←back to thread

347 points iamnothere | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source

Also: We built a resource hub to fight back against age verification https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/12/age-verification-comin...
Show context
pksebben ◴[] No.46236900[source]
This keeps coming up and we keep having the same debates about what Age Verification isn't.

For the folks in the back row:

Age Verification isn't about Kids or Censorship, It's about Surveillance

Age Verification isn't about Kids or Censorship, It's about Surveillance

Age Verification isn't about Kids or Censorship, It's about Surveillance

Without even reaching for my tinfoil hat, the strategy at work here is clear [0 1 2]. If we have to know that you're not a minor, then we also have to know who you are so we can make any techniques to obfuscate that illegal. By turning this from "keep an eye on your kids" to "prove you're not a kid" they've created the conditions to make privacy itself illegal.

VPNs are next. Then PGP. Then anything else that makes it hard for them to know who you are, what you say, and who you say it to.

Please, please don't fall into the trap and start discussing whether or not this is going to be effective to protect kids. It isn't, and that isn't the point.

0 https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/11/lawmakers-want-ban-vpn...

1 https://www.techradar.com/vpn/vpn-privacy-security/vpn-usage...

2 https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2025-09-15/debates/57714...

replies(14): >>46236954 #>>46237349 #>>46237480 #>>46238016 #>>46238148 #>>46238925 #>>46240138 #>>46240141 #>>46240546 #>>46240662 #>>46240975 #>>46241941 #>>46242412 #>>46243136 #
knallfrosch ◴[] No.46237349[source]
> If we have to know that you're not a minor, then we also have to know who you are

That is untrue

replies(1): >>46237429 #
phyzome ◴[] No.46237429[source]
Are you aware of any age verification systems that do not have this property?

(This includes being robust against law enforcement action, legal or otherwise.)

replies(7): >>46237529 #>>46237535 #>>46237741 #>>46237759 #>>46237958 #>>46239717 #>>46240178 #
pksebben ◴[] No.46237535[source]
Like many mention in other comments on this post, it's possible to implement using ZKPs. There are likely other methods that would be effective without compromising privacy. None of them are part of the Age Verification discussion because kids are not the actual point of Age Verification.

When I say "if we have to know you're not a kid, we have to know who you are" I'm not stating an actual truth, but the argument as it is playing out politically.

replies(7): >>46237671 #>>46237758 #>>46238433 #>>46239088 #>>46240107 #>>46241986 #>>46242597 #
1. orblivion ◴[] No.46238433[source]
Okay but then if a ZKP solution is presented, that's calling their bluff. They now have one less excuse for surveillance.

EDIT: Actually do one better - tell them that for 16+ websites, you're actually protecting teenagers by keeping them anonymous.

replies(1): >>46238586 #
2. wcarss ◴[] No.46238586[source]
Yeah, getting into the car with the guy holding the gun doesn't become okay because you have a great argument you're waiting to use down the road. He's already got the gun out.

We should have started arguing when he just said he had a gun, indoors, in the crowd. We shouldn't have quietly walked outside at his demand. But that all happened. Here we are now, at the car, and he's got the gun out, and he's saying "get in", and we're probably not going to win from here -- but pal, it's time to start arguing. Or better yet, fighting back hard.

Because that car isn't going anywhere we want to be. We absolutely can not get in the car right now, and just plan to argue the point later. It doesn't matter how right the argument is at all.