zlacker

It seems that your argument is more about the way the verification is implemented and not about the idea of verification by itself.

>>reliab+(OP)
To be clear - I disagree with both the implementation and the idea of verification. I believe one is criminal and the other is misguided.

>>reliab+(OP)
The idea that you should verify your legal identity to load a website is reprehensible and not something that should be treated seriously. It should be ridiculed like the authoritarian nonsense it is.

>>reliab+(OP)
Yes, in a perfect world the downsides are limited. But in the world we live in I predict a lot more leaks similar to the Tea app hack (which contained a lot of passports, linked to some quite private data from chats like medical documents)

The biggest hope I see is that the EU also wants to implement age restrictions, but with a lot more effort to get it right and make it compatible with a strong desire for privacy. Maybe that will make "proper" implementations easy and common enough that many of the downsides will be mitigated

>>reliab+(OP)
The only property of the implementation necessary for sextortion to happen is that it will be imperfect, at least once. Which is guaranteed.

>>pc86+Z8
Maybe, maybe not. It should be debated, and all the pros and cons should be considered.

But age verification as a concept is a completely separate issue from the implementation of the verification system itself.

>>wongar+ma
Leaks of what? The tea app are morons — they literally stored the data! Why did they do it? Why not to delete immediately after verification?

Anyway, there are two questions here:

1. Do we need to verify the age of internet users?

2. How can we do it without sacrificing privacy of everyone involved?

>>TZubir+Lh
It seems to me that your argument is: if the system can make mistakes, it should not exist.

However, no systems are fault free. Whether we are talking about computing systems, mechanical systems, or societal ones.

Sometimes police can arrest an innocent person before they realize the mistake and release them.

Should we stop policing completely? Or maybe the right question to ask is “how do we minimize the chance for police to make mistakes?”. Note, these are two separate issues:

1. Do we need the police at all?

2. How do we make police to not arrest innocent people all the time?

>>reliab+er
"It seems to me that your argument is: if the system can make mistakes, it should not exist"

"When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’"

>>TZubir+ly
I do not know why it’s so difficult for you to engage in good faith.

The same reasoning you use for extortion applies to many other systems we have today. Should we abolish them because they have failures?

>>reliab+cq
> Why did they do it?

You can't monetise the data you don't store

>>ta1243+3a1
How can you monetize pictures of IDs?

>>reliab+JD
You are ascribing thoughts to me (and root comment) that I have not expressed. I recommend that you reread the thread and separate what is being explicitly said, and what you believe is implicitly said.

Then reread it with only the explicit meanings in my and root comment: we are talking about the consequences of the law without making any comment on the morals, probably because we are network admins that see this news as input and we are not lawmakers that see it as output.

I hope that by rereading the comments in this light, communication might be improved.

>>TZubir+TG1
> we are talking about the consequences of the law without making any comment on the morals

Yes. Any law has consequences. Like the one that gave the police powers to arrest people.

>>reliab+sa1
Not sure yet, hence we'll keep it for when we figure that out

>>pc86+Z8
On a factual point, you don't have to verify your legal identity. You can also do age verification by uploading a selfie. (I'm sure that won't change how you feel about this legislation, but let's not spread inaccurate information about it.)