Things I would expect to happen as a result of this: piracy. VPNs. Things I would not expect to happen as a result of this: porn becoming inaccessible to underage people.
Things I would expect to happen as a result of this:
piracy.
VPNs.
Things I would not expect to happen as a result of this:
Some of them wouldn’t even generally be considered “shady” by most folks — there’s already a free VPN built into Opera web browser, and has been for years. And while I believe they’re most likely...
Some of them wouldn’t even generally be considered “shady” by most folks — there’s already a free VPN built into Opera web browser, and has been for years. And while I believe they’re most likely harvesting user data to sell ads, I don’t think that’s considered “shady” these days. 2010 era Facebook has a lot of reputations, but I don’t think “shady” is one I’ve seen much…
They’d sell your data for sure, but they were just a good honest piece of shit business. I don’t think people were second guessing what Facebook was up to back then. They were pretty well known...
They’d sell your data for sure, but they were just a good honest piece of shit business. I don’t think people were second guessing what Facebook was up to back then. They were pretty well known for selling your data to anyone that cared for it.
…maybe we just have different opinions about what “shady” means…
Facebook doesn’t sell your data. They sell a product that uses your data to be more effective. Their user data is one of their most valuable assets, why on earth would they sell it as opposed to...
Facebook doesn’t sell your data. They sell a product that uses your data to be more effective. Their user data is one of their most valuable assets, why on earth would they sell it as opposed to selling a product (to advertisers) that relies on it? With the latter, you keep getting value out of the same data.
Selling data is something that companies with low quality data that don’t have the resources to turn into something useful do.
Right. Facebook sells access to you based on the data they've collected. If someone wants to advertise to 24-year-old men in Topeka who are Dallas Cowboys fans, Facebook can ensure your ad gets in...
Right. Facebook sells access to you based on the data they've collected. If someone wants to advertise to 24-year-old men in Topeka who are Dallas Cowboys fans, Facebook can ensure your ad gets in front of their eyes.
Exactly. Facebook is on the opposite end of that transaction -- I'm sure they buy user data from 3rd party data brokers to integrate it with what they already collect.
Exactly. Facebook is on the opposite end of that transaction -- I'm sure they buy user data from 3rd party data brokers to integrate it with what they already collect.
Plus even more and better hidden illegal market including CSAM and such. Making it even harder than it is now to take down that rape or revenge video. Awesome initiative.
Plus even more and better hidden illegal market including CSAM and such. Making it even harder than it is now to take down that rape or revenge video. Awesome initiative.
This has already been implemented in multiple US states including mine. From my understanding, you have to show yourself holding an ID or something along those lines. The larger porn sites detect...
This has already been implemented in multiple US states including mine. From my understanding, you have to show yourself holding an ID or something along those lines. The larger porn sites detect and block access based on your IP. Funny enough, search requests for VPN in our state skyrocketed when they announced this.
I was shocked when this dropped in my state. Had no idea it was happening. There are still some sites that don't check, but all the big ones do. Definitely not going to give these sites my ID
I was shocked when this dropped in my state. Had no idea it was happening. There are still some sites that don't check, but all the big ones do. Definitely not going to give these sites my ID
Cool, so I guess we go down to our local pornhub branch and verify ourselves there.
In a speech to the Commons in November, Vecchio said “there should be no direct collection of identity documentation by the site publisher from the pornographic site, no age estimates based on the user’s web browser history and no processing of biometric data for the purpose of uniquely identifying or authenticating a natural person.”
The Conservatives have not proposed any alternatives for how porn sites could verify users’ ages without such systems.
Cool, so I guess we go down to our local pornhub branch and verify ourselves there.
I think the obvious option is using third party validators, but speaking as someone who has built one of those third party validators (mostly for the online marijuana industry really, but some...
I think the obvious option is using third party validators, but speaking as someone who has built one of those third party validators (mostly for the online marijuana industry really, but some other uses) you should probably not give your ID to them. Security practises are not likely very good.
I kind of figured 3rd party validators. Its just weird that the CPC thinks this is better than 1st party validation or that they think we're too stupid to realize that we're still going to have to...
I kind of figured 3rd party validators. Its just weird that the CPC thinks this is better than 1st party validation or that they think we're too stupid to realize that we're still going to have to hand over private info.
While I completely disagree with this initiative and think it's an appeal to the "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" base, I don't think it's that complicated, depending on just how anal the government will...
While I completely disagree with this initiative and think it's an appeal to the "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" base, I don't think it's that complicated, depending on just how anal the government will be.
It's technically feasible if it falls on the ISP and cell networks since they're the easiest to enforce and people are sort of OK with them knowing our browsing.
A simple requirement for customers to declare if minors will be using the network/device. Yes you could lie but I don't think a responsible parent would. Some clients can completely blacklist adult material. Others simply have to start a "session" with their ISP account details and multi-factor for good measure. I don't think it's the type of account you would want to share with kids or strangers and it can be tied to IP or Geo data. Yes it's already linked to a ton of personal identifiers but your ISP can probably complie a better individual profile of your tastes than any single site.
I think it'd be the best solution so long as there's no requirement to share the session details with a State Department of Purity. Barely more invasive, no 3rd parties and I believe a reasonable scope of work.
Now if they're going to demand financial level KYC systems for teens seeking titties, then I would love to see what that looks like.
Regardless, people will find a way. Be it through chat groups, file sharing, VPNs, mags in the woods and suggestive MSPaint line art. And these kids are gonna be voters soon and I think they're keenly more aware of how bleak their outlooks are. I'd hope they remember that these guys were more worried about exposed nipples in the face of the cost-of-living crisis, climate change crises, housing crisis, energy crisis...
I struggle to see how this would be actually implemented. How does this “session” work through NAT on multi-user networks? For example, Starbucks, the library, schools, or even my home?
I struggle to see how this would be actually implemented. How does this “session” work through NAT on multi-user networks? For example, Starbucks, the library, schools, or even my home?
When you asked about libraries I was a little worried but realized I explained poorly. A session would be when someone would want to access porn. Otherwise the network would operate as normal.
When you asked about libraries I was a little worried but realized I explained poorly. A session would be when someone would want to access porn. Otherwise the network would operate as normal.
The problem is that the NAT makes every user on the LAN share the same WAN IP address/connection to the ISP. The ISP doesn't really have a good way to tell how many people are connected to that...
The problem is that the NAT makes every user on the LAN share the same WAN IP address/connection to the ISP. The ISP doesn't really have a good way to tell how many people are connected to that router/modem, let alone who's who.
Tracking sessions through NAT (at the ISP level) like that would require some kind of new packet tagging protocol, and it's really hard to do that without upgrading all the infrastructure and middleware boxes in between.
I could maybe see it working if everyone switches entirely to IPv6, but that seems like one of those "perpetually five years away" sorts of things.
You're right, it was bad assumption on what I consider regular porn browsing. I figured its people's own devices on their own network. I'm used to that being the case for all sensitive browsing so...
You're right, it was bad assumption on what I consider regular porn browsing. I figured its people's own devices on their own network. I'm used to that being the case for all sensitive browsing so it's easy to forget that most people rely on larger public networks.
The thinking was a DNS filter on a list of domains or keywords and it redirects to an authentication page. If an individual or household declares their network/device child free, no filter applies. If the customer is underage, public access or just asks, it's blocked. And if you are in between, you can request a temporary exception through the log-in.
I'll be honest, the idea of using open or unmanaged networks for porn is not something I've ever considered and it poses a lot of questions.
But if a government does decide this initiative is an effective use of taxpayers money, I don't think they'd care about the best solution. They could literally implement my idiot suggestion, loudly proclaim that they helped kids and appease their base. They could even use it as an excuse for some really dangerous initiatives like national Deep Packet Scans or cataloging traffic.
And how does the network respond to that, if for instance I am at the library wanting to look at some porn? The way I see it there are some options. only the account holder can unlock porn —...
And how does the network respond to that, if for instance I am at the library wanting to look at some porn? The way I see it there are some options.
only the account holder can unlock porn — public networks would be effectively porn free zones
any user can unlock porn for the network, thereby allowing underage users
Or, what you may be suggesting, users should be able to unlock porn for their specific device on the network without affecting the porn access of other network users. I don’t see how this works.
Not everyone has personal direct Internet access via their cell phone or a wired home connection. This sounds discriminatory against lower income people to me. Also, I’m actually pretty distressed...
Not everyone has personal direct Internet access via their cell phone or a wired home connection. This sounds discriminatory against lower income people to me.
Also, I’m actually pretty distressed at the idea of library Internet connections being censored or limited. There are legitimate reasons for researchers to look at pornographic content.
I guess I really need to specify *public* library or specifically the public portion of a public library. Porn is a luxury. Besides that, this whole policy will negatively affect the poor...
I guess I really need to specify *public* library or specifically the public portion of a public library.
Not everyone has personal direct Internet access via their cell phone or a wired home connection. This sounds discriminatory against lower income people to me.
Porn is a luxury. Besides that, this whole policy will negatively affect the poor specifically. Meanwhile we have carriers with low cost plans for low income people as outlined by the CRTC and yes, those plans have data (3gb). There also ongoing programs to hand out phones to the homeless.
It is simply inappropriate to be viewing porn websites in public at a library. Social pressure alone would prevent all but a handful of disgusting perverts from even doing it publicly in a public library.
Also, I’m actually pretty distressed at the idea of library Internet connections being censored or limited. There are legitimate reasons for researchers to look at pornographic content.
I highly doubt anyone doing research on pornhub is doing so at a public library or wouldnt be able to get around any restrictions.
Regardless of all that, I think 3rd party authentication is what would happen (as you suggested earlier) and that has a lot of the same issues: poor people are less likely to have access to ID and the internet would be censored until you authenticate.
Could go for the classic Leisure Suite Larry approach. Ask a number of trivia questions that kids couldn't know the answer to. "Which form does your employer give you to report your income to the...
Could go for the classic Leisure Suite Larry approach. Ask a number of trivia questions that kids couldn't know the answer to. "Which form does your employer give you to report your income to the IRS?" etc.
I do find concept like that (or cryptography in general) interesting but I only ever grasp surface level concepts. With that said, I see problems implementing zero knowledge proof in this use...
I do find concept like that (or cryptography in general) interesting but I only ever grasp surface level concepts.
With that said, I see problems implementing zero knowledge proof in this use case. The main one being trust at basically every step.
The only way I see this being implemented in something approaching zero-knowledge is using 3rd party verification and also using some method to obfuscate what site is making the request, but then the 3rd party still has my info.
Another user mentions that the implementation their state has requires a photo of you with your ID. I guess to confirm you match your ID. I don't see how there can be any zero-knowledge system that would get around me providing similar proof that I am the person that ID belongs to.
The idea is that the government knows that you are over 18, and can prove to any other party that you are over 18 without divulging any other information except for the fact that you are over 18.
The idea is that the government knows that you are over 18, and can prove to any other party that you are over 18 without divulging any other information except for the fact that you are over 18.
I'm just gonna leave this post that's semi related that my friend sent me: https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/1aw2t8a/hillsong_founder_x_post_thinking_it_was_google/ (For reference to...
This is just going to result in, at best, a skyrocket in piracy and VPN usage, and at worst, a ton of data leaks from third party validators in charge of getting photos of people with their IDs...
This is just going to result in, at best, a skyrocket in piracy and VPN usage, and at worst, a ton of data leaks from third party validators in charge of getting photos of people with their IDs and other private information having terrible security practices.
Things I would expect to happen as a result of this:
Things I would not expect to happen as a result of this:
There are plenty of free shady VPNs that spy on you. That would be a net negative for society.
Some of them wouldn’t even generally be considered “shady” by most folks — there’s already a free VPN built into Opera web browser, and has been for years. And while I believe they’re most likely harvesting user data to sell ads, I don’t think that’s considered “shady” these days. 2010 era Facebook has a lot of reputations, but I don’t think “shady” is one I’ve seen much…
Oh yea, I'd throw 2010 Facebook in the 'shady' column. The writing was well on the wall by that point.
They’d sell your data for sure, but they were just a good honest piece of shit business. I don’t think people were second guessing what Facebook was up to back then. They were pretty well known for selling your data to anyone that cared for it.
…maybe we just have different opinions about what “shady” means…
Facebook doesn’t sell your data. They sell a product that uses your data to be more effective. Their user data is one of their most valuable assets, why on earth would they sell it as opposed to selling a product (to advertisers) that relies on it? With the latter, you keep getting value out of the same data.
Selling data is something that companies with low quality data that don’t have the resources to turn into something useful do.
Right. Facebook sells access to you based on the data they've collected. If someone wants to advertise to 24-year-old men in Topeka who are Dallas Cowboys fans, Facebook can ensure your ad gets in front of their eyes.
Exactly. Facebook is on the opposite end of that transaction -- I'm sure they buy user data from 3rd party data brokers to integrate it with what they already collect.
Plus even more and better hidden illegal market including CSAM and such. Making it even harder than it is now to take down that rape or revenge video. Awesome initiative.
This has already been implemented in multiple US states including mine. From my understanding, you have to show yourself holding an ID or something along those lines. The larger porn sites detect and block access based on your IP. Funny enough, search requests for VPN in our state skyrocketed when they announced this.
That's a big nope from me dawg. I can't imagine giving a site a photo of myself holding my ID and then watching the porn I usually watch.
Yeah, the last thing I'd want is connecting my legal identity to all the handholding videos I watch.
I was shocked when this dropped in my state. Had no idea it was happening. There are still some sites that don't check, but all the big ones do. Definitely not going to give these sites my ID
Cool, so I guess we go down to our local pornhub branch and verify ourselves there.
I think the obvious option is using third party validators, but speaking as someone who has built one of those third party validators (mostly for the online marijuana industry really, but some other uses) you should probably not give your ID to them. Security practises are not likely very good.
I kind of figured 3rd party validators. Its just weird that the CPC thinks this is better than 1st party validation or that they think we're too stupid to realize that we're still going to have to hand over private info.
While I completely disagree with this initiative and think it's an appeal to the "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" base, I don't think it's that complicated, depending on just how anal the government will be.
It's technically feasible if it falls on the ISP and cell networks since they're the easiest to enforce and people are sort of OK with them knowing our browsing.
A simple requirement for customers to declare if minors will be using the network/device. Yes you could lie but I don't think a responsible parent would. Some clients can completely blacklist adult material. Others simply have to start a "session" with their ISP account details and multi-factor for good measure. I don't think it's the type of account you would want to share with kids or strangers and it can be tied to IP or Geo data. Yes it's already linked to a ton of personal identifiers but your ISP can probably complie a better individual profile of your tastes than any single site.
I think it'd be the best solution so long as there's no requirement to share the session details with a State Department of Purity. Barely more invasive, no 3rd parties and I believe a reasonable scope of work.
Now if they're going to demand financial level KYC systems for teens seeking titties, then I would love to see what that looks like.
Regardless, people will find a way. Be it through chat groups, file sharing, VPNs, mags in the woods and suggestive MSPaint line art. And these kids are gonna be voters soon and I think they're keenly more aware of how bleak their outlooks are. I'd hope they remember that these guys were more worried about exposed nipples in the face of the cost-of-living crisis, climate change crises, housing crisis, energy crisis...
I struggle to see how this would be actually implemented. How does this “session” work through NAT on multi-user networks? For example, Starbucks, the library, schools, or even my home?
When you asked about libraries I was a little worried but realized I explained poorly. A session would be when someone would want to access porn. Otherwise the network would operate as normal.
The problem is that the NAT makes every user on the LAN share the same WAN IP address/connection to the ISP. The ISP doesn't really have a good way to tell how many people are connected to that router/modem, let alone who's who.
Tracking sessions through NAT (at the ISP level) like that would require some kind of new packet tagging protocol, and it's really hard to do that without upgrading all the infrastructure and middleware boxes in between.
I could maybe see it working if everyone switches entirely to IPv6, but that seems like one of those "perpetually five years away" sorts of things.
You're right, it was bad assumption on what I consider regular porn browsing. I figured its people's own devices on their own network. I'm used to that being the case for all sensitive browsing so it's easy to forget that most people rely on larger public networks.
The thinking was a DNS filter on a list of domains or keywords and it redirects to an authentication page. If an individual or household declares their network/device child free, no filter applies. If the customer is underage, public access or just asks, it's blocked. And if you are in between, you can request a temporary exception through the log-in.
I'll be honest, the idea of using open or unmanaged networks for porn is not something I've ever considered and it poses a lot of questions.
But if a government does decide this initiative is an effective use of taxpayers money, I don't think they'd care about the best solution. They could literally implement my idiot suggestion, loudly proclaim that they helped kids and appease their base. They could even use it as an excuse for some really dangerous initiatives like national Deep Packet Scans or cataloging traffic.
And how does the network respond to that, if for instance I am at the library wanting to look at some porn? The way I see it there are some options.
Or, what you may be suggesting, users should be able to unlock porn for their specific device on the network without affecting the porn access of other network users. I don’t see how this works.
Maybe we can just be ok with porn being inaccessible at libraries or Starbucks.
Not everyone has personal direct Internet access via their cell phone or a wired home connection. This sounds discriminatory against lower income people to me.
Also, I’m actually pretty distressed at the idea of library Internet connections being censored or limited. There are legitimate reasons for researchers to look at pornographic content.
I guess I really need to specify *public* library or specifically the public portion of a public library.
Porn is a luxury. Besides that, this whole policy will negatively affect the poor specifically. Meanwhile we have carriers with low cost plans for low income people as outlined by the CRTC and yes, those plans have data (3gb). There also ongoing programs to hand out phones to the homeless.
It is simply inappropriate to be viewing porn websites in public at a library. Social pressure alone would prevent all but a handful of disgusting perverts from even doing it publicly in a public library.
I highly doubt anyone doing research on pornhub is doing so at a public library or wouldnt be able to get around any restrictions.
Regardless of all that, I think 3rd party authentication is what would happen (as you suggested earlier) and that has a lot of the same issues: poor people are less likely to have access to ID and the internet would be censored until you authenticate.
Could go for the classic Leisure Suite Larry approach. Ask a number of trivia questions that kids couldn't know the answer to. "Which form does your employer give you to report your income to the IRS?" etc.
This is how I learned to web search effectively.
5 pixels of titties will do that to you
Can confirm.
Was there actual nudity in that game? I never played it as I was too young to even have a concept of wanting to consume media like that haha
I mean it is actually technically possible, using a scheme where the government provides a zero-knowledge proof that you are over the age of 18.
I do find concept like that (or cryptography in general) interesting but I only ever grasp surface level concepts.
With that said, I see problems implementing zero knowledge proof in this use case. The main one being trust at basically every step.
The only way I see this being implemented in something approaching zero-knowledge is using 3rd party verification and also using some method to obfuscate what site is making the request, but then the 3rd party still has my info.
Another user mentions that the implementation their state has requires a photo of you with your ID. I guess to confirm you match your ID. I don't see how there can be any zero-knowledge system that would get around me providing similar proof that I am the person that ID belongs to.
The idea is that the government knows that you are over 18, and can prove to any other party that you are over 18 without divulging any other information except for the fact that you are over 18.
Oh, I missed the part where the government specifically would provide the validation.
I'm just gonna leave this post that's semi related that my friend sent me:
https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/1aw2t8a/hillsong_founder_x_post_thinking_it_was_google/
(For reference to people not involved in church, Hillsong is one of if not the biggest mega church in the world. Conservatives really hate porn huh)
Pious people watching porn is almost as a universal constant as anti-gay conservatives being gay.
This is just going to result in, at best, a skyrocket in piracy and VPN usage, and at worst, a ton of data leaks from third party validators in charge of getting photos of people with their IDs and other private information having terrible security practices.
I really fail to see the point.
This is how you shoot yourself in the foot if you don't like big government...
"Big government" is a marionette they prance about when it suits them.
They're perfectly fine with big government so long as they run it.