| ▲ | chatmasta 5 days ago |
| Is card verification a lesser form of surveillance? And there’s a good chance your card issuer (or your bank, one hop away from it) has your biometrics anyway. I don’t like either of them… (And why does YouTube ask me to verify my age when I’m logged into a Google account I created in 2004?) |
|
| ▲ | stego-tech 5 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Oh, make no mistake, I hate both of these. I loathe this forced surveillance of everyone because parents can't be bothered to supervise and teach their children about the most primary of human animal functions (sex), regardless of their reasons for it. I take great pains to keep minors out of my adult spaces, and don't have to resort to anything as invasive as biometric surveillance or card charges. This notion that the entire world should be safe for children by default, and that anything and everything adult should be vilified and locked up, is toxic as all get-out and builds shame into the human animal over something required for the perpetuation of the species. The adult content isn't the problem, it's the relationship some folks have towards it that's the issue. That's best corrected by healthy intervention early on, not arbitrary age checks everywhere online that mainly serve as an exercise of power by the ruling class against "undesirable" elements of society. |
| |
| ▲ | john01dav 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > take great pains to keep minors out of my adult spaces, and don't have to resort to anything as invasive as biometric surveillance or card charges. What sort of spaces are these (online or in person), and how do you enforce this? I have an online space where such non invasive measures could be useful. | | |
| ▲ | stego-tech 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Mine are rooted in the 90s/00s internet: I know the people I allow into my spaces, and extend to them a degree of trust to let others in who are also of legal age. I rotate the credentials every so often at random, forcing everyone to request the new password from me. Other spaces I inhabit also operate off this sort of "community trust" system, only letting in folks we already know ourselves. It's how we keep out minors and trolls, as well as just bad/no-longer-trusted actors. It's inconvenient, sure, and it's not SEO-friendly, but it generally works and doesn't require checking IDs or doing biometric verifications. The thing is, I'm building a community, not a product, and therefore don't have the same concerns as, say, PornHub, for checking IDs. It's also not a scalable solution - I have to build individual rapports with people I can then trust to have the access keys to my space(s), and then monitor that trust at each password change to ensure it's not violated. It's hard work, but it's decently reliable for my needs. For larger/at-scale providers...I think the better answer is just good-old-fashioned on-device or home-network filtering. The internet was NEVER meant to be child-friendly, and we need to make it abundantly clear to parents that it's never going to be so they take necessary steps to protect their children. I'd personally like to see more sites (in general, not just adult) contribute their domain names and CDNs to independent list maintainers (or published in a help article linked via their main footer) so individuals and organizations can have greater control over their online experience. I think if someone wants to, say, block the entire domain ranges of Amazon for whatever reason, then that information should be readily available without having to watch packet flows and analyzing CDN domain patterns. It's just good netiquette, I think, but I'm an old-fashioned dinosaur in that regard. | | |
| ▲ | eszed 5 days ago | parent [-] | | > I'd personally like to see more sites (in general, not just adult) contribute their domain names and CDNs to independent list maintainers (or published in a help article linked via their main footer) This would be so useful. I once tried to get this information from a company you've all heard of, so that we could reliably whitelist their services on our corporate firewall, and the answer was "they're dynamic, so that's impossible". I said "but you know them, you could dynamically make that information available to your customers", but got nowhere. I'd like this to be a regulatory requirement, but the people who make the rules aren't sufficiently technically competent to identify technical solutions, and don't seem to listen to people who are. [Edit to add: I really like your old-school approach to building online community for yourself. I don't know your interests, or if I'd like yours, but I wish more spaces with your approach were around. The world in general (not only the internet) is a better place when we interact with each other in ways that aren't commercially determined.] |
|
| |
| ▲ | jjmarr 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > This notion that the entire world should be safe for children by default, and that anything and everything adult should be vilified and locked up, is toxic as all get-out and builds shame into the human animal over something required for the perpetuation of the species. The world should be safe for kids because kids are the future of our society. When the world isn't safe, families won't have kids and society will start to decline. Maybe that means giving up some of the privileges you have. That's the cost of our future. | | |
| ▲ | nehal3m 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | “Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it.”
― Mark Twain | |
| ▲ | DrillShopper 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The parent said "entire world". My partner and I do not have kids. Our bedroom is not safe for kids. It will not be made safe for kids (as we're not having any). | |
| ▲ | 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
|
| ▲ | Dylan16807 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > And why does YouTube ask me to verify my age when I’m logged into a Google account I created in 2004? Yeah those checks are super annoying. The internet has been around long enough, mechanisms for this should exist. And even in the smaller term, if I had to be 13 to make this account, and it has been more than 5 years, maybe relax? |
|
| ▲ | lucb1e 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Is card verification a lesser form of surveillance? It's not just about which is worse surveillance, it's also simply that everyone has a face but not everyone has a credit card. I'm not deemed creditworthy in this country I moved to (never had a debt in my life but they don't know that) so the card application got rejected. Do we want to upload biometrics or exclude poor and unknown people from "being 18"? I really don't know which is the lesser poison > (And why does YouTube ask me to verify my age when I’m logged into a Google account I created in 2004?) I'd guess they didn't want to bother with that edge case. Probably <0.01% of active Youtube accounts are >18 years old |
| |
| ▲ | SkyBelow 5 days ago | parent [-] | | >everyone has a face Does everyone who is 18+ have a face that passes for 18+ (and the inverse as well)? Overall it seems like a bad idea, but one demanded by what sounds like a good idea with not reasonable way to fully implement it, leading to a tangled network of bad ideas patching other bad ideas patching other bad ideas all the way down. | | |
| ▲ | fc417fc802 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The thing being demanded is decidedly not a good idea. A reasonable demand would be that sites over a certain size include a standardized age or content rating in the headers. That would facilitate a whitelist approach, which is the only viable way to accomplish the stated goal. | | |
| ▲ | SkyBelow 4 days ago | parent [-] | | The issue is that there are some online activities which we all agree that children must be banned from no matter the cost to do so. Society has now started shifting in what actually falls in that group, but no one is arguing against the group entirely. There are very invasive solutions to this that have historically been accepted in the most agreed upon use cases, but not that society has started to shift on what falls into that category, we see a lot of friction as others don't want those solutions applied elsewhere. Whitelisting was never an accepted solution for this worst category, and thus it will not be an accepted solution to any specific cases that society has started to move into that category (accepted to the portion of society moving it into that category, those who don't put it in that category will see such solutions are massive overreach). | | |
| ▲ | fc417fc802 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Whitelisting is literally the only available technical solution. None of the others work and they can't realistically be made to. Anyone who tells you they do is either hopelessly non-technical, woefully misinformed, trying to sell you snake oil, or has an ulterior motive (surveillance). I suppose something like the Great Firewall is also kind of sort of workable but that's government coordinated filtering so expansive that it begins to share more in common with whitelists than blacklists. For every site that complies with age verification laws there will be uncountably many that don't. And that's before getting to file sharing networks. And then there's the dark net. Both of the latter are readily accessible outside of the Great Firewall. |
|
| |
| ▲ | lucb1e 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Right. Yes, I'll have to agree simply neither option is good at all |
|
|
|
| ▲ | zoklet-enjoyer 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Why/how would my bank have my biometrics? |
| |
| ▲ | sph 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I logged into my Starling Bank account on a new phone, and I had to film my face reading a 6 digit number. | | |
| ▲ | hn_go_brrrrr 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Wow, I would move my money elsewhere rather than comply with that. | | |
| ▲ | sph 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Yeah I agree, the problem is that my money is already in there, so I have no choice but to comply. |
|
| |
| ▲ | chatmasta 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | They almost certainly have a photo of your passport or other identification. | | |
| ▲ | subscribed 5 days ago | parent [-] | | For the purpose of KYC checks. That doesn't mean every service provider (discord, roblox, pornhub) should have the same. | | |
| ▲ | chatmasta 5 days ago | parent [-] | | No, but the original thread was about providing your credit card number to these service providers. I’m saying that’s one hop from your bank, who has your biometric information. |
|
| |
| ▲ | Joker_vD 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Don't know about the US, but over here the last couple of years it has been a big wave of "enable biometrics sign-in! Totes safe, your face is the best ID, just click this checkbox, please, we would really like you to use it, pretty please" in the bank apps. No idea why they pushed it so hard, and it seems to have largely subsided now. |
|
