▲ 37 ▼ Trial finds age assurance can be done, as social media ban deadline looms (www.abc.net.au) submitted 1 year ago by Zagorath@aussie.zone to c/australia@aussie.zone 37 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] TimePencil@infosec.exchange 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zagorath@aussie.zone [S] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) The key difference with the YouTube example is that Google requires you to create an account (which helps them track you) and specify the account's age. They also require proof of ID these days to give you access to age-gated content, which is possible, but quite tricky, to bypass. The idea with my fallback solution is that it could work completely accountless. Your browser just reads from your operating system what your age is, the same way they can read what screen resolution you have or what version of your browser you're running. With robust parental controls in place, an OS should be able to prevent a child from installing any software without the parent's consent (by the parent typing in a password that the child should not know). If it's done robustly, the only way a child should be able to get around it is by dual-booting (or live USB-ing) into an entirely separate petition that their parents don't control. And I'mma be honest, any kid who can figure that part out deserves free reign over their computer. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] TimePencil@infosec.exchange 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zagorath@aussie.zone [S] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) The problem at the moment is that the technology does not aid parents in this. Personally, I would like to see the existence of this sort of age-gating API be mandatory, and set some government guidelines, but leave it up to parents whether or not they wish to use it. Because right now, unless they are hovering over the shoulder of their children every moment they're on a computer, there's literally nothing they can do with available technology to prevent children accessing age-inappropriate material. So a law that can help them out without forcing their hand would be great. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] TimePencil@infosec.exchange 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] SuperMoosie@mastodon.au 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] SuperMoosie@mastodon.au 2 points 1 year ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] TimePencil@infosec.exchange 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zagorath@aussie.zone [S] 1 point 1 year ago Well said permalink fedilink source parent [–] Zagorath@aussie.zone [S] 3 points 1 year ago I don't think you'll find anyone in the fediverse willing to defend face-based age-verification systems. It's a complete farce to pretend it's ever going to be viable, even if you completely ignore all the obvious privacy issues and how easily-bypassed it is. People's faces just have far too weak a correlation with their age to get the kind of bright line result a law like this needs. Uploading ID is a better option. Still bad because it kills all anonymity/pseudonimity and introduces enormous privacy risks. And is still not difficult to bypass. But if options for age verification were political parties, this would be the LNP, to facial-aging-AI's One Nation. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone [S] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) The key difference with the YouTube example is that Google requires you to create an account (which helps them track you) and specify the account's age. They also require proof of ID these days to give you access to age-gated content, which is possible, but quite tricky, to bypass. The idea with my fallback solution is that it could work completely accountless. Your browser just reads from your operating system what your age is, the same way they can read what screen resolution you have or what version of your browser you're running. With robust parental controls in place, an OS should be able to prevent a child from installing any software without the parent's consent (by the parent typing in a password that the child should not know). If it's done robustly, the only way a child should be able to get around it is by dual-booting (or live USB-ing) into an entirely separate petition that their parents don't control. And I'mma be honest, any kid who can figure that part out deserves free reign over their computer. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] TimePencil@infosec.exchange 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zagorath@aussie.zone [S] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) The problem at the moment is that the technology does not aid parents in this. Personally, I would like to see the existence of this sort of age-gating API be mandatory, and set some government guidelines, but leave it up to parents whether or not they wish to use it. Because right now, unless they are hovering over the shoulder of their children every moment they're on a computer, there's literally nothing they can do with available technology to prevent children accessing age-inappropriate material. So a law that can help them out without forcing their hand would be great. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] TimePencil@infosec.exchange 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] SuperMoosie@mastodon.au 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] SuperMoosie@mastodon.au 2 points 1 year ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] TimePencil@infosec.exchange 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zagorath@aussie.zone [S] 1 point 1 year ago Well said permalink fedilink source parent [–] Zagorath@aussie.zone [S] 3 points 1 year ago I don't think you'll find anyone in the fediverse willing to defend face-based age-verification systems. It's a complete farce to pretend it's ever going to be viable, even if you completely ignore all the obvious privacy issues and how easily-bypassed it is. People's faces just have far too weak a correlation with their age to get the kind of bright line result a law like this needs. Uploading ID is a better option. Still bad because it kills all anonymity/pseudonimity and introduces enormous privacy risks. And is still not difficult to bypass. But if options for age verification were political parties, this would be the LNP, to facial-aging-AI's One Nation. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] TimePencil@infosec.exchange 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zagorath@aussie.zone [S] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) The problem at the moment is that the technology does not aid parents in this. Personally, I would like to see the existence of this sort of age-gating API be mandatory, and set some government guidelines, but leave it up to parents whether or not they wish to use it. Because right now, unless they are hovering over the shoulder of their children every moment they're on a computer, there's literally nothing they can do with available technology to prevent children accessing age-inappropriate material. So a law that can help them out without forcing their hand would be great. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] TimePencil@infosec.exchange 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] SuperMoosie@mastodon.au 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] SuperMoosie@mastodon.au 2 points 1 year ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] TimePencil@infosec.exchange 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zagorath@aussie.zone [S] 1 point 1 year ago Well said permalink fedilink source parent [–] Zagorath@aussie.zone [S] 3 points 1 year ago I don't think you'll find anyone in the fediverse willing to defend face-based age-verification systems. It's a complete farce to pretend it's ever going to be viable, even if you completely ignore all the obvious privacy issues and how easily-bypassed it is. People's faces just have far too weak a correlation with their age to get the kind of bright line result a law like this needs. Uploading ID is a better option. Still bad because it kills all anonymity/pseudonimity and introduces enormous privacy risks. And is still not difficult to bypass. But if options for age verification were political parties, this would be the LNP, to facial-aging-AI's One Nation. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone [S] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) The problem at the moment is that the technology does not aid parents in this. Personally, I would like to see the existence of this sort of age-gating API be mandatory, and set some government guidelines, but leave it up to parents whether or not they wish to use it. Because right now, unless they are hovering over the shoulder of their children every moment they're on a computer, there's literally nothing they can do with available technology to prevent children accessing age-inappropriate material. So a law that can help them out without forcing their hand would be great. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] TimePencil@infosec.exchange 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] SuperMoosie@mastodon.au 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] SuperMoosie@mastodon.au 2 points 1 year ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] TimePencil@infosec.exchange 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zagorath@aussie.zone [S] 1 point 1 year ago Well said permalink fedilink source parent [–] Zagorath@aussie.zone [S] 3 points 1 year ago I don't think you'll find anyone in the fediverse willing to defend face-based age-verification systems. It's a complete farce to pretend it's ever going to be viable, even if you completely ignore all the obvious privacy issues and how easily-bypassed it is. People's faces just have far too weak a correlation with their age to get the kind of bright line result a law like this needs. Uploading ID is a better option. Still bad because it kills all anonymity/pseudonimity and introduces enormous privacy risks. And is still not difficult to bypass. But if options for age verification were political parties, this would be the LNP, to facial-aging-AI's One Nation. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] TimePencil@infosec.exchange 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] SuperMoosie@mastodon.au 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] SuperMoosie@mastodon.au 2 points 1 year ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] TimePencil@infosec.exchange 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zagorath@aussie.zone [S] 1 point 1 year ago Well said permalink fedilink source parent [–] Zagorath@aussie.zone [S] 3 points 1 year ago I don't think you'll find anyone in the fediverse willing to defend face-based age-verification systems. It's a complete farce to pretend it's ever going to be viable, even if you completely ignore all the obvious privacy issues and how easily-bypassed it is. People's faces just have far too weak a correlation with their age to get the kind of bright line result a law like this needs. Uploading ID is a better option. Still bad because it kills all anonymity/pseudonimity and introduces enormous privacy risks. And is still not difficult to bypass. But if options for age verification were political parties, this would be the LNP, to facial-aging-AI's One Nation. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] SuperMoosie@mastodon.au 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] SuperMoosie@mastodon.au 2 points 1 year ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] TimePencil@infosec.exchange 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zagorath@aussie.zone [S] 1 point 1 year ago Well said permalink fedilink source parent [–] Zagorath@aussie.zone [S] 3 points 1 year ago I don't think you'll find anyone in the fediverse willing to defend face-based age-verification systems. It's a complete farce to pretend it's ever going to be viable, even if you completely ignore all the obvious privacy issues and how easily-bypassed it is. People's faces just have far too weak a correlation with their age to get the kind of bright line result a law like this needs. Uploading ID is a better option. Still bad because it kills all anonymity/pseudonimity and introduces enormous privacy risks. And is still not difficult to bypass. But if options for age verification were political parties, this would be the LNP, to facial-aging-AI's One Nation. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] SuperMoosie@mastodon.au 2 points 1 year ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] TimePencil@infosec.exchange 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zagorath@aussie.zone [S] 1 point 1 year ago Well said permalink fedilink source parent [–] Zagorath@aussie.zone [S] 3 points 1 year ago I don't think you'll find anyone in the fediverse willing to defend face-based age-verification systems. It's a complete farce to pretend it's ever going to be viable, even if you completely ignore all the obvious privacy issues and how easily-bypassed it is. People's faces just have far too weak a correlation with their age to get the kind of bright line result a law like this needs. Uploading ID is a better option. Still bad because it kills all anonymity/pseudonimity and introduces enormous privacy risks. And is still not difficult to bypass. But if options for age verification were political parties, this would be the LNP, to facial-aging-AI's One Nation. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] TimePencil@infosec.exchange 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zagorath@aussie.zone [S] 1 point 1 year ago Well said permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone [S] 3 points 1 year ago I don't think you'll find anyone in the fediverse willing to defend face-based age-verification systems. It's a complete farce to pretend it's ever going to be viable, even if you completely ignore all the obvious privacy issues and how easily-bypassed it is. People's faces just have far too weak a correlation with their age to get the kind of bright line result a law like this needs. Uploading ID is a better option. Still bad because it kills all anonymity/pseudonimity and introduces enormous privacy risks. And is still not difficult to bypass. But if options for age verification were political parties, this would be the LNP, to facial-aging-AI's One Nation. permalink fedilink source parent