6 ms·

Act like an authoritarian regime, get treated like other authoritarian regimes.

by slaymaker1907 1y ago

MattPalmer1086 1y ago
For the record, I'm not actually against age verification for certain content. But it would have to be: 1) private - anonymous (don't know who is requesting access) and unlinkable (don't know if the same user makes repeated requests or is the same user on other services). 2) widely available and extremely easy to register and integrate. The current situation is that it's not easy, or private, or cheap to integrate. And the measures they say they will accept are trivially easy to bypass - so what's the point? I worked in a startup that satisfied point 1 back in 2015. The widely available bit didn't come off though when we ran out of runway.
- nemomarx 1y ago
  there's some irony that the EU is set to have a fairly anonymous solution like next year. they could have waited or tried to use similar tech for this, in theory
  - MattPalmer1086 1y ago
    Interesting - do you have a link to it?
    - nemomarx 1y ago
      https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/european-digital-identity_en https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-... It's anonymous to the sites or companies you use it with and not to the government, but that would still be more robust than the uks checks so far. it's only end of 26 though, I thought it was at the end of this year instead.
      - MattPalmer1086 1y ago
        And that really shows the difference in how the EU operates Vs the UK. They see a general need which the market cannot easily satisfy on its own - it needs standardisation to be cheap and interoperable, and it needs an identity backed by a trusted authority. So they establish a framework and legislation to make that possible. The UK instead just states it's illegal not to do it, but without any private and not-trivially bypassed services available. Proactive vs reactive. It is often said that legislation tends to lag behind technology. At last, the UK is beating the world by legislating ahead of it!
  - flipbrad 1y ago
    This is about the Category 1 duties arriving by 2027, not this year's tranche of rules (such as age gating).
  - uyzstvqs 1y ago
    Important to note: Their anonymous solution is reported to be temporary until their digital ID system is released[1], which does not offer that same anonymity, but rather functions as a server-side OpenID-based authentication system.[2] While you can share only your age with an online service, it still creates an authorization token, which appears to remain persistent until manually removed by the user in the eID app. This would give the host of that authentication system (EU and/or governments) the ability to see which services you have shared data with, as well as a token linked to your account/session at that service. There is also no guarantee that removing an authorization will actually delete all that data in a non-recoverable way from the authentication system's servers. [1] https://itdaily.com/news/security/eu-temporary-app-age-verification/ https://itdaily.com/news/security/eu-temporary-app-age-verif... [2] https://openid.net/specs/openid-4-verifiable-presentations-1_0.html https://openid.net/specs/openid-4-verifiable-presentations-1...
    - nemomarx 1y ago
      Good catch, that does seem a lot worse. :/
- _Algernon_ 1y ago
  Add to that 3) Verifiable to a lay person that the system truly has those properties, with no possibility of suddenly being altered to no longer have those properties without it exceedingly obvious. This whole concept runs into similar issues as digital voting systems. You don't need to just be anonymous, but it must be verifiably and obviously so — even to a lay person (read your grandma with dementia who has never touched a computer in her life). It must be impossible to make changes to the system that remove these properties without users immediately notice. The only reason why paper identification has close to anonymous properties is the fallibility of human memory. You won't make a computer with those properties.
  - MattPalmer1086 1y ago
    It's easy to demonstrate (3) for an age verification system - practical experience will amply demonstrate it to everyone. Voting is very different - you do need to be able to demonstrate the fairness of the process verifiably to everyone - not just crypto nerds. Age verification - well, some people might get around it, but if it generally seems to work that is good enough.
    - _Algernon_ 1y ago
      >It's easy to demonstrate (3) for an age verification system - practical experience will amply demonstrate it to everyone. No. Absence of evidence that I am not anonymous does not constitute evidence that I am anonymous. Verifiable unlinkability is also difficult to prove. It may be possible to create a system like this technically, but all social and economic incentives that exist are directed against it: - An anonymous system is likely more expensive. - The public generally does not care about privacy, until they are personally affected. - You have no idea as a user whether the server components do what they say they are doing. Even if audited, it could change tomorrow. - Once in place its purpose can change. Can you guarantee that the next government will not want to modify this system to make identification of dissenters, protestors or journalists easier?
      - MattPalmer1086 1y ago
- codedokode 1y ago
  Age verification should be done at the point of buying a laptop or a SIM card, the same way as when you buy alcohol. And there would be no need to send your ID to a company so that it ends up on the black market eventually.
catlikesshrimp 1y ago
China is doing great. Not saying the UK will do well, just that authoritarian regimes can be successful as states although not great for the commoners.
- FredPret 1y ago
  China only started doing great when they relaxed their ultra-centralized economic rules a little bit in the 1990s. Read business books and news from the 80's - 90's, and they almost never mention China - it's all Germany, UK, Japan, USA. The stats tell the same story - China spent half a century going nowhere fast. After liberalizing their economy, China spent the 90's quietly growing, and only started making real waves in the news around 2000. All this to say that economic authoritarianism has never worked and there's no reason to suppose that the social kind is going to fare any better for anyone either.
  - denkmoon 1y ago
    Economic liberalism isn't really relevant to the question of social authoritarianism. While an enterprising individual in guangzhou can sell whatever he wants to the world without much state involvement, he can't really go around discussing Tibetan sovereignty for example.
    - FredPret 1y ago
      My current theory is that one leads to the other but we’ll see how that works out for our friend in Guangzhou. My point is centralization doesn’t work, so maybe social authoritarianism has deleterious cultural effects that will show up generations from now.
      - anikom15 1y ago
        It doesn’t lead to the other. Data point: Hong Kong.
- HPsquared 1y ago
  Success of authoritarian regimes depends on the competence (and alignment) of the leadership. Not something we have much of here.
jeroenhd 1y ago
You mean have companies and organization comply with regulations and having their complaints ignored? I think that's what's happening right now.

Act like an authoritarian regime, get treated like other authoritarian regimes.

For the record, I'm not actually against age verification for certain content. But it would have to be: 1) private - anonymous (don't know who is requesting access) and unlinkable (don't know if the same user makes repeated requests or is the same user on other services). 2) widely available and extremely easy to register and integrate. The current situation is that it's not easy, or private, or cheap to integrate. And the measures they say they will accept are trivially easy to bypass - so what's the point? I worked in a startup that satisfied point 1 back in 2015. The widely available bit didn't come off though when we ran out of runway.

nemomarx 1y ago
there's some irony that the EU is set to have a fairly anonymous solution like next year. they could have waited or tried to use similar tech for this, in theory
- MattPalmer1086 1y ago
  Interesting - do you have a link to it?
  - nemomarx 1y ago
    https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/european-digital-identity_en https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-... It's anonymous to the sites or companies you use it with and not to the government, but that would still be more robust than the uks checks so far. it's only end of 26 though, I thought it was at the end of this year instead.
    - MattPalmer1086 1y ago
      And that really shows the difference in how the EU operates Vs the UK. They see a general need which the market cannot easily satisfy on its own - it needs standardisation to be cheap and interoperable, and it needs an identity backed by a trusted authority. So they establish a framework and legislation to make that possible. The UK instead just states it's illegal not to do it, but without any private and not-trivially bypassed services available. Proactive vs reactive. It is often said that legislation tends to lag behind technology. At last, the UK is beating the world by legislating ahead of it!
- flipbrad 1y ago
  This is about the Category 1 duties arriving by 2027, not this year's tranche of rules (such as age gating).
- uyzstvqs 1y ago
  Important to note: Their anonymous solution is reported to be temporary until their digital ID system is released[1], which does not offer that same anonymity, but rather functions as a server-side OpenID-based authentication system.[2] While you can share only your age with an online service, it still creates an authorization token, which appears to remain persistent until manually removed by the user in the eID app. This would give the host of that authentication system (EU and/or governments) the ability to see which services you have shared data with, as well as a token linked to your account/session at that service. There is also no guarantee that removing an authorization will actually delete all that data in a non-recoverable way from the authentication system's servers. [1] https://itdaily.com/news/security/eu-temporary-app-age-verification/ https://itdaily.com/news/security/eu-temporary-app-age-verif... [2] https://openid.net/specs/openid-4-verifiable-presentations-1_0.html https://openid.net/specs/openid-4-verifiable-presentations-1...
  - nemomarx 1y ago
    Good catch, that does seem a lot worse. :/
_Algernon_ 1y ago
Add to that 3) Verifiable to a lay person that the system truly has those properties, with no possibility of suddenly being altered to no longer have those properties without it exceedingly obvious. This whole concept runs into similar issues as digital voting systems. You don't need to just be anonymous, but it must be verifiably and obviously so — even to a lay person (read your grandma with dementia who has never touched a computer in her life). It must be impossible to make changes to the system that remove these properties without users immediately notice. The only reason why paper identification has close to anonymous properties is the fallibility of human memory. You won't make a computer with those properties.
- MattPalmer1086 1y ago
  It's easy to demonstrate (3) for an age verification system - practical experience will amply demonstrate it to everyone. Voting is very different - you do need to be able to demonstrate the fairness of the process verifiably to everyone - not just crypto nerds. Age verification - well, some people might get around it, but if it generally seems to work that is good enough.
  - _Algernon_ 1y ago
    >It's easy to demonstrate (3) for an age verification system - practical experience will amply demonstrate it to everyone. No. Absence of evidence that I am not anonymous does not constitute evidence that I am anonymous. Verifiable unlinkability is also difficult to prove. It may be possible to create a system like this technically, but all social and economic incentives that exist are directed against it: - An anonymous system is likely more expensive. - The public generally does not care about privacy, until they are personally affected. - You have no idea as a user whether the server components do what they say they are doing. Even if audited, it could change tomorrow. - Once in place its purpose can change. Can you guarantee that the next government will not want to modify this system to make identification of dissenters, protestors or journalists easier?
    - MattPalmer1086 1y ago
codedokode 1y ago
Age verification should be done at the point of buying a laptop or a SIM card, the same way as when you buy alcohol. And there would be no need to send your ID to a company so that it ends up on the black market eventually.

catlikesshrimp 1y ago

China is doing great. Not saying the UK will do well, just that authoritarian regimes can be successful as states although not great for the commoners.

FredPret 1y ago
China only started doing great when they relaxed their ultra-centralized economic rules a little bit in the 1990s. Read business books and news from the 80's - 90's, and they almost never mention China - it's all Germany, UK, Japan, USA. The stats tell the same story - China spent half a century going nowhere fast. After liberalizing their economy, China spent the 90's quietly growing, and only started making real waves in the news around 2000. All this to say that economic authoritarianism has never worked and there's no reason to suppose that the social kind is going to fare any better for anyone either.
- denkmoon 1y ago
  Economic liberalism isn't really relevant to the question of social authoritarianism. While an enterprising individual in guangzhou can sell whatever he wants to the world without much state involvement, he can't really go around discussing Tibetan sovereignty for example.
  - FredPret 1y ago
    My current theory is that one leads to the other but we’ll see how that works out for our friend in Guangzhou. My point is centralization doesn’t work, so maybe social authoritarianism has deleterious cultural effects that will show up generations from now.
    - anikom15 1y ago
      It doesn’t lead to the other. Data point: Hong Kong.
HPsquared 1y ago
Success of authoritarian regimes depends on the competence (and alignment) of the leadership. Not something we have much of here.

jeroenhd 1y ago

You mean have companies and organization comply with regulations and having their complaints ignored? I think that's what's happening right now.