3 ms·
1) 3rd party service (Verifier) receives government documentation proving that the owner of {{account ID}} is over the age of 21. 2) Verifier records the fact
by lolinder 3y ago
1) 3rd party service (Verifier) receives government documentation proving that the owner of {{account ID}} is over the age of 21.
2) Verifier records the fact that the owner of {{account ID}} has proven they are of the age of majority. They throw away all other identifying information, including their exact age.
3) The individual logs in to Verifier from Social Media. Verifier certifies to Social Media that the individual is over the age of majority.
There's no technical barrier preventing this outcome, and if you read the text of the law this is very clearly what the legislature envisions. Will it work? I don't know. Let's wait and see.
- evantbyrne 3y agoLet's just ignore the fact this doesn't exist for the sake of going through the mental exercise. Whether identity services are allowed to discard the logs is a legal question. The time in which a user makes a verification request for a website is de-anonymizing in of itself. The government could access both services either in real-time (remember this has already happened here) or depending on how things are stored at a later date to link identities to accounts. So the government has ways get all the information it needs to de-anonymize people who use social media in Florida if enforced.
- dotnet00 3y agoYou skipped over the Verifier expecting to be paid in some manner, being very likely to be paid using credit card, and thus having to retain those logs. Thus still making it easy to unmask users.
- lolinder 3y agoSocial Media company would probably be the one to pay Verifier.