7 ms·

>It’s also pretty obvious that saying “parent should take responsibility” is also not working. Just observe the world around you to know it’s a non starter. Th

by Xelbair 2mo ago

>It’s also pretty obvious that saying “parent should take responsibility” is also not working. Just observe the world around you to know it’s a non starter. Then who should? Government, where each implementation strips away rights to privacy - which in some countries, including mine, are a constitutional right? Where it expands powers of government to track everyone's activity online - and remember we're one election away from total policy shift(just like with latest US elections)? Free market? The profitable solution is, depending on environment - either ignore the problem(profit from ads served to children, no extra work necessary), or strip away all privacy (to filter out bots and get paid more per ad). The sad reality is that "parent should take responsibility" is least bad option available, and takes into the account individual development of a child. Even creation of a highly regulated child only internet creates more problems - as now that becomes a highly profitable target for bad actors(both individual abusers, and companies trying to serve ads)

account42 2mo ago
Let's also not forget that many of the problems this supposedly solves are not even specific to children. The attention economy is bad for everyone.
ben_w 2mo ago
In principle, it is possible to make a privacy-preserving age check. Site/app asks "≥18?", device generates a UUID specifically for that [app/domain + device], the device passes that UUID to government database along with the "≥18?" question and the ID card info but not the app/domain, government database gives the answer and signs just the UUID and the answer and doesn't include any ID card info. Government doesn't know what you're looking at, website doesn't know your ID. (There's probably also better ways to do all this, I'm not a cryptographer and I expect that will be obvious from this comment to people who are).
- Xelbair 2mo ago
  In reality, the ones making such check will want extra capabilities 'just in case' as we observe now, or just go for simpler solution because it's cheaper. How does it prevent fingerprinting if you get access to both logs and try to time it? Even more so if you include already present tracking infrastructure, which as a government you can just request data from. It is possible to de-anonymize people based on aggregate data already, and this proposed solution just adds extra data points. Even in countries in which this requires a subpoena, agencies break the law frequently and don't get punished. Legal systems aren't computer systems. This isn't a technical problem but a social/political one.
  - ben_w 2mo ago
    > How does it prevent fingerprinting if you get access to both logs and try to time it? Even more so if you include already present tracking infrastructure, which as a government you can just request data from. True, but as this problem exists without any ID at all*, I don't see how the addition of the ID cards makes any difference? > It is possible to de-anonymize people based on aggregate data already, and this proposed solution just adds extra data points. This is why I specified a "UUID specifically for that [app/domain + device]". Can't aggregate when each app/domain gets a different signed UUID. > Legal systems aren't computer systems. This isn't a technical problem but a social/political one. While true, the reverse also applies: computer systems are not legal systems. I think many lawmakers' ignorance of this is to the detriment of everyone. In this case, the social/political problem is: we want to stop kids accessing age-inappropriate material. The options-space for doing this appears to be: (0) give up (1) require parents to limit their kids' behaviour (to which I say: "Have you met a kid? Do you remember being one?") (2) require websites to age-rank appropriately (to which I say in a sarcastic tone of voice: "Gee, that worked soooooo well for GDPR") (3) require operating systems to intermediate. Will this suck? Yes. Will it be buggy? Also yes. Will there be false positives and false negatives? Yes to both. Will it be a constant fight as kids keep finding loopholes? Indeed. But you know what else? All that psych testing Facebook have used for evil, can also catch bugs and loopholes faster than kids can figure them out. A school full of kids can beat their parents at the security game because they have more time to spend on finding exploits than the parents have to spend keeping up, the reverse is true of the difference between kids and Google LLC etc. It doesn't need to be perfect, the kids aren't a computer program. What does need to be held to a high standard is making sure the OSes don't leak all over the place. * to be specific, the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 is one of two reasons I left the UK, just look at how over-broad the "Internet connection records without a warrant" list is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigatory_Powers_Act_2016#Authorities_allowed_to_access_Internet_connection_records https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigatory_Powers_Act_2016#...
    - baby_souffle 2mo ago
      > All that psych testing Facebook have used for evil, can also catch bugs and loopholes faster than kids can figure them out What would be the incentive for meta to deploy that against their own self interests? > Will it be a constant fight as kids keep finding loopholes? Indeed. Good thing there are no other issues we as a species face. Let’s burn resources on a sysphian task because what else were we going to do with them…
- fsflover 2mo ago
  > Government doesn't know what you're looking at, website doesn't know your ID. But then the government knows your location at any point of time and how often you use websites requiring the age check. Also, if your device is configured to do it automatically, a child can also follow this verification.
  - ben_w 2mo ago
    > But then the government knows your location at any point of time and how often you use websites requiring the age check. Not as described. There's no location info in that path, and the signed statement of that UUID passing the age check does not need to be re-signed because I've not given any consideration to expiry. (Should I consider expiry? It's not like people age backwards?) > Also, if your device is configured to do it automatically, a child can also follow this verification. Yes, if that device has been associated with a government ID and also the government ID signing process fails to make use the things we've already got on-device like how my phone reads my fingerprint to know I'm me and can store copies of some forms of government ID (in some places but not where I live, Apple Wallet apparently only supports some US states, Japan, Greece, and UAE).
    - baby_souffle 2mo ago
      > Not as described. There's no location info in that path Ip address and general time of day will tell you a lot about location. Not street level, but country or state level. > UUID passing the age check does not need to be re-signed because I've not given any consideration to expiry. So as soon as any one uuid is leaked, it becomes plausible for any child to bypass the gates until the uuid is manually revoked?
      - ben_w 2mo ago
        > So as soon as any one uuid is leaked, it becomes plausible for any child to bypass the gates until the uuid is manually revoked? How? Phones are already locked down pretty hard. Anything like this would need to be in something secured at the OS level just to stop signatures getting leaked between apps. If you're thinking "kid roots device, replaces OS entirely", that's not the problem of the manufacturer of the OS that just got deleted.
- baby_souffle 2mo ago
  This can’t work because it creates a market for people that have an ID that cleared gates to lease/borrow to those that can’t.
  - undersuit 2mo ago
    And the verification systems rushing at us are immune to this?
  - ben_w 2mo ago
    It cannot work *perfectly*, but unlike most crypto stuff, it doesn't have to (at least, that part doesn't need to). It's a social/political problem, not a technical one. The goal doesn't even need to be to make a completely perfect, impossible to circumvent, barrier for all minors; all this needs to do is just make it equally difficult for a minor to get adult (for whatever definition thereof) content online as it is to get tobacco or alcohol or gambling in real life, the hard part being to do so without compromising privacy, privacy being the bit which has to be done perfectly.
    - baby_souffle 2mo ago
      > (for whatever definition thereof) See, that's why this can't be solved technically. Pornhub has a decent amount of sexual health material on it so there's an argument to be made for allowing teens access to at least parts of it. > privacy being the bit which has to be done perfectly. > It cannot work perfectly So we agree that this is going to end poorly?
      - ben_w 2mo ago
        > See, that's why this can't be solved technically. Which "this"? There's multiple things here. I'm suggesting one specific "this" (anonymous age verification) in response to another "this" (the internet is not suitable for all ages). > Pornhub has a decent amount of sexual health material on it so there's an argument to be made for allowing teens access to at least parts of it. There's more content on the internet than any human can consume in a lifetime, so the presence of age-appropriate stuff as a subset of some website is no more relevant than how the intro to a porn film ("there's something wrong with my fridge, it's sooooo hot", though I am thinking of a beer commercial parodying this) is not itself 18 or R18 or whatever your local certification is called. > So we agree that this is going to end poorly? On the contrary, literally all the rest of my comment after that quote is cut explain why we *do not agree* about this.

by Xelbair 2mo ago

account42 2mo ago

Let's also not forget that many of the problems this supposedly solves are not even specific to children. The attention economy is bad for everyone.

ben_w 2mo ago

In principle, it is possible to make a privacy-preserving age check. Site/app asks "≥18?", device generates a UUID specifically for that [app/domain + device], the device passes that UUID to government database along with the "≥18?" question and the ID card info but not the app/domain, government database gives the answer and signs just the UUID and the answer and doesn't include any ID card info. Government doesn't know what you're looking at, website doesn't know your ID. (There's probably also better ways to do all this, I'm not a cryptographer and I expect that will be obvious from this comment to people who are).

Xelbair 2mo ago
In reality, the ones making such check will want extra capabilities 'just in case' as we observe now, or just go for simpler solution because it's cheaper. How does it prevent fingerprinting if you get access to both logs and try to time it? Even more so if you include already present tracking infrastructure, which as a government you can just request data from. It is possible to de-anonymize people based on aggregate data already, and this proposed solution just adds extra data points. Even in countries in which this requires a subpoena, agencies break the law frequently and don't get punished. Legal systems aren't computer systems. This isn't a technical problem but a social/political one.
- ben_w 2mo ago
  > How does it prevent fingerprinting if you get access to both logs and try to time it? Even more so if you include already present tracking infrastructure, which as a government you can just request data from. True, but as this problem exists without any ID at all*, I don't see how the addition of the ID cards makes any difference? > It is possible to de-anonymize people based on aggregate data already, and this proposed solution just adds extra data points. This is why I specified a "UUID specifically for that [app/domain + device]". Can't aggregate when each app/domain gets a different signed UUID. > Legal systems aren't computer systems. This isn't a technical problem but a social/political one. While true, the reverse also applies: computer systems are not legal systems. I think many lawmakers' ignorance of this is to the detriment of everyone. In this case, the social/political problem is: we want to stop kids accessing age-inappropriate material. The options-space for doing this appears to be: (0) give up (1) require parents to limit their kids' behaviour (to which I say: "Have you met a kid? Do you remember being one?") (2) require websites to age-rank appropriately (to which I say in a sarcastic tone of voice: "Gee, that worked soooooo well for GDPR") (3) require operating systems to intermediate. Will this suck? Yes. Will it be buggy? Also yes. Will there be false positives and false negatives? Yes to both. Will it be a constant fight as kids keep finding loopholes? Indeed. But you know what else? All that psych testing Facebook have used for evil, can also catch bugs and loopholes faster than kids can figure them out. A school full of kids can beat their parents at the security game because they have more time to spend on finding exploits than the parents have to spend keeping up, the reverse is true of the difference between kids and Google LLC etc. It doesn't need to be perfect, the kids aren't a computer program. What does need to be held to a high standard is making sure the OSes don't leak all over the place. * to be specific, the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 is one of two reasons I left the UK, just look at how over-broad the "Internet connection records without a warrant" list is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigatory_Powers_Act_2016#Authorities_allowed_to_access_Internet_connection_records https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigatory_Powers_Act_2016#...
  - baby_souffle 2mo ago
    > All that psych testing Facebook have used for evil, can also catch bugs and loopholes faster than kids can figure them out What would be the incentive for meta to deploy that against their own self interests? > Will it be a constant fight as kids keep finding loopholes? Indeed. Good thing there are no other issues we as a species face. Let’s burn resources on a sysphian task because what else were we going to do with them…
fsflover 2mo ago
> Government doesn't know what you're looking at, website doesn't know your ID. But then the government knows your location at any point of time and how often you use websites requiring the age check. Also, if your device is configured to do it automatically, a child can also follow this verification.
- ben_w 2mo ago
  > But then the government knows your location at any point of time and how often you use websites requiring the age check. Not as described. There's no location info in that path, and the signed statement of that UUID passing the age check does not need to be re-signed because I've not given any consideration to expiry. (Should I consider expiry? It's not like people age backwards?) > Also, if your device is configured to do it automatically, a child can also follow this verification. Yes, if that device has been associated with a government ID and also the government ID signing process fails to make use the things we've already got on-device like how my phone reads my fingerprint to know I'm me and can store copies of some forms of government ID (in some places but not where I live, Apple Wallet apparently only supports some US states, Japan, Greece, and UAE).
  - baby_souffle 2mo ago
    > Not as described. There's no location info in that path Ip address and general time of day will tell you a lot about location. Not street level, but country or state level. > UUID passing the age check does not need to be re-signed because I've not given any consideration to expiry. So as soon as any one uuid is leaked, it becomes plausible for any child to bypass the gates until the uuid is manually revoked?
    - ben_w 2mo ago
      > So as soon as any one uuid is leaked, it becomes plausible for any child to bypass the gates until the uuid is manually revoked? How? Phones are already locked down pretty hard. Anything like this would need to be in something secured at the OS level just to stop signatures getting leaked between apps. If you're thinking "kid roots device, replaces OS entirely", that's not the problem of the manufacturer of the OS that just got deleted.
baby_souffle 2mo ago
This can’t work because it creates a market for people that have an ID that cleared gates to lease/borrow to those that can’t.
- undersuit 2mo ago
  And the verification systems rushing at us are immune to this?
- ben_w 2mo ago
  It cannot work *perfectly*, but unlike most crypto stuff, it doesn't have to (at least, that part doesn't need to). It's a social/political problem, not a technical one. The goal doesn't even need to be to make a completely perfect, impossible to circumvent, barrier for all minors; all this needs to do is just make it equally difficult for a minor to get adult (for whatever definition thereof) content online as it is to get tobacco or alcohol or gambling in real life, the hard part being to do so without compromising privacy, privacy being the bit which has to be done perfectly.
  - baby_souffle 2mo ago
    > (for whatever definition thereof) See, that's why this can't be solved technically. Pornhub has a decent amount of sexual health material on it so there's an argument to be made for allowing teens access to at least parts of it. > privacy being the bit which has to be done perfectly. > It cannot work perfectly So we agree that this is going to end poorly?
    - ben_w 2mo ago
      > See, that's why this can't be solved technically. Which "this"? There's multiple things here. I'm suggesting one specific "this" (anonymous age verification) in response to another "this" (the internet is not suitable for all ages). > Pornhub has a decent amount of sexual health material on it so there's an argument to be made for allowing teens access to at least parts of it. There's more content on the internet than any human can consume in a lifetime, so the presence of age-appropriate stuff as a subset of some website is no more relevant than how the intro to a porn film ("there's something wrong with my fridge, it's sooooo hot", though I am thinking of a beer commercial parodying this) is not itself 18 or R18 or whatever your local certification is called. > So we agree that this is going to end poorly? On the contrary, literally all the rest of my comment after that quote is cut explain why we *do not agree* about this.