Ask Lemmy

Wrote a comment recently. Age verification? Unnecessary. OS-level parental controls? Possibly meriting.

https://programming.dev/comment/22589550

I am still against where all this age verification crap is coming from, and I'm against what specifically "age verification" entails; but here's the thing: We keep saying, "It should be the parent's responsibility to secure their kids"—and while that's true, you can do all the talking and educating you want, but the fact is that the internet is now nigh-fully integrated with our lives, and unless you are surveilling your kid at every moment they are on the internet (don't recommend), not every parent has the time, resources, or know-how to keep their children safe on the internet without help.

There are some states pushing for "OS-level age verification," and I'm not convinced the proponents for this idea know what this combination of words means—but the idea isn't all bad. An interface for apps to query the device for a simple "can access adult content" value would be helpful for parents to better manage what their kids can access without having to hover 24/7. There is zero need for any sort of identification at any point in the process. The fact that legislation is promoting cumbersome identification collection and not the already existing idea of parental controls is evidence enough that this is designed to surveil.

This may address the privacy concern, but the issue still remains of a centralized power deciding what is and what isn't "safe for kids."

I don't think we're gonna get around the child internet safety conversation, and for good reason; but the conversation should be around how we can do it without jeopardizing individuals' safety and privacy, including children.

The problem with this question is assuming that violating privacy isn't the entire point of age verification laws.

I have never seen a company do this in a manner that I would trust

The German government ID card has an age verification function:
It only sends one bit to the requesting service: Yes, over 18 or No, not over 18.
And it doesn't transmit back or store any data, so the state doesn't know what services you access.
Since you are required to have an ID card and the state knows your age, this would be a pretty good option (in Germany).

You know how there are stores that sell restricted substances and verify your age by checking a provided ID? Have those same stores sell a cheap, sealed card with a confirmation code on it. You can enter that code online to verify any service. The code expires after a set period of time after it's first use to prevent sharing and misuse.

This system would be as secure as the restrictions on the restricted substance, such as alcohol, so it should be fine for "protecting the children"

I'm pretty sure there is already a cryptographic protocol that can do this, but that's not the point. We do NOT need age verification in software, it makes no sense. We need parents to take care of their own children because why would open-source software do the job of failed parenting? It's a social issue, not something that can be solved with technology. Or we would have put shock-collars in every kids when they don't behave.

I'm not sure if this is part of the "setting aside" stuff, but I'd ask why age needs to be verified and not simply stated.

I'm the admin on this device, I say I'm 50, why does the website need to check some ID to prove I'm 50? They trust what I reported, and if I lied to them that's on me. It shouldn't be the websites job to validate.

for a moment, let's ignore all of the conspiratorial conjecture (not that it isn't warranted).

by exposing an API for web services to identify the users age/birthday, how does that solve the issue of "protecting children online".

what's stopping a bad actor from identifying, tracking, and grooming children directly based on this same mechanism?

right now the majority of kids online are protected through anonymity, but once they are identified they can be targeted directly and the adults responsible for their well being are blissfully unaware because "the government is tracking their age".

also. what comes next is worse than the date. online content ratings. because there's no point in tracking age if you can't apply a ratings system.

Imagine entire swaths of the internet banned because the content rating doesn't meet the government requirements.

this is less about tracking users and more about censoring dissent.

Despite our current parliament sucking ass, I still have some general trust in my country's government (and culture). So with that in mind:

Our government bodies already have my basic data. Healthcare, census etc. and we use our online banking services to verify identity when accessing the data. It's simple, and extremely widely used. I really don't see why it would be so hard to make a relatively simple service that just gives sites that need to know a yes or no answer on if I'm over 18. They don't need to know my birth date or any other information.

Not let a government or age verification authority know whenever a user is accessing 18+ content

This should be possible but of course the question is if one trusts the government to actually uphold this. Again, with my background, it's a bit easier for me to speak.

Make it difficult or impossible for a child to fake a proof of adulthood, eg. By downloading an already verified anonymous signing key shared by an adult, etc.

You'll never patch all the holes. In a perfect world, we wouldn't be having this conversation. In a perfect world, parents would actually parent their kids and monitor their internet use. Access to adult content doesn't even come close to being the biggest problem in many cases where some kids parents are fucking up their duties. Drugs, gangs, petty (and not so petty) crime comes to mind. Collective responsibility would be great but since we don't live in a perfect world where everyone can just agree to a good idea like "take responsibility of your kids", I'll settle for trusting a democratic government to have some capacity to pick up those that fall.

I happen to agree with age verification laws. This is a tangent but I would also go a step further in saying that MAINSTREAM internet should not be possible to use without verifying that the user is a real individual person. This would be another yes/no question via a service. Outwardly they don't have to reveal their identity but even JizzMcCumsocks needs to have a backend verification as a real person. Basically, if any government member uses some service with their own name and has a verification about that, that service must also have a way of verifying that any user is a real person. We have given Xitter way too much power and at the same time, allowed anonymity. Meta services too of course but I think Xitter is one of the worst due to easy and straight forward use. Humanity has shown, that we are not equipped to handle the kind of (mis)information flow there is in these spaces. Spaces such as Lemmy can and should operate in full anonymity, as there are natural barriers to entry here, plus it's less appealing when it's not even really intended for the kind of use mainstream social media sites are. Here we have a collective and individual responsibility to account for the anonymity and the challenges it brings.

Why prove it at all?? An assertion from the OS should be good enough Just have the OS ask once, and send that info when it has to as a general age range. A few different age ranges for kids/teens, an 18-21 group, and 21+ is all the info they really need at most.

If age verification has to be a thing, let the user supply it at install/profile creation time, and just leave it at that.

1. Apply for access to age-gated content.
2. Ignore application for 18 years.
3. Your account has been approved.

There are a few options for age verification, but the one I like best is at the ISP/device level. You make the account at the ISP level have a flag for being a kid friendly service. You could also have the government establish simple tools for parents to install on their kids devices which would limit other apps and services, for example by blocking porn or violent age inappropriate content. You could even have it tie in with the age advice for film classification, though the current classification guidelines are pretty horrible. All of that could be handled by a very small government team and could be deliverable in 6 months.

These are active steps a parent can take to limit their child's exposure to the internet and do not come with added cost to the parent. They would be just as available for someone who is poor as for someone who is rich. It would be possible to protect kids from many of the more dangerous aspects of the internet while also leaving unmanaged devices free and clear, preserving the good things about the open internet.

This thread is going to be great for learning to spot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy