• Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      4 hours ago

      My bank once sent me a letter to my address, to tell me that they did not know what my address was. So I’m not completely sure they are exactly on the ball.

  • IsoKiero@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Age verification is one thing, but I routinely verify my id online. Banking, insurance, taxes, various other government things, car registrations, some of the kids school stuff and so on. We have pretty decent infrastructure in place here in Finland and the entities I identify myself online already has my info anyways. I can use either my banking app or mobile verification to securely prove I am who I claim to be and the systems have roughly the same user experience than MFA tokens.

    Each of those are roughly zero-knowledge, the website I log in receives just “User with login token xxx is IsoKiero with SSN 123456789” and the tokens expire after a while. Also there’s restrictions in place that my insurance company can’t just sell my data to whomever unless I opt-in for their “marketing” program (not going to happen) and even then there’s some limitations on how they can use the data.

    The same system could be adopted to age verification, but that’s a whole another can of worms.

  • bss03@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Fidelity, Banks, Coinbase (before I got out of cryptocurrency entirely).

    But, basically, only when government regulation does (or SHOULD) impose KYC requirements.

    Age and ID verification might be good in a very few cases, but it should definitely be a deviation from the norm.

  • super_user_do@feddit.it
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    13 hours ago

    Same for me my man. I hate the fact that anonymity on the internet will eventually fall before the end of this decade. The west is not that far away from the authoritarian regimes it claims to be fighting against

  • RisingSwell@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    23 hours ago

    YouTube’s can be broken and that’s the only one I cared about. I guess steam would be an issue if they tried it.

    Pretty sure anything else I can easily just bail on.

  • billwashere@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    Age verification wouldn’t be a problem if there was a service I trusted that could verify my age, generate an anonymous one way hash or public/private key pair that could verify my age, and then dispose of all information that would could tie me to that info, I’d be ok with it. The problem is there isn’t a group that I’d trust (well that would be willing to do it) and everyone wants to hoard information and create a central repository that will be broken into. It’s not that there is a possibility it could be, but a certainty that it would be. This isn’t really an unsolvable technical problem, but an unsolvable trust problem.

    • Lfrith@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      22 hours ago

      Age verification if intent was to make it not tied to real ID would be a system where you could go into any store and buy a card you can scratch off for a code to put in.

      But, governments want to track and get rid of anonymous accounts. They don’t actually care about age requirements. They want a 1984 type control of citizens to know what they are thinking or at the very least scare off people from expressing thoughts like politicians should be held accountable for fear of current or future consequences from a government that may decide it is treasonous.

      • Fiery@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        15 hours ago

        The EU actually was working on a system described above based on some sort of zero knowledge proof (so verification via your gov’t id, but without the verifying party being able to assert anything other than age > 18 or whatever data you want to verify)

        • Lfrith@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          15 hours ago

          So being able to get a token without even the government knowing?

          Because if it’s the alternative of the government itself issuing the token and it being only the receiving site not knowing, but the government being able to link it back to you I wouldn’t be happy with that either.

          I’d prefer it to be as trackable as knowing which specific alcohol bottle you bought. So other than showing ID to a store to get a random token nobody in theory would know who the token belongs to including the government.

          • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 hours ago

            I think that’s the idea of zero-knowledge proofs. Nobody ever knows anything about the other party. Monero uses them (among other things) to be truly anonymous.

  • NarrativeBear@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    73
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    People have been forgetting that home routers come with something called parental controls.

    This is the most privacy respecting solution that puts all the power of parenting into a parents hands.

    If the government were really “thinking of the children” I would propose a group of bipartisan curators to curate the Internet. Thinking of how libraries function, we have librarians that classify books by age and genre. The same can be done for websites, and these curated lists be made available to parents. This can be funded by local government and be region and country specific.

    These lists would effectively function as whitelists, blocking everything that’s not on the whitelist. Parents can then turn on a specific whitelist for their kids if they so choose, and they gain access to a curated list of age approved websites.

    Parents can then, if they so choose, add or remove items form the list to grant their children access to specific sites.

    All this tech is already available and it would prevent children and adults from having to provide a website any extra information. It would also mean websites would now not need to build infrastructure to collect this information.

    Could you imagine a publisher of books needing you to send them a picture of your face to verify your age and identify before you even opened a book? Why are we proposing the same equivalent concept for a website or “digital book”.

    • MinnesotaGoddam@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      21 hours ago

      These lists would effectively function as whitelists, blocking everything that’s not on the whitelist. Parents can then turn on a specific whitelist for their kids if they so choose, and they gain access to a curated list of age approved websites.

      Yeah, i’d say if they were serious about “protecting children”, they should provide a “child safe” DNS to log onto for your kids’ devices.

    • Sturgist@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      People have been forgetting that home routers come with something called parental controls.

      When my wife and I first signed up with Virgin as our ISP there was parental control turned on by default. Had to put in my credit card info to be able to flap.(Edit: Goddamn Autoassume! FAP not FLAP) This was 2021ish? So before the current stupidity.

      Also, it’s easy to feel like this is all being pushed by parents who just straight up refuse to properly parent their children…but it’s mostly being championed by Puritan lobby/pressure groups. They think even totally consensual, CIS/HET amateur porn is disgusting and sinful. They don’t want to see, so they’re on a mission to make it so literally no one can see it.
      With help from companies and people who have a vested interest in creating a panopticon-esque surveillance state. And the rest of the people involved in passing it are too old or ignorant or paid too well by the other two groups to stand in the way of it, or to have cut out the really egregious shit from these bills before they were passed.

      • NewNewAugustEast@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        Also, it’s easy to feel like this is all being pushed by parents who just straight up refuse to properly parent their children…but it’s mostly being championed by Puritan lobby/pressure groups.

        No, its being pushed by corporations who are interested in identifying you. They pressure the government who ALSO now takes an interest in tracking your for wrong think and power grabbing. The two work together for power and money, and to stay in power.

        Parents are just pawns who get manipulated into thinking this is a problem at all.

        • Sturgist@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          With help from companies and people who have a vested interest in creating a panopticon-esque surveillance state.

          First sentence of the last paragraph.

    • lastlybutfirstly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Governments know about parental controls. They know it’s the most effective, most efficient, and least destructive way to deal with this. They don’t care. And they don’t care about the children. If they cared, they’d develop their own parental control software, offer it for free, and encourage it’s use.

      If they really wanted to get draconian about it, as they are doing now with age verification, they would pass laws to prosecute parents who don’t use parental controls for negligence.

      But it’s not about the children. At all. It’s about preventing you and me, and all of us from talking to each other and entertaining ourselves. It’s about turning the Internet into TV, a one way faucet of entertainment and information controlled by the wealthy .001% where us peons can’t talk back.

      These age verification laws are just the first step. They kill small forums and games like Urban Dead, and leave only sites controlled by megacorporations that can afford the age verification infrastructure and the massive corporate fines if a single kid sneaks in. Once you get used to this, it’s easier for you to accept not being able to communicate online at all, or start your own forum, or YouTube channel.

      • halloween_spookster@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        I’m skeptical that governments know about these solutions given how little people in general understand technology. It’s a “we’ve tried nothing and we’re all out of ideas” situation. Ideally they should have experts available to consult with when making laws to prevent BS like this.

        • Sturgist@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 day ago

          @[email protected]

          The people at the top certainly don’t. There IS absolutely large swaths of the government that definitely do. Even if only subconsciously, all (or most) government workers who use a workplace computer of some kind should understand that sites are able to be blocked. They might think you’d need to be a Grey Beard of the 16th Order to set it up, but I’d wager a fair percentage have tried to go to a site and it’s been blacklisted.

  • CosmicTurtle0 [he/him]@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    147
    ·
    1 day ago

    The problem with “age” verification is that politicians are confusing it with identity verification.

    I should not have to prove my name and other biometrics to prove age.

    Age verification is the fascist way to get people to identify themselves and their online activity. Almost every state that has some sort of age verification law has zero method to actually verify age. No digital ID service, no way to share a credential for verification.

    They want people to upload an ID.

    This isn’t about keeping children safe and it never is. It’s about identifying critics of the government.

    • Limerance@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 day ago

      It is possible to build an age verification system, where you use your actual ID with a cryptographic process without any personal data. The technology has existed for decades now.

      • WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 hours ago

        problems with that:

        • how do you verify that it works the way they say it works
        • how do you make yourself heard when it doesn’t

        so far the only answer I am aware of for these questions is “you don’t”

        • Virtvirt588@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 hours ago

          The additional problem with that is straight up discrimination. We’re replacing a predatory system with another discriminatory system. It is essentially another path that leads to the same thing. Fighting fascism with fascism.

    • lost_faith@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 day ago

      Force the building of a light “honour based” age verification system (just enter your birthday, we trust you not to lie to us), then as more comply add more requirements to it til all accounts are linked and they know when you shit

  • ExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    108
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    2 days ago

    I am actually not fundamentally against the idea of age verification for some things online. We have many things with age restrictions in real life, for various reasons, it kind of makes sense to have it online as well for some things.

    but…it has to be done with zero-knowledge proof so we limit the amount of private data exposed to the absolute bare minimum.

    • Deestan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      98
      ·
      2 days ago

      Zero-knowledge proofs are a good concept. They’ve been possible for a long, long time, and allow age check without surveillance.

      So why are they not being used? Because age check is just a cover. These people want to do surveillance, not protect kids.

      So it’s a good counter. Want age check? Do it like this. Oh, you don’t want it that way? Why not, pray?

      Whether it works (it has, previously) or not (as with the current bullshit from the US), it does bring to the public debate that this is unnecessary surveillance.

    • Wammityblam@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Maybe in alternate timeline where tech companies have historically acted ethically.

      In this timeline where each new company and/or ceo is more slimey than the last, I know that any type of identification will be mismanaged at best or used maliciously at worst

      All trust is gone between these companies.

    • chunes@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      There is already age verification. It’s called an internet service provider bill.

      • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        It’s already easy as fuck. Most parents just don’t bother. The mandates should be on ISPs and cell carriers to provide network-level filtering. I filter adult sites on my home network and there’s no getting around that without cracking the password on the service or factory resetting the gateway.

    • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      Best our corporate dictatorships can offer is requiring you to surgically implant a microchip into your brainstem. Everyone without the chip will be classified as woke, and cleansed by the AI killbots on judgement day.

      All heil skkkynet.

      • TechLich@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        22 hours ago

        Whenever this comes up, this style of zero-knowledge proof/blind signature thing gets suggested. But the problem is that those only work if people care about keeping their private keys secret. It works to secure eg. “I own $1” but “I’m over 18” is less important to people and it won’t be hard for kids to get their hands on a valid anonymous signing key on the web. Because the verification is anonymous and not trackable, many kids can share the same one too, so it only takes one adult key to leak for everyone to use. It’s one of the reasons they push biometrics that at least appears to need a real human. Requiring ID has a lot of the same issues on top of being a privacy nightmare.

        I’m starting to think that actual age verification is technically impossible.

        • WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 hours ago

          that is less of a problem when the private key is not too easy to export, and when each private key has ratelimits for how often can they be used

    • MareOfNights@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      I also want zero knowledge personhood/Nationality verification for social media. Maybe with age too. I want to know where the accounts come from and whether they are a bot or not.

      It can be optional, as long as I get a filter to remove all non-verified people.

    • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Plenty of companies you already deal with already know who you are, thus how old you are. Cell carriers, ISPs, banks, stock brokerages, utility companies, and so on. It would be much more secure, done properly, for a service like this to provide a simple “yes/no” answer to the age question.

    • username_1@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      2 days ago

      Your point of view: We have so many fascists in reality, why couldn’t we tolerate some fascism on the internet?

          • ExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            Care to elaborate which you think are fascist?

            Regarding age verification I think that things we generally don’t allow kids access to in real life could make sense to age restrict online as well. Something like gambling comes to mind, and I wouldn’t personally consider it a fascist action to limit access to that.

            Edit: again, under the prerequisite of properly implemented zero-knowledge proof so the site only knows if you’re old enough but not actual age, name or anything.

            • username_1@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              2 days ago

              The definition of fascism is trivial: only one ideology is permitted (no matter what that ideology is exactly), anything else is forbidden.

              So any forced limitations without objectively obvious/proven reasons that are welcome by community is fascism. As simple as that.

              Limitations of theft and killings are not fascism because most people are against those activities. Limitations on education access is fascism because most people welcome education.

              Those who have different opinions can impose their own private limitations in the non-fascist community. Like age restrictions for this or that activity.

              • jve@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                7 hours ago

                The definition of fascism is trivial

                made up definition

  • Arkthos@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    24 hours ago

    I ordered some alcohol online because I couldn’t find the brand of rum I was looking for locally. They did some age verification before I could order, same that I could have encountered in a grocery store.

    Of course they just got sent a token and not a photo id which changes the calculus some. I’m against trusting random websites with personal information, not an age block on its own.

  • deadymouse@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    If you’ve put your real identity on your passport on some platforms and you’re going to use those platforms for purposes other than work, get ready to be a good and loyal dog.

  • Zier@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    1 day ago

    Are we really “protecting” the children? Or is there a huge amount of powerful and wealthy individuals searching for an easy way to get to the children. With the global Trump Epstein Files scandal currently happening, how do we know they are not just stalking more kids? Not a conspiracy theory, just a different point of view. So many horrid groups in the world claim to be protecting children, but they always have a hidden nefarious agenda.

    • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      A few years ago the IRS website wanted me to take a “video selfie” using a webcam to log in to access my tax stuff. I said Fuck That and ended the session. Finished my taxes through a 3rd party vendor instead.

      • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        There is no way the states is a real place. That’s beyond crooked and clearly trying to push people into using a 3rd party product.

      • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        Oh yeah, the states is like that right… I meant for filing and claming tax benefits.