| ▲ | neilv 5 hours ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Three problems with this: 1. Removes the pain of age verification, encouraging some people to stay in the proprietary walled garden when everyone would be better served by open platforms (and network effects). 2. Provides a pretext for more invasive age verification and identification, because "the privacy-respecting way is too easily circumvented". 3. Encourages people to run arbitrary code from a random Web site in connection with their accounts, which is bad practice, even if this one isn't malware and is fully secure. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | rippeltippel 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Proving that something is possible doesn't mean encouraging it. This was a beautiful work of reverse engineering, that shows how hard it can be to verify personal data without invading privacy. I prefer this awareness to blind trust. The code was released, therefore it is not arbitrary (problem #3). Should companies react with more invasive techniques (problem #2), users can always move to other platforms (problem #1). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | jen729w 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
> everyone would be better served by open platforms Oh cool, which ones?! …aaaand there's the problem. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||