3 ms·

Which makes sense, and also sounds like applying monetary pressure, say losing access to multiple states in the US, would incentivize prioritizing some engineer

Which makes sense, and also sounds like applying monetary pressure, say losing access to multiple states in the US, would incentivize prioritizing some engineers into solving this. The reason it doesn't exist yet, is because we've collectively decided through indifference and inaction that an "I swear bro" button is fine in the virtual world, but not the physical, and have now learned that it's not enough.

bdangubic 2y ago
there is a HUGE difference between presenting ID in the physical world and digital world. In the digital world, once I provide an ID it is there forever. and it will be used for who knows what by who knows who. the only way to compare the two would be if in the physical world we provided an ID and whoever requested it gets to keep it and of course no place like that exists, you flash the ID (not that much unlike “I am 18 I swear” button in a lot of places) and you move on
- ndriscoll 2y ago
  Not that I think this is acceptable, but grocery stores around me scan your ID for alcohol purchases. In some states this is legally required. At least with all the porn bills I've read, it's illegal to retain the information.
  - bdangubic 2y ago
    yes, without an option to opt-out and have your ID “manually” checked that is fucked up.
Hizonner 2y ago
You didn't read the post you were replying to. That would be a "math nerd solution" that the states have not committed to accept, regardless of whether it actually works. Also, that sort of thing tends to require active cooperation from the entity issuing the IDs, which no state governments have committed to provide. By the way, Pornhub actually has a preferred technical solution involving "device attestation". It's only marginally better than the snake oil the AV industry wants to use, and I don't like it, but they have said they'd stop objecting if something along those lines were standardized. They just don't want to have to deal with a patchwork of mutually incompatible stuff (a) that's totally ineffective, (b) that leaves them either handling everybody's ID or dealing with questionable contractors to hold it, and/or (c) that leaves them having to convince the users to trust them or those questionable contractors with those ID images.
- quotemstr 2y ago
  > require active cooperation from the entity issuing the IDs It doesn't actually. Third party zero knowledge attestation works just fine. Think through the cryptosystem. It's possible for an authority to verify an ID for a given name and target site without revealing the former to the latter of the latter to the former

bdangubic 2y ago

there is a HUGE difference between presenting ID in the physical world and digital world. In the digital world, once I provide an ID it is there forever. and it will be used for who knows what by who knows who. the only way to compare the two would be if in the physical world we provided an ID and whoever requested it gets to keep it and of course no place like that exists, you flash the ID (not that much unlike “I am 18 I swear” button in a lot of places) and you move on

ndriscoll 2y ago
Not that I think this is acceptable, but grocery stores around me scan your ID for alcohol purchases. In some states this is legally required. At least with all the porn bills I've read, it's illegal to retain the information.
- bdangubic 2y ago
  yes, without an option to opt-out and have your ID “manually” checked that is fucked up.

Hizonner 2y ago

You didn't read the post you were replying to. That would be a "math nerd solution" that the states have not committed to accept, regardless of whether it actually works. Also, that sort of thing tends to require active cooperation from the entity issuing the IDs, which no state governments have committed to provide. By the way, Pornhub actually has a preferred technical solution involving "device attestation". It's only marginally better than the snake oil the AV industry wants to use, and I don't like it, but they have said they'd stop objecting if something along those lines were standardized. They just don't want to have to deal with a patchwork of mutually incompatible stuff (a) that's totally ineffective, (b) that leaves them either handling everybody's ID or dealing with questionable contractors to hold it, and/or (c) that leaves them having to convince the users to trust them or those questionable contractors with those ID images.

quotemstr 2y ago
> require active cooperation from the entity issuing the IDs It doesn't actually. Third party zero knowledge attestation works just fine. Think through the cryptosystem. It's possible for an authority to verify an ID for a given name and target site without revealing the former to the latter of the latter to the former