Digital age verification is only advocated by people who don't know how the internet works. All it's going to do is drive usage away from regulated sites to unregulated ones.
Yeah but the pious get to feel important
basically the only way it would ever remotely work is if countries adopted the south korean method of identy. they have a kssn used for basic identity purposes, and a seperate id for tax/money related purposes. if a country has both as the same ID, it becomes MAJOR liability if a company had leaked the number. having seperate identity and financial numbers removes the financial risk if the identity value was leaked.
although of course, it removes privacy as the government now can track users (e. g how korea tracks children's game playing time online, as a KSSN is required to register to play)
there must be a black market in dead peoples KSSNs, right?
People use their grandparents kssn all the time according to gamer koreans I've spoken with.
Explains how some 102 year old korean keeps fucking my ass in starcraft every week. I thought I was just terrible at it.
people often use other peoples kssns, usually parents or grandparents to bypass the child timer yes. but its a roadblock nonetheless
I remember using one in 2004 to be able to play the Korean WoW demo. I have no idea where I managed to find one.
I generally like the spirit of the DMA and the DSA, but the age verification policy is utterly garbage. Privacy and age verification are mutually exclusive
You can use the German ID card as a way to authenticate yourself via Internet (by using an open source app), including age. Shouldn't it be possible to provide a limited interface that e.g. only signals if the person is above a certain age? You already have to enter a PIN in the app so it could also easily show which information is asked/transmitted.
The infrastructure to support such things are naturally anti-privacy. Ultimately it requires someone to simply ignore other info that would otherwise be accessible. There could be a unique governing body for that part which is chartered for only sharing appropriate info, but even then, it's an ask for people to trust that body and that it wouldn't leak.
Ultimately it requires someone to simply ignore other info that would otherwise be accessible.
Nah. The ID card says "here, have a proof that I'm an ID card issued by , and I assert that the bearer is 18+". The crypto involved can be furnished such that nothing but the issuing authority and the fact "18+" gets transmitted, no name, no id number, no nothing. You can't even match up different times you age auth with the same ID as every time the proof will look different.
That said I'm still against that kind of auth online, but the crypto is not the issue. Unlike voting it's actually solvable.
The crypto involved can be furnished such that nothing but the issuing authority and the fact "18+" gets transmitted, no name, no id number, no nothing.
This is a best-case-scenario implementation. I just think it is extremely likely that any approach actually implemented would not have the privacy of the user in mind.
In essence, if that where possible someone could build an api and donate his ID into it that answers all the authentication requests for everyone. There needs to be a way to ensure different users use different IDs, which necessitates a bunch of tracking.
And that in the ideal case
A system doesn't have to be perfect to accomplish most of its goals. I mean, mass usage could be easily caught. Smaller scale abuse would be like giving your younger friend a beer - technically against the rules but not really a huge problem.
To be able to catch that, you need tracking. Some identifier to determine if you had 1000 authentications from the same source or different ones.
Yes, correct. You have to assume that each party will be tracking everything they can, otherwise it doesn't make sense. So the age verifier will know that you have requested many authentication in a given time.
Yes, and it can be done in a way where the organization validating the age doesn't know the purpose. They would still know that you requested an age validation and when, but that's it. So the German government wouldn't know whether it was for porn or for signing up for a youth hostel.
I'm not saying that I agree with the restrictions, but it is possible technically.
.kids tla. Regulate and certify what can be on that. Let parents implement the .kids whitelist if they want.
Parents should monitor their children internet usage, and there are tools that make it easier. I don't get this is for, aside from normalizing parents spending less time on their children and giving away control, and we can already see trend of parents just not giving a fuck about them and how they use internet/technology in general.
we can already see trend of parents just not giving a fuck about them and how they use internet/technology in general.
Tech-illiterate parents have been a thing since the dawn of the internet.
Which isn't a defence of this law, but pretending as if this is a new phenomenon is simply false. Having a kid's parents surveil everything the kid does isn't exactly healthy either.
A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/