| ▲ | yladiz 3 days ago |
| In the EU you don’t need to upload your ID anywhere, the service can use the government’s portal for ID verification. In the case of age verification they can get a yes/no response if the age is above some threshold. This is opaque to the service so they wouldn’t get any additional ID details. |
|
| ▲ | drnick1 3 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| > In the EU you don’t need to upload your ID anywhere, the service can use the government’s portal for ID verification. In the case of age verification they can get a yes/no response The issue is that now the government knows what you are doing online, and that should never be allowed to happen. I grew up when the Internet was truly free, before Facebook even existed. People shared source code, videos, MP3s, games, regardless of "copyright" or "intellectual property." To some extent, it is still possible to do all of this, but these freedoms are being eroded every day by making the Internet less anonymous. The endgame is obviously to force people to pay for things whose "marginal cost" is zero in the language of economists. "Protecting the children" is just a convenient excuse. |
| |
| ▲ | pbmonster 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > The issue is that now the government knows what you are doing online There's zero technical necessity for this. You could do zero knowledge proofs with crypto key pairs issued together with the eID. The Swiss proposal for eID includes stuff like that. If a service needs proof of age, you use an app on your phone to generate the response, which is anonymized towards the requester and doesn't need to contact a government server at all. | |
| ▲ | yladiz 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I don’t really get your point. Your government is generally able to compel your ISP to give them logs of all of your traffic, if they don’t already vacuum it up, so it’s honestly a bit naive to think it shouldn’t be allowed to happen, because in practice it absolutely can. There is a distinction between getting data from an ISP and getting it via your use of their portal, but I’d argue it’s without much of a difference in reality. | | |
| ▲ | Levitz 3 days ago | parent [-] | | There's an enormous difference in the government having channels allowing for the disclosing of private material to them and just giving them all of it from the get go, and it is not unlike the difference of allowing the government to jail people and allowing it to arbitrarily jail people for life. | | |
| ▲ | codebje 3 days ago | parent [-] | | The difference is legislation, in both cases. Permissible data exchange between government services is legislatively encoded. Permissible sentences are legislatively encoded. Since we don't see a whole lot of moderately healthy democracies arbitrarily jailing people for life, one might reasonably assume these sorts of controls work. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | petcat 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > This is opaque to the service The "service" is irrelevant. I think most people would trust Porno Hub to be discreet about their visits. That's in their business interest. But now they have to tell your government about all the times you're visiting Porno Hub. And nobody should trust their government. Also, keep in mind that western governments share with each other. There will come a time when Australians will try to enter USA but they'll get flagged at the border because the AUS government shared that this particular individual visited Porno Hub and a few other age-restricted websites 7,000 times in the last 30 days. Red Flag! |
| |
| ▲ | simgt 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > And nobody should trust their government. Nobody should trust a billion dollar corporation, that's why we have democratically elected governments. All these power hungry fucks counter balance each-other, to some extend at least. | | |
| ▲ | ekianjo 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > democratically elected governments. 51% of a vote can go the wrong way now and then. | | |
| ▲ | simgt 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Yes but winner takes all is not the only voting system in existence, and democracy goes beyond just voting once every few years. | | |
| ▲ | ekianjo 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > democracy goes beyond just voting once every few years. What else is there? You are effectively only asked to choose between bad and worse candidates at a fairly low frequency. | | |
| ▲ | simgt a day ago | parent [-] | | You're equating democracy to presidential elections, that's not the full extent of it. Free press, transparency, independent justice, referendums, etc. are all part of a democratic system. Norway / Denmark / Switzerland do it better than US / UK / France for instance. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | pennomi 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Hot take, nobody should trust anybody. Trustless systems could certainly exist for this, if the government took the time to care. | | |
| ▲ | Tarq0n 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Trust is key to modern society. Any measure aimed at supplanting trust increases transaction costs in the economy. |
|
| |
| ▲ | Tadpole9181 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | To be entirely fair, a government that would abuse your vague "am I allowed to access porn" history seems well into the territory of a government that would just make it up. A nefarious, powerful entity has no real requirement to be honest in their maliciousness. They also have more direct means of accessing more specific data via ISPs, audits, banks, etc. | | |
| ▲ | crabmusket 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I think the government making stuff up is worth considering, but isn't it a kind of different threat model? The hypothetical government isn't going to make stuff up about me, some nobody, on a flight to the US to be a tourist or something. They statistically don't care about me. However, the US morality police might decide to statistically care about everyone who watches porn. But if I'm a somebody, say a former or potential whistleblower, or a local politician, etc. then a government might have a specific motive to do me dirty and not care about being honest. I guess there's a wide and blurry line between being a "nobody" the government has no motivation to lie about and being a "somebody" that deserves special malicious treatment. | | |
| ▲ | codebje 3 days ago | parent [-] | | The moral outrage crowd in the US have no power. The people who can and will act against you will only use morality as an excuse, not a cause. Being some nobody, the government has no interest in you anyway. You can watch porn, they can know it, and nothing changes, because you're still a nobody. (If you watch porn online, you can be pretty sure they already "know" it, because you're not doing it in the privacy of your own home, you're doing it on a public network with next to no secrecy about who you are or what you're doing). |
| |
| ▲ | nrhrjrjrjtntbt 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | That is an assumption. The games the powerful play leverage truth and provable things. I think there is a lot of need for privacy and abuse of dragnet information before you get to the government framing people. | | |
| ▲ | Tadpole9181 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Like January 6th and vaccines causing autism and climate change denial and election rigging and Haitians eating dogs and Venezuela drug boats? Are you and I living in the same reality? They're constantly just making things up out of nowhere from nothing and refusing to back down. Now to the point of arresting US citizens with a secret police and committing international war crimes in open waters. | | |
| ▲ | nrhrjrjrjtntbt 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I didn't say people don't lie and do bad shit. Not sure where that came from. Just because people lie, doesn't mean we need to shrug ok lets just hand over all our private data everywhere. But I dig ya! What the current US government does is abhorrent. | |
| ▲ | hunterpayne 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Like January 6th and vaccines causing autism and climate change denial and election rigging and Haitians eating dogs and Venezuela drug boats? That you categorize all of those things in the same boat is very partisan. And it is exactly why a government controlling access to information is a very bad idea. Some of those things aren't real phenomena, others are just over hyped and some are real and very much proven. The news sources you got those opinions from are highly partisan but you trust them implicitly even though you have access to the Internet and can cross check many of them. That you can make such blind mistakes is exactly why elected officials should never control the flow of information. And to give you an example of an opinion that very much matters, consider is nuclear power green or not? The wrong answer about that is doing more damage than your most hated official could ever do. | | |
| ▲ | Tadpole9181 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Reality isn't partisan. - January 6th was an attempted coup of the government coordinated by Republican interest groups and antagonized by Trump. - Vaccines do not cause autism. - Climate change is real and anthropological in origin. - The 2020 election was not rigged for Biden and there exists no evidence of impropriety of any kind. - Haitians did not eat people's pet dogs in the USA. This was just plain, out-in-the-open racism. - The US military is using the WMD, sorry, I mean the "drug boat" excuse on vessels 1,200 miles away from US waters to execute a dozen people at a time. They are providing no evidence and performing no seizures or investigations. Then they are violating international law and their own documents on war crimes and service member's duty to refuse by having them execute shipwreck survivors. Everything above is a fact. Not an opinion. Not partisan. A fact. |
|
| |
| ▲ | LinXitoW 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | You mean like Epstein? We've got a bunch of truths about rich people and nothing happens. The fear of an evil government misusing something, more often than not, is a thought terminating cliche. It means we cannot regulate, or create any laws about anything, because evil people could abuse those laws. In reality, evil people do evil shit, irrespective of the laws available for abuse. | | |
| |
| ▲ | 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | knowitnone3 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Cops do it all the time even when bodycams show otherwise |
| |
| ▲ | monksy 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Not just the US, but image entering Qatar or Indonesia with them having that knowledge of your access to "adult content". |
|
|
| ▲ | BoppreH 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| That's a very good technical solution, but socially it can be foiled by an official-looking alert saying "failed to scan card, please do X instead". And that's assuming the technical solution is deployed everywhere. I'm in the EU with one of those IDs, and I still had to upload photos of my passport and scan my face to open a bank account. The identification process even had its own app that I had to install. |
| |
| ▲ | 9dev 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | But then again, should the EU follow up with a similar policy, it could mandate the use of these checks and prevent/penalize ID photos. I’m very optimistic here. | |
| ▲ | zmmmmm 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Exactly. I'd concede this point if I'd seen a giant public awareness campaign informing people which official sites to use and general safety awareness about it. I can tell you, literally nothing like that has happened. Not an insufficient effort at it - no effort, nothing. It's clear the people in charge are just head in the sand about this aspect of it. |
|
