3 ms·

It seems that your argument is more about the way the verification is implemented and not about the idea of verification by itself.

reedf1 1y ago
To be clear - I disagree with both the implementation and the idea of verification. I believe one is criminal and the other is misguided.
pc86 1y ago
The idea that you should verify your legal identity to load a website is reprehensible and not something that should be treated seriously. It should be ridiculed like the authoritarian nonsense it is.
- exasperaited 1y ago
  [dead]
- reliabilityguy 1y ago
  Maybe, maybe not. It should be debated, and all the pros and cons should be considered. But age verification as a concept is a completely separate issue from the implementation of the verification system itself.
- foldr 1y ago
  On a factual point, you don't have to verify your legal identity. You can also do age verification by uploading a selfie. (I'm sure that won't change how you feel about this legislation, but let's not spread inaccurate information about it.)
wongarsu 1y ago
Yes, in a perfect world the downsides are limited. But in the world we live in I predict a lot more leaks similar to the Tea app hack (which contained a lot of passports, linked to some quite private data from chats like medical documents) The biggest hope I see is that the EU also wants to implement age restrictions, but with a lot more effort to get it right and make it compatible with a strong desire for privacy. Maybe that will make "proper" implementations easy and common enough that many of the downsides will be mitigated
- reliabilityguy 1y ago
  Leaks of what? The tea app are morons — they literally stored the data! Why did they do it? Why not to delete immediately after verification? Anyway, there are two questions here: 1. Do we need to verify the age of internet users? 2. How can we do it without sacrificing privacy of everyone involved?
  - ta1243 1y ago
    > Why did they do it? You can't monetise the data you don't store
    - reliabilityguy 1y ago
      How can you monetize pictures of IDs?
      - ta1243 1y ago
        Not sure yet, hence we'll keep it for when we figure that out
TZubiri 1y ago
The only property of the implementation necessary for sextortion to happen is that it will be imperfect, at least once. Which is guaranteed.
- reliabilityguy 1y ago
  It seems to me that your argument is: if the system can make mistakes, it should not exist. However, no systems are fault free. Whether we are talking about computing systems, mechanical systems, or societal ones. Sometimes police can arrest an innocent person before they realize the mistake and release them. Should we stop policing completely? Or maybe the right question to ask is “how do we minimize the chance for police to make mistakes?”. Note, these are two separate issues: 1. Do we need the police at all? 2. How do we make police to not arrest innocent people all the time?
  - TZubiri 1y ago
    "It seems to me that your argument is: if the system can make mistakes, it should not exist" "When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’"
    - reliabilityguy 1y ago
      I do not know why it’s so difficult for you to engage in good faith. The same reasoning you use for extortion applies to many other systems we have today. Should we abolish them because they have failures?
      - TZubiri 1y ago
        You are ascribing thoughts to me (and root comment) that I have not expressed. I recommend that you reread the thread and separate what is being explicitly said, and what you believe is implicitly said. Then reread it with only the explicit meanings in my and root comment: we are talking about the consequences of the law without making any comment on the morals, probably because we are network admins that see this news as input and we are not lawmakers that see it as output. I hope that by rereading the comments in this light, communication might be improved.

reedf1 1y ago

To be clear - I disagree with both the implementation and the idea of verification. I believe one is criminal and the other is misguided.

pc86 1y ago

The idea that you should verify your legal identity to load a website is reprehensible and not something that should be treated seriously. It should be ridiculed like the authoritarian nonsense it is.

exasperaited 1y ago
[dead]
reliabilityguy 1y ago
Maybe, maybe not. It should be debated, and all the pros and cons should be considered. But age verification as a concept is a completely separate issue from the implementation of the verification system itself.
foldr 1y ago
On a factual point, you don't have to verify your legal identity. You can also do age verification by uploading a selfie. (I'm sure that won't change how you feel about this legislation, but let's not spread inaccurate information about it.)

wongarsu 1y ago

Yes, in a perfect world the downsides are limited. But in the world we live in I predict a lot more leaks similar to the Tea app hack (which contained a lot of passports, linked to some quite private data from chats like medical documents) The biggest hope I see is that the EU also wants to implement age restrictions, but with a lot more effort to get it right and make it compatible with a strong desire for privacy. Maybe that will make "proper" implementations easy and common enough that many of the downsides will be mitigated

reliabilityguy 1y ago
Leaks of what? The tea app are morons — they literally stored the data! Why did they do it? Why not to delete immediately after verification? Anyway, there are two questions here: 1. Do we need to verify the age of internet users? 2. How can we do it without sacrificing privacy of everyone involved?
- ta1243 1y ago
  > Why did they do it? You can't monetise the data you don't store
  - reliabilityguy 1y ago
    How can you monetize pictures of IDs?
    - ta1243 1y ago
      Not sure yet, hence we'll keep it for when we figure that out

TZubiri 1y ago

The only property of the implementation necessary for sextortion to happen is that it will be imperfect, at least once. Which is guaranteed.

reliabilityguy 1y ago
It seems to me that your argument is: if the system can make mistakes, it should not exist. However, no systems are fault free. Whether we are talking about computing systems, mechanical systems, or societal ones. Sometimes police can arrest an innocent person before they realize the mistake and release them. Should we stop policing completely? Or maybe the right question to ask is “how do we minimize the chance for police to make mistakes?”. Note, these are two separate issues: 1. Do we need the police at all? 2. How do we make police to not arrest innocent people all the time?
- TZubiri 1y ago
  "It seems to me that your argument is: if the system can make mistakes, it should not exist" "When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’"
  - reliabilityguy 1y ago
    I do not know why it’s so difficult for you to engage in good faith. The same reasoning you use for extortion applies to many other systems we have today. Should we abolish them because they have failures?
    - TZubiri 1y ago
      You are ascribing thoughts to me (and root comment) that I have not expressed. I recommend that you reread the thread and separate what is being explicitly said, and what you believe is implicitly said. Then reread it with only the explicit meanings in my and root comment: we are talking about the consequences of the law without making any comment on the morals, probably because we are network admins that see this news as input and we are not lawmakers that see it as output. I hope that by rereading the comments in this light, communication might be improved.