pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @Bell_curve 19h \ on: SCOTUS age verification ruling expands surveillance apparatus alter_native
All social media services have an age requirement waiver, I believe it is age 12 or 13
This is not new or onerous
I disagree. The Texas law that was passed in 2024 says
Sec. 129B.002. PUBLICATION OF MATERIAL HARMFUL TO MINORS. (a) A commercial entity that knowingly and intentionally publishes or distributes material on an Internet website, including a social media platform, more than one-third of which is sexual material harmful to minors, shall use reasonable age verification methods as described by Section 129B.003 to verify that an individual attempting to access the material is 18 years of age or older. source
It doesn't matter what age such laws promulgate. The issue at hand is how age verification is supposed to be done. In almost all cases it leads to identification requirements that look a lot like kyc.
It is most certainly new and definitely onerous.
reply
it leads to identification requirements that look a lot like kyc.
From 129B.003, b2B, keeps potential for doing this with zero-knowledge proofs (ZKP), I think:
(b) A commercial entity that knowingly and intentionally publishes or distributes material on an Internet website or a third party that performs age verification under this chapter shall require an individual to (2) comply with a commercial age verification system that verifies age using (B) a commercially reasonable method that relies on public or private transactional data to verify the age of an individual.
It doesn't necessarily require full KYC; it can be narrowly focused on age verification and can certainly be implemented using ZKP. We (cypherpunks) could address this issue and fulfill one of the assertions from the cypherpunk manifesto that touches on this. 1
Footnotes
-
Since we desire privacy, we must ensure that each party to a transaction have knowledge only of that which is directly necessary for that transaction. Since any information can be spoken of, we must ensure that we reveal as little as possible. In most cases personal identity is not salient. When I purchase a magazine at a store and hand cash to the clerk, there is no need to know who I am. When I ask my electronic mail provider to send and receive messages, my provider need not know to whom I am speaking or what I am saying or what others are saying to me; my provider only need know how to get the message there and how much I owe them in fees. When my identity is revealed by the underlying mechanism of the transaction, I have no privacy. I cannot here selectively reveal myself; I must always reveal myself. ↩
reply
Note after doing more research. This kind-of already exists too, Google open-sourced the implementation they made for Sparkasse, per the announcement (#1022044) from 10 days ago.
- Paper: https://eprint.iacr.org/2024/2010.pdf
- Github repo: https://github.com/google/longfellow-zk
Per response to an issue on the repo, about a quarter of it is alleged to be stable, some stuff is explicitly not (
ligero, sumcheck).Now I wonder, what can we do? Provide an open end-to-end implementation?
reply
and then it will slippery slope into showing ID to fly or enter the country or to vote
How will our 'democracy' survive?
I voted for fascism and hate in 2020 and 2024.
reply