Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online

    (ellsberg.substack.com)
    693 points macawfish | 16 comments | 12 Jul 25 18:14 UTC | HN request time: 0.564s | source | bottom
    Show context
    al_borland ◴[12 Jul 25 18:53 UTC] No.44544145[source]▶
    All these ID check laws are out of hand. Parents are expecting the government, and random websites, to raise their kids. Why would anyone trust some random blog with their ID?

    If these laws move forward (and I don’t think they should), there needs to be a way to authenticate as over 18 without sending picture of your ID off to random 3rd parties, or giving actual personal details. I don’t want to give this data, and websites shouldn’t want to shoulder the responsibility for it.

    It seems like this could work much like Apple Pay, just without the payment. A prompt comes up, I use some biometric authentication on my phone, and it sends a signal to the browser that I’m 18+. Apple has been adding state IDs into the Wallet, this seems like it could fall right in line. The same thing could be used for buying alcohol at U-Scan checkout.

    People should also be able to set their browser/computer to auto-send this for single-user devices, where it is all transparent to the user. I don’t have kids and no one else’s uses my devices. Why should I need to jump through hoops?

    replies(36): >>44544207 #>>44544209 #>>44544223 #>>44544253 #>>44544375 #>>44544403 #>>44544619 #>>44544667 #>>44544797 #>>44544809 #>>44544821 #>>44544865 #>>44544875 #>>44544926 #>>44545322 #>>44545574 #>>44545686 #>>44545750 #>>44545798 #>>44545986 #>>44546467 #>>44546488 #>>44546759 #>>44546827 #>>44547088 #>>44547591 #>>44547777 #>>44547788 #>>44547799 #>>44547881 #>>44548019 #>>44548400 #>>44548482 #>>44548740 #>>44549467 #>>44560104 #
    Sharlin[dead post] ◴[12 Jul 25 19:21 UTC] No.44544375[source]▶
    [flagged]
    1. antonymoose ◴[12 Jul 25 19:26 UTC] No.44544434[source]▶
    I expect a liquor store to check ID, why not a porn store?
    replies(3): >>44544491 #>>44544612 #>>44544899 #
    2. trhway ◴[12 Jul 25 19:35 UTC] No.44544491[source]▶
    Interesting, why did you give up your right to buy liquor anonymously? And you also seem to be willing to give up your right to anonymous porn. Why?
    replies(2): >>44544607 #>>44544643 #
    3. probably_wrong ◴[12 Jul 25 19:49 UTC] No.44544607[source]▶
    > why did you give up your right to buy liquor anonymously?

    That's not entirely true - once you look old enough most places will stop asking for ID.

    As for why: because there is (or at least, was) no other system to identify whether someone is underage and, by extension, more likely to underestimate the consequences of their actions, make worse choices under the effect of alcohol, and suffer its effects more strongly. Same reason why the legal system makes a difference between minors and adults.

    4. Ylpertnodi ◴[12 Jul 25 19:50 UTC] No.44544612[source]▶
    Do booze shops in the US store peoples id's after they've flashed them (pun intended)?
    replies(5): >>44544742 #>>44544776 #>>44545562 #>>44546237 #>>44546948 #
    5. jkaplowitz ◴[12 Jul 25 19:54 UTC] No.44544643[source]▶
    Most of us alive in the US today never had a right to buy liquor anonymously, unless you’re making a natural rights argument independent of contrary constitutional or statutory law. The 21st Amendment gives lots of authority to states to regulate or prohibit alcohol sales, including the right to require ID.

    With that said, even now, it’s normal that liquor stores only look at IDs without transmitting or recording the information anywhere (in the absence of fraud concerns), so if the purchase itself is made with cash, it has most (not quite all) of the same data privacy and security consequences as a true anonymous purchase.

    This is very different from the online porn age verification proposals.

    6. ndriscoll ◴[12 Jul 25 20:09 UTC] No.44544742[source]▶
    In some states stores are required to scan IDs. I'd be surprised if e.g. Kroger weren't storing that information. All of these porn laws I've read at least ban any storage. As far as I know digital ID standards are also at least designed to allow only sharing "over18" without other identifying information.
    replies(2): >>44544939 #>>44545033 #
    7. reliabilityguy ◴[12 Jul 25 20:14 UTC] No.44544776[source]▶
    It seems to me that age verification via ID submission online and the subsequent storage of IDs are separate issues.
    replies(1): >>44544825 #
    8. toast0 ◴[12 Jul 25 20:20 UTC] No.44544825{3}[source]▶
    How could they be separate issues when the submission of an ID image obviously enables both the subsequent storage of the ID and also the presentment of the ID to others.

    We know that very few organizations are capable of effectively controlling confidential information that they're legally bound to keep confidential. Requiring things that are going to lead to large stores of ID images is asking for trouble.

    When you show your ID in a store, the clerk generally doesn't retain a copy of it, and if they do, it's apparent because they take the card to scan it... regardless, they can't take the scanned copy and present it at another store, because the other store will detect that it's not an original.

    replies(1): >>44545872 #
    9. Eavolution ◴[12 Jul 25 20:33 UTC] No.44544939{3}[source]▶
    And if I provide it how do they prove they aren't storing it other than their word, which is untrustable for many reasons?
    replies(1): >>44544989 #
    10. moron4hire ◴[12 Jul 25 20:40 UTC] No.44544989{4}[source]▶
    You don't actually provide it to the porn site. Everything goes through a 3rd party escrow. The site you're trying to access only gets a message from the trusted ID partner that you are indeed the age you say you are.

    Now, I still hate the idea that any corporation is storing my ID, but it's not every Tom Dicken' Harry porn site you might be viewing.

    11. sitkack ◴[12 Jul 25 20:47 UTC] No.44545033{3}[source]▶
    Kroger is most definitely storing this information. I rarely shop any Kroger store, but when they started doing IDs scans, I shop there less and no longer buy anything that requires my ID.
    replies(1): >>44548932 #
    12. JumpCrisscross ◴[12 Jul 25 22:01 UTC] No.44545562[source]▶
    Booze shops are state licensed and regulated. If they mess around with my PII, I have direct recourse options.
    13. reliabilityguy ◴[12 Jul 25 22:49 UTC] No.44545872{4}[source]▶
    Because they are. You do not have to store the ID for verification: storage it’s just one way to implement such a system.

    I agree with you that systems that store those IDs are ticking bombs.

    14. __turbobrew__ ◴[12 Jul 25 23:49 UTC] No.44546237[source]▶
    Many bars and casinos store your ID forever.
    15. rustcleaner ◴[13 Jul 25 02:18 UTC] No.44546948[source]▶
    Birthday attack: most places punch the eight digits MMDDYYYY into the keypad. You think you're safe, but that's 1 in over 20,000 uniqueness practically. Each store has how many local regulars? Sure sometimes there's overlap in birthdays, but it's unique enough.
    16. antonymoose ◴[13 Jul 25 09:48 UTC] No.44548932{4}[source]▶
    Similarly, Wal-Mart seems to know who I am based on my card transactions. When I swipe my card they ask if I would like a paper or an SMS receipt. I’m still not sure how they got that number association.