?
      - ndriscoll 3y ago
        The law specifically says they must not retain ID information, and there is a $10,000 fine per instance if they do: https://legiscan.com/TX/text/HB1181/id/2819916 https://legiscan.com/TX/text/HB1181/id/2819916 > 129B.002(b) A commercial entity that performs the age verification required by Subsection (a) or a third party that performs the age verification required by Subsection (a) may not retain any identifying information of the individual. So I suppose the court would take them at their word unless there were some evidence presented that they did not check ID or accepted an obvious fake (e.g. a sting operation), just like in person. I don't understand why everyone gets so up in arms about this topic without ever reading the laws being written. Absent any information, you might guess that the system ought to work exactly the way it does in person too, which seems to be the case. This was true of the (Utah?) parental controls law discussed on HN a couple weeks ago too. People start asking all these what-ifs about things the law explicitly thought about, and handled in a reasonable way.
        ceejayoz 3y ago
        It would hardly be the first time maliciously motivated legislating produced a Catch-22.
        3y ago
- quesera 3y ago
  I would not feel that my privacy was any less threatened by a promise to discard my information after use. The difference between the Internet and the guy at the newsstand is that you know the guy at the newsstand doesn't have a photographic memory, a replicated database in multiple availability zones, SLAs with IDV providers which are vague about retention policies, or marketing partners who have special offers just for you.
- smegger001 3y ago
  At a news stand you open you wallet wave it at them without evan taking the card out of the sleave and they hand you your purchase you hand them a $20. no ID is kept on file, no purchase/veiw history is kept, no record of the payment is made there at no middlemen and no chance of it being stolen by hacker and used for ID theft or blackmail. And most importantly no checking with a government database. Comparing in person purchase to online is unreasonable.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

anon-sre-srm 3y ago

Nope. Hell no.

renegade-otter 3y ago

I will verify my identity for unemployment benefits, but not for this. It's only a matter of time before a breach happens, especially since I am not verifying with a local government but rather a private entity, who do not have strict mandated security measures (or at least are likely to violate them).