this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2025
63 points (93.2% liked)

Asklemmy

50228 readers
553 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
Cloak@lemmy.ml
mekhos@lemmy.ml
tmpod@lemmy.pt
14specks@lemmy.ml
63
What should we call "proof of age" or "age verification"? (lemmy.ml)
submitted 3 days ago by wuphysics87@lemmy.ml to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml
36 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

We all know "proof of age" or "age verification" is synonymous with mass surveilance, but the words "proof of age" were cleverly choosen so the average person considers it the same as showíng another person a driver's license. Unecessary or otherwise it's only a minor inconvenience. And there is no harm to privacy.

So what should we call "proof of age" or "age verification" which is just as punchy, but communicatee the real intent? How can we subvert this attack on our rights by turning these twisted words against themselves?

all 37 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] vk6flab@lemmy.radio 34 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Censorship by stealth.

.. because that's what it amounts to.

Platforms will start making their content "acceptable" to the "general consensus" (ie. right wing bible bashing hetero caucasians) in order to allow general access to content.

"Unsuitable" material, like sex education, domestic violence advice, sexual orientation and religious freedom will "vanish" from the internet, just like it already is across the platforms run by USA billionaires.

Those who fail to comply will be taken to court and those too small to fight will close down their internet presence.

The credit card companies are already doing this for anyone who sells anything they don't like.

This current wave is just more of it.

It has absolutely nothing to do with keeping children safe, and everything to do with control.

[–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 16 points 2 days ago

De-anonymizing

[–] missfrizzle@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 2 days ago

doxxing.

[–] birdwing@lemmy.blahaj.zone 24 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Identity theft. Because it is: they will steal your identification data and sell it to the highest bidder.

[–] scottmeme@sh.itjust.works 23 points 3 days ago

How about "privacy violation"?

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 13 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Adult Action Surveillance and Recording.

[–] FriendOfDeSoto@startrek.website 13 points 2 days ago (1 children)

A dult R ecording S urveillance E nforcement

would be a better acronym if you ask me.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 1 points 2 days ago

perfect arcronym.

[–] noxypaws@pawb.social 2 points 2 days ago

user doxing

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 day ago

surveillance

[–] sad_detective_man@leminal.space 9 points 3 days ago

an intrusion and overstep by the usual suspects doing their usual bullshit

[–] Geodad@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

I don't know, but I'm about to go to a church and swipe some religious asshat's purse or wallet while they're preying and use their ID to watch pr0n.

[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 10 points 3 days ago (1 children)

“Info tax”.

[–] very_well_lost@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago

oooooo, that's good.

[–] LeeeroooyJeeenkiiins@hexbear.net 9 points 3 days ago

drink your verification can

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 8 points 3 days ago

identity depositing

[–] TheLeadenSea@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 days ago

Agewall

[–] mp3@lemmy.ca 6 points 3 days ago

Age-gate

[–] dosse91@lemmy.trippy.pizza 7 points 3 days ago

State malware

[–] Suburbanl3g3nd@lemmings.world 7 points 3 days ago

A waste of time

[–] altkey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 3 days ago

Script-search, presumption of age, kid-sniffing and self-snitching.

[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 days ago

Humans abusing other humans. A tale as old as time itself.

[–] TankieTanuki@hexbear.net 5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Name four Spice Girls

[–] FortifiedAttack@hexbear.net 4 points 3 days ago

kelly Block-chain!

[–] capuccino@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

verificAGEtion

[–] strung6387@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

We all know “proof of age” or “age verification” is synonymous with mass surveilance

Is it? I was under the impression that websites would use private identity verification companies like iDenfy to perform age verification. The identity verification company would need to use a government API to verify the person's existence and age, but this doesn't necessarily mean that the identity verification company is reporting to the government which people have initiated age verification, or for which websites.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 9 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

but this doesn't necessarily mean that the identity verification company is reporting to the government which people have initiated age verification, or for which websites.

Oh sweet summer child.

Unless it's designed to not be capable of doing it (its not), they are doing it and it's the intended plan.

[–] sunbeam60@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 days ago (2 children)

In the EU the legal framework requires a ZKP implantation. Laws would be broken if traceability was introduced.

[–] missfrizzle@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

what prevents you from leaking your token on the internet, so everyone can use it? it has to be revokable somehow. to be revokable it has to be correlatable, so you can tell where the same token is used across multiple sites. which leads to easy deanonymization.

ZKP is window-dressing. it's still a major privacy intrusion. don't fall for it.

(also, it paves the way for lgbt issues, sex ed, harm reduction and activism to be censored behind the 18+ barrier, but that's a different matter.)

[–] sunbeam60@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 days ago (2 children)

You have to trust someone.

And I can’t speak for all the implementations around the world. But I can speak for the Danish one. Or at least what the design is intended to be right now.

The Danish verification tokens are single use. Yes they get checked against a database, centrally, but that database doesn’t hold any information about who the token was issued to, just whether it’s a valid token that hasn’t been used before.

So your digital wallet holds a set of single use tokens. You have to log in using MitID (central government system for proving your identify online), then your wallet is issued age proofing tokens which you then hand over to the website to prove your age.

So there are a million ways that COULD be abused, just like there are a million ways your bank could abuse the information it holds about you. In both cases, laws require that neither abuse their privilege.

You have to trust someone. Or live a hermit.

[–] missfrizzle@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

this is sounding sketchier and sketchier. so every website that serves 18+ content in Denmark will need to check tokens against a central database upon login? forget censorship and surveillance, that sounds like it plain won't scale well. also does Denmark really expect every website to implement this? what about Lemmy or other fediverse services?

why is this needed at all? why not just use parental controls on devices? why is this such a crisis now, for the first time in 20 years?

I feel like they could just, you know, not do this.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I wouldn't call that an ideal implementation, but if they implemented it properly, there's no way for the website to know who you are, and there's no way for the website to tell the authority you visited their site. If there is, it's not actually a ZKP and it's a failure of the technology (and I assume at that point be against the law). The only abuse that should ever be possible is that the authority knows you are using tokens, not where.

The only required trust that should be needed, is that the authority proved your age in the first place, such as when you get your drivers license, and that they actually implemented all the cryptography properly (which a 3rd party could verify)

Edit: And if there's concern about token sharing somehow, it should be locked behind your biometics in a way that again doesn't leak any information, which they saw you encode when they verified your identity.

Edit: think something like a programmable credit card with a key that can't be removed, but the card can be programmed with an age by the authority and locked by a biometric. You go in, plug the card in, they add the age and their part of the key, you scan your fingerprint on it, and then you're done. They never see your key. You then use it anywhere it's needed and it never goes back to the central authority. Give it a limited lifespan so it has to be renewed once a year or something.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Well that's awesome. I had heard Germany did a ZKP solution, I didn't realize it was EU law.

I don't really expect anywhere but the EU to do that though. ZKP are really the only way to do it if it's going to be done.

[–] dysprosium@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Is this youe ols reddir name by ant chamce

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

Nah, it was ThisIsMyRedditName (jk)

[–] strung6387@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 days ago

Source?