Ask Experienced Devs

1467 readers

5 users here now

Icon base by Delapouite under CC BY 3.0 with modifications to add a gradient

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Ategon@programming.dev

Could online age verification be done in a way that protects privacy and autonomy? (lemmy.world)

submitted 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) by 58008@lemmy.world to c/ask_experienced_devs@programming.dev

55 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Apologies if this isn't the right place to ask this, but I thought actual developers with a deep understanding of how technology actually works would be the people to ask!

If you were tasked with setting up a safe and secure way to do this, how would you do it differently than what the UK government is proposing? How could it be done such that I wouldn't have to worry about my privacy and the threat of government suppression? Is it even theoretically possible to accomplish such a task at such a scale?

Cheers!

EDIT: Just to be clear: I'm not in favour of age verification laws. But they're on their way regardless. My question is purely about the implementation and technology of the thing, rather than the ethics or efficacy of it. Can this seemingly-inevitable privacy hellscape be done in a non-hellscapish way?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Zagorath@quokk.au 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

identification isn't a side effect, it's the raison d'être.

In Australia, the law quite specifically says sites aren't allowed to require ID as the method of age verification. It can be one option they provide, but it cannot be the only. Even a sort of sentiment analysis is permitted, and from everything I've heard that seems to be the method most have defaulted to. Social media sites don't want to risk losing users by putting up barriers to them making accounts. People talking about politics and taxes are probably adults. People looking at Bluey videos are much more likely to be children. And it's all based on information they already had used in ways a lot of them probably already did.

So at least here, I think the idea that it's anything other than what they say it is is just an unfounded conspiracy theory. It may not be well-implemented, but it is genuinely well-intentioned. Or if not well-intentioned, the real intent is bad, but not in the same way you suggest—it's just about being seen to do something good and win some good PR for the government, without actually having to go to any effort to implement good policy.