4 ms·

Age verification should be made on OS or firmware level when buying a device. And not by sending your passport scan to random companies with dubious data collec

Age verification should be made on OS or firmware level when buying a device. And not by sending your passport scan to random companies with dubious data collection practices. A law must mandate that an "adult" version of OS (or device) may be sold only to adult users. It is not difficult for Microsoft/Apple to implement this yet they do not want to for some reason. This would allow more reliable age verification, without revealing identity of account owners. Well, maybe the govt wants exactly the opposite.

herbst 1y ago
I can tell how this would be implemented. Microsoft rolls their own awkward standard nobody asked for. Other major companies try to use a somewhat common standard. The Industrie enforces new rules and suddenly it costs $150000 and has awkward requirements to get your OS certified adult. For the years to come only the most recent windows versions and customer devices like phones will work. No Linux will pay to get a standard they haven't asked for. Embed devices will stop working as more and more stuff gets simply flagged "adult only" Just don't ... :) Edit:// see Silverlight, or why it took years until something like Netflix was even legally technically possible
- valenterry 1y ago
  Listen to that guy!
- immibis 1y ago
  I think they'll just send X-Is-Over18: Yes. Nobody actually cares about this issue enough to invest money in it - just enough to get certain stupid politicians off their backs. There will be third party browsers that always send the header, and they'll be banned from the app store upon discovery, and if they get famous enough their creators will be sent to jail, just like Tornado Cash.
  - codedokode 1y ago
    This should work the other way: a website must send a header that the content in the response is safe for those under 18. If there is no header, the browser doesn't display the page. It is easy to implement and there is no need to change existing websites for this.
    - loa_in_ 1y ago
      That would make all older web content become inaccessible
      - codedokode 1y ago
        Only for those under 18, not for anyone else.
    - herbst 1y ago
      I like the header idea but it's the wrong way around. Let's make the header a law, and then consumers can decide themselves.
PartiallyTyped 1y ago
Denmark does it by sending you to a government-owned website, which then uses two factor authentication and responds back verifying one’s identity. I don’t understand why other countries can’t do the same.
- crooked-v 1y ago
  The US in particular doesn't have a national identity system in the first place because the Republican party has opposed the concept for a long timr for various reasons both ideological ("mark of the beast" claims are less of a thing these days but have been made in the past) and political (having a patchwork of systems makes voter suppression and stochastic disenfranchisement of undesireables easier). Without that, any kind of unified verification system is very unlikely to happen.
  - uamgeoalsk 1y ago
    It's worth being careful with broad characterizations like this. Attributing complex policy opposition to fringe beliefs or bad faith motives oversimplifies the issue and shuts down good faith discussion. Whatever one’s views, that kind of framing isn’t helpful.
    - dpkirchner 1y ago
      But in this case it's absolutely true -- I've yet to see any other reason for Republicans to be opposed to national IDs. Have you?
  - astrange 1y ago
    The funny thing is voter suppression doesn't actually help either party consistently over time. Right now the marginal voter is Republican, and so are all the "low-information" voters (this is the polite term politics people use for, you know.) So voter ID laws would make them lose every election. But of course, that's not permanent either.
  - HelloMcFly 1y ago
    Would Passports not be considered a "national identity system"?
valenterry 1y ago
Oh god no. We need to absolutely stop making OSs more restrictive than they already are. There are better solutions.
- snerbles 1y ago
  The California legislature is already working on forcing operating systems to attest the age of the user at the account level. See the recent gut-and-amend of AB1043 [0], which was a privacy bill [1] just a few months ago: > This bill would require, among other things related to age verification on the internet, a covered manufacturer to provide an accessible interface at account setup that requires an account holder, as defined, to indicate the birth date, age, or both, of the user of that device for the sole purpose of providing a signal regarding the user’s age bracket to applications available in a covered application store and to provide a developer, as defined, who has requested a signal with respect to a particular user with a digital signal via a real-time application programming interface regarding whether a user is in any of several age brackets, as prescribed. The bill would define “covered manufacturer” to mean a person who is a manufacturer of a device, an operating system for a device, or a covered application store. The bill would require a developer to request a signal with respect to a particular user from a covered manufacturer when that user requests to download an application. > This bill would punish noncompliance with a civil penalty to be enforced by the Attorney General, as prescribed. [0] https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1043/2025 https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1043/2025 [1] https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1043/id/3134744 https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1043/id/3134744 If you want to know more about this lovely bait-and-switch tactic used by the Golden State's legislature, see here: https://californiaglobe.com/uncategorized/gut-and-amend-bills-in-the-california-legislature/ https://californiaglobe.com/uncategorized/gut-and-amend-bill...
  - supriyo-biswas 1y ago
    I’ve often talked about in private settings about how running open source OSes and DRM-free setups would likely become illegal in the future. With every passing day this vision seems closer to reality.

herbst 1y ago

I can tell how this would be implemented. Microsoft rolls their own awkward standard nobody asked for. Other major companies try to use a somewhat common standard. The Industrie enforces new rules and suddenly it costs $150000 and has awkward requirements to get your OS certified adult. For the years to come only the most recent windows versions and customer devices like phones will work. No Linux will pay to get a standard they haven't asked for. Embed devices will stop working as more and more stuff gets simply flagged "adult only" Just don't ... :) Edit:// see Silverlight, or why it took years until something like Netflix was even legally technically possible

valenterry 1y ago
Listen to that guy!
immibis 1y ago
I think they'll just send X-Is-Over18: Yes. Nobody actually cares about this issue enough to invest money in it - just enough to get certain stupid politicians off their backs. There will be third party browsers that always send the header, and they'll be banned from the app store upon discovery, and if they get famous enough their creators will be sent to jail, just like Tornado Cash.
- codedokode 1y ago
  This should work the other way: a website must send a header that the content in the response is safe for those under 18. If there is no header, the browser doesn't display the page. It is easy to implement and there is no need to change existing websites for this.
  - loa_in_ 1y ago
    That would make all older web content become inaccessible
    - codedokode 1y ago
      Only for those under 18, not for anyone else.
  - herbst 1y ago
    I like the header idea but it's the wrong way around. Let's make the header a law, and then consumers can decide themselves.

PartiallyTyped 1y ago

Denmark does it by sending you to a government-owned website, which then uses two factor authentication and responds back verifying one’s identity. I don’t understand why other countries can’t do the same.

crooked-v 1y ago
The US in particular doesn't have a national identity system in the first place because the Republican party has opposed the concept for a long timr for various reasons both ideological ("mark of the beast" claims are less of a thing these days but have been made in the past) and political (having a patchwork of systems makes voter suppression and stochastic disenfranchisement of undesireables easier). Without that, any kind of unified verification system is very unlikely to happen.
- uamgeoalsk 1y ago
  It's worth being careful with broad characterizations like this. Attributing complex policy opposition to fringe beliefs or bad faith motives oversimplifies the issue and shuts down good faith discussion. Whatever one’s views, that kind of framing isn’t helpful.
  - dpkirchner 1y ago
    But in this case it's absolutely true -- I've yet to see any other reason for Republicans to be opposed to national IDs. Have you?
- astrange 1y ago
  The funny thing is voter suppression doesn't actually help either party consistently over time. Right now the marginal voter is Republican, and so are all the "low-information" voters (this is the polite term politics people use for, you know.) So voter ID laws would make them lose every election. But of course, that's not permanent either.
- HelloMcFly 1y ago
  Would Passports not be considered a "national identity system"?

valenterry 1y ago

Oh god no. We need to absolutely stop making OSs more restrictive than they already are. There are better solutions.

snerbles 1y ago
The California legislature is already working on forcing operating systems to attest the age of the user at the account level. See the recent gut-and-amend of AB1043 [0], which was a privacy bill [1] just a few months ago: > This bill would require, among other things related to age verification on the internet, a covered manufacturer to provide an accessible interface at account setup that requires an account holder, as defined, to indicate the birth date, age, or both, of the user of that device for the sole purpose of providing a signal regarding the user’s age bracket to applications available in a covered application store and to provide a developer, as defined, who has requested a signal with respect to a particular user with a digital signal via a real-time application programming interface regarding whether a user is in any of several age brackets, as prescribed. The bill would define “covered manufacturer” to mean a person who is a manufacturer of a device, an operating system for a device, or a covered application store. The bill would require a developer to request a signal with respect to a particular user from a covered manufacturer when that user requests to download an application. > This bill would punish noncompliance with a civil penalty to be enforced by the Attorney General, as prescribed. [0] https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1043/2025 https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1043/2025 [1] https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1043/id/3134744 https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1043/id/3134744 If you want to know more about this lovely bait-and-switch tactic used by the Golden State's legislature, see here: https://californiaglobe.com/uncategorized/gut-and-amend-bills-in-the-california-legislature/ https://californiaglobe.com/uncategorized/gut-and-amend-bill...
- supriyo-biswas 1y ago
  I’ve often talked about in private settings about how running open source OSes and DRM-free setups would likely become illegal in the future. With every passing day this vision seems closer to reality.