Fox8: Watching porn now requires age verification in Louisiana because of new law. Adult sites pull out (😏) of Virginia due to new law.

[tshile]

7 minutes ago, Jabbyrwock said:

One of the best named papers ever by a guy named Goldreich:  "A short tutorial of Zero Knowledge"

Was it just him saying he knew all about it?

 

 

[zCommander]

On 6/25/2023 at 8:40 PM, dunfer said:

Cant believe im having to argue against a mob to not let kids see pornograhy

 

Then they shouldn't teach porn.... I mean sex education in school then. 

[Jabbyrwock]

4 minutes ago, tshile said:

Was it just him saying he knew all about it?

 

 

I am stealing this, and Im not gonna apologize.

[Destino]

1 hour ago, PokerPacker said:

The problem is that it isn't just age-verification.  It's identification.  If you can create a system that can verify age without being capable of passing on any more information then you'll probably get a lot more people willing to play ball.

I’m happy to allow tech and government to get their heads together and solve this. And at this risk of being accused of trying to force everyone into a burqa, I’ll add that a way to verify ages online is useful beyond this one issue.

[tshile]

24 minutes ago, Destino said:

I’m happy to allow tech and government to get their heads together and solve this. And at this risk of being accused of trying to force everyone into a burqa, I’ll add that a way to verify ages online is useful beyond this one issue.

The problem is we have the tor network with onion sites that basically makes restricting things on the World Wide Web moot. 
 

aggressively go after it and it just moves to an onion site

 

if you think that’s a deterrence I’ll point you to my earlier post where I point out that if all the people angry about internet porn understood how prolific kids purchasing illicit drugs on the internet and having it delivered via USPS is, they’d blow a gasket. Those are on onion sites. You’ll just chase it there. Where they already are buying their drugs and doing whatever else. 
 

There’s all kinds of wild **** going on. It’s really eye opening to learn about it. But beware, there be dragons. 

Edited June 28, 2023 by tshile

[bearrock]

28 minutes ago, Destino said:

I’m happy to allow tech and government to get their heads together and solve this. And at this risk of being accused of trying to force everyone into a burqa, I’ll add that a way to verify ages online is useful beyond this one issue.

 

For crying out loud, enough with the strawman here.  Overwhelming majority of the posts in this thread has been why this particular law is not going to be effective and why government should seek an age verification solution that doesn't raise privacy concerns (and no, I don't watch whatever rotten hell of depravity that is out on the net, but that doesn't mean I don't think that people's right to privacy should so easily be discarded either.  Why do you need 4th amendment protection if you aren't hiding evidence of a crime?  See how that works?).

 

Almost every single poster in this thread has been against the idea of kids having unrestricted access to porn (and I would hazard to guess that the few posts that could be read another way were mostly tongue in cheek). Too bad this law isn't going to prevent that by any stretch of the imagination.  It is also naive to the extreme that there could be any law that will completely shield kids from porn and whatever else horror lying wait in the internet.  So parents better get down and do some nitty gritty hard work of parenting, because completely shielding kids from exposure to these stuff is as unlikely as abstinence being the key to effective sex education.  It's not as if a switch turns on at 18 and people magically become mature enough to handle to the dregs of the internet.  

 

An effective law that balances privacy and access?  Sure.  Almost no one is arguing against that.  But even then, it would be foolhardy to think that the law and statutory age limit can accomplish the hard task of parenting.

Edited June 28, 2023 by bearrock

[Simmsy]

12 minutes ago, bearrock said:

Almost every single poster in this thread has been against the idea of kids having unrestricted access to porn

 

I'm single with zero spawn, **** those kids!

 

[Destino]

24 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

For crying out loud, enough with the strawman here.  Overwhelming majority of the posts in this thread has been why this particular law is not going to be effective and why government should seek an age verification solution that doesn't raise privacy concerns (and no, I don't watch whatever rotten hell of depravity that is out on the net, but that doesn't mean I don't think that people's right to privacy should so easily be discarded either.  Why do you need 4th amendment protection if you aren't hiding evidence of a crime?  See how that works?).

 

What right to privacy? We live in a world where every single ****ing thing we do is tracked. Where we go, what we buy, who we visit, and even some of what we say is captured. We carry a spy device in our pocket and install additional devices in our homes, work, and cars.  We happily sign up for bonus cards using our real names.  At no point in this is anyone demanding that all these systems be dismantled because of a right to privacy.  The ONLY time it becomes such a monstrously serious issue, on the liberal side of the fence, is here. 

 

Whatever right to privacy existed was sold in exchange for slightly lower prices a long long time ago. What we have here is naked panic that someone MIGHT see what porn you’re watching. That using any system at all would carries too great a risk. 
 

 

24 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

Almost every single poster in this thread has been against the idea of kids having unrestricted access to porn (and I would hazard to guess that the few posts that could be read another way were mostly tongue in cheek). Too bad this law isn't going to prevent that by any stretch of the imagination.  It is also naive to the extreme that there could be any law that will completely shield kids from porn and whatever else horror lying wait in the internet.  So parents better get down and do some nitty gritty hard work of parenting, because completely shielding kids from exposure to these stuff is as unlikely as abstinence being the key to effective sex education.  It's not as if a switch turns on at 18 and people magically become mature enough to handle to the dregs of the internet.  

 

An effective law that balances privacy and access?  Sure.  Almost no one is arguing against that.  But even then, it would be foolhardy to think that the law and statutory age limit can accomplish the hard task of parenting.

You accuse me of straw men then trot out that final line? No one is asking that it replace parenting. What I’m saying is that it be regulated in line with every other damn thing in our society. That’s it. Make it, more like everything else. Why must this be the only thing handled so differently? 

[Destino]

33 minutes ago, tshile said:

The problem is we have the tor network with onion sites that basically makes restricting things on the World Wide Web moot. 
 

aggressively go after it and it just moves to an onion site

 

if you think that’s a deterrence I’ll point you to my earlier post where I point out that if all the people angry about internet porn understood how prolific kids purchasing illicit drugs on the internet and having it delivered via USPS is, they’d blow a gasket. Those are on onion sites. You’ll just chase it there. Where they already are buying their drugs and doing whatever else. 
 

There’s all kinds of wild **** going on. It’s really eye opening to learn about it. But beware, there be dragons. 

that’s the least of it. Look into out how little time it takes adults to start contacting girls that start social media accounts. The internet is filled with active predators that troll every possible pathway for victims. Not to mention hate groups, political extremists, and creepy ass niche groups. This issue is minor in the grand scheme of things, and it should be one with broad agreement. It’s not though, so here we are.

 

 

and as for the rest of you I’m fine with arguing with all of you, your superior numbers hold no terrors for me. I will die on this damn hill. lol

 

 

[Captain Wiggles]

The internets a scary place.

 

It's a shame corporations what build all these devices haven't yet put some type of sheltering management type settings on them. 📵

 

I gotta go watch some midget amputee porn to clear my mind. 

[bearrock]

5 minutes ago, Destino said:

 

What right to privacy? We live in a world where every single ****ing thing we do is tracked. Where we go, what we buy, who we visit, and even some of what we say is captured. We carry a spy device in our pocket and install additional devices in our homes, work, and cars.  We happily sign up for bonus cards using our real names.  At no point in this is anyone demanding that all these systems be dismantled because of a right to privacy.  The ONLY time it becomes such a monstrously serious issue, on the liberal side of the fence, is here. 

 

Whatever right to privacy existed was sold in exchange for slightly lower prices a long long time ago. What we have here is naked panic that someone MIGHT see what porn you’re watching. That using any system at all would carries too great a risk. 

 

While you may have thrown in the towel on digital privacy, there still plenty (including the supposedly hypocritical liberals) who are fighting against the unfettered digital intrusion.  Without such efforts, things like GDPR in Europe and CCPA in California would not exist.

 

Also, it's not naked panic over who sees what.  It's a combination of bemusement and disgust that of all the child protection issues that the GOP decided to make it a part of their legislative agenda, this, drag shows, and transgender treatment took center stage. Not school shootings, not child poverty, not the fall in educational achievement.  And they did it in the most idiotic, ineffective way possible.

 

Quote

You accuse me of straw men then trot out that final line? No one is asking that it replace parenting. What I’m saying is that it be regulated in line with every other damn thing in our society. That’s it. Make it, more like everything else. Why must this be the only thing handled so differently? 

 

Obviously, age check on the internet is different than brick and mortar.  Come up with a way that effectively decouples the possibility of tracking activity with the check process (even asking for a credit card would be better than asking for a government id).  Stop trying to pretend like people who point out this very simple distinction between age check on the internet and other age check we have now is somehow pro child-porn access.

15 minutes ago, Destino said:

and as for the rest of you I’m fine with arguing with all of you, your superior numbers hold no terrors for me. I will die on this damn hill. lol

 

What should hold terror for you is not the number of people arguing against you but the sheer incompetence of the legislators who wrote this bill and those who voted for it.  Seriously, a 1L in law school could come up with a better language than this.

[Destino]

48 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

While you may have thrown in the towel on digital privacy, there still plenty (including the supposedly hypocritical liberals) who are fighting against the unfettered digital intrusion.  Without such efforts, things like GDPR in Europe and CCPA in California would not exist.

I’m all for regulating how data is handled. There should be rules for how things are done. I’m all for it… but show me which group is against collecting it at all in instances where it’s demonstrably necessary and appropriate? Age verification is needed, how that gets done is for experts to decide.
 

 

48 minutes ago, bearrock said:

Also, it's not naked panic over who sees what. 

it absolutely is. If this age verification was needed for buying cigars online you and I wouldn’t be arguing right now. They passed laws recently requiring age verification for vape products, I must have missed the thread here arguing that such rules were tyrannical. That such data might be leaked and the great peril such a circumstance created.

 

it made sense because we didn’t want kids easily buying vapes right? 
 

 

48 minutes ago, bearrock said:

It's a combination of bemusement and disgust that of all the child protection issues that the GOP decided to make it a part of their legislative agenda, this, drag shows, and transgender treatment took center stage. Not school shootings, not child poverty, not the fall in educational achievement.  And they did it in the most idiotic, ineffective way possible.

this issue has been around long before the GOP started whining about drag shows. Trying to dismiss it as just the latest GOP wedge issue isn’t going to work. What I think is right doesn’t take the GOP into consideration because, why would it? They’ve turned turned fascist. Until that ends their stances on anything is a minor detail of low importance. Fascists must be defeated because they’re fascists, no matter what they offer on any issue. 
 

 

48 minutes ago, bearrock said:

Obviously, age check on the internet is different than brick and mortar.  Come up with a way that effectively decouples the possibility of tracking activity with the check process (even asking for a credit card would be better than asking for a government id).  Stop trying to pretend like people who point out this very simple distinction between age check on the internet and other age check we have now is somehow pro child-porn access.

Have you tried to sign up your kid for online public library access lately? Weird how much information they demand. Was there a thread demanding that be halted immediately? Which of those privacy groups you mentioned earlier lost their minds about that? Is anyone terrified someone might find out they read some books? No. At most they don’t want the government digging into it without a warrant and that’s it.  
 

 

48 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

What should hold terror for you is not the number of people arguing against you but the sheer incompetence of the legislators who wrote this bill and those who voted for it.  Seriously, a 1L in law school could come up with a better language than this.

Awesome, someone come up with better language. No one seems to be eager to get to work though, so here we are.

[PeterMP]

It isn't like minors didn't see porn before the internet.  That doesn't mean the amount and degree doesn't matter.  And that making it even a little harder won't have an effect.

 

There seems to be a lot of perfect being the enemy of something in this thread. (I'd say the enemy of good but knowing really nothing about the laws and reading some of the posts I don't see where anybody is really citing anything particular saying any given law isn't "good".  Other than it'll happen anyway which is true for pretty much any crime ever.  Including murder.  (It is odd to me when people argue well that doesn't really do any good because it'll just happen anyway without people at least acknowledging that argument could be made for pretty much every crime/law ever.).

 

(In this context, yes SOME will just move to more dubious web sites and places, but does anybody really want to say every kid will.  What percent?  And when does it start to make a difference?)

 

The other thing that I think is important to note here is that this doesn't just affect "your" or "mine" kids.  I can parent my kids, but I can't (easily through non-legal manners) force people to parent their kids (though many days it seems like the world would better if you had to have license to have a kid) and what other people's kids are doing ends up having a larger affect on society.

 

And while the evidence between porn and violence is mixed (

e.g. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-apes/202104/does-porn-use-lead-sexual-violence

 

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ab.20367) it doesn't seem unreasonable that it might make sense to lean towards the side of caution.

 

So in terms of larger society as in many cases, people just need to be better parents isn't really a good answer.  Because people being bad parents is also something that has happened forever too.

Edited June 28, 2023 by PeterMP

[bearrock]

17 minutes ago, Destino said:

I’m all for regulating how data is handled. There should be rules for how things are done. I’m all for it… but show me which group is against collecting it at all in instances where it’s demonstrably necessary and appropriate? Age verification is needed, how that gets done is for experts to decide.
 

 

And why is the collection of identifying information in the form of a government ID necessary for age verification?  You don't need experts to tell you that this is a terrible way to accomplish an age check (not to mention ineffective)

 

Quote

it absolutely is. If this age verification was needed for buying cigars online you and I wouldn’t be arguing right now. They passed laws recently requiring age verification for vape products, I must have missed the thread here arguing that such rules were tyrannical. That such data might be leaked and the great peril such a circumstance created.

 

it made sense because we didn’t want kids easily buying vapes right? 
 

 

 

And they would've been better off copying the vape law because as I understand it their system uses credit cards.

 

Quote

this issue has been around long before the GOP started whining about drag shows. Trying to dismiss it as just the latest GOP wedge issue isn’t going to work. What I think is right doesn’t take the GOP into consideration because, why would it? They’ve turned turned fascist. Until that ends their stances on anything is a minor detail of low importance. Fascists must be defeated because they’re fascists, no matter what they offer on any issue. 

 

And I recall online age check in the past typically meant credit cards, not government ID 

 

Quote

Have you tried to sign up your kid for online public library access lately? Weird how much information they demand. Was there a thread demanding that be halted immediately? Which of those privacy groups you mentioned earlier lost their minds about that? Is anyone terrified someone might find out they read some books? No. At most they don’t want the government digging into it without a warrant and that’s it.  

 

You do understand that public library access is predicated on residency and therefore necessarily requires a more thorough check.

 

Quote

Awesome, someone come up with better language. No one seems to be eager to get to work though, so here we are.

 

There's been myriads of suggestions on a better solution.  Credit card for starters.  Not cutting off the definition of pornographic content at an arbitrary 33% of the website (I wonder how long before somebody realizes they never defined the metric for measuring 33%).  I would also devise a system that puts the onus on ISPs to help filter out porn access, instead of granting them a blanket waiver on any responsibility (because of course the law does exactly that )

 

People have, rightly, pointed out that the law woefully fails to achieve what it intends to do.  You turned around and accused everyone of supporting children's access to porn.  One can point out that the law is crap (not merely not perfect, pure, utter, crap) and still support cutting off access to porn on the internet for kids.  In fact, the more you're concerned about such unfettered access, the bigger your concern  should be at how lousy and ineffective the law is.  

[Destino]

7 minutes ago, bearrock said:

And why is the collection of identifying information in the form of a government ID necessary for age verification?  You don't need experts to tell you that this is a terrible way to accomplish an age check (not to mention ineffective)

 

And they would've been better off copying the vape law because as I understand it their system uses credit cards.

 

And I recall online age check in the past typically meant credit cards, not government ID 

A lot of them had to use third party vendors like that verified your age separately by matching you name address and DOB against public records. If they can’t find you, you must submit your government ID. And they also need the name on you card to match the shipping info which has your full name and address.  

 

7 minutes ago, bearrock said:

You do understand that public library access is predicated on residency and therefore necessarily requires a more thorough check.

so you’re saying when there’s a demonstrable need to verify information to grant access, it’s reasonable to do so.  We agree.

 

 

7 minutes ago, bearrock said:

There's been myriads of suggestions on a better solution.  Credit card for starters.  Not cutting off the definition of pornographic content at an arbitrary 33% of the website (I wonder how long before somebody realizes they never defined the metric for measuring 33%).  I would also devise a system that puts the onus on ISPs to help filter out porn access, instead of granting them a blanket waiver on any responsibility (because of course the law does exactly that )

 

People have, rightly, pointed out that the law woefully fails to achieve what it intends to do.  You turned around and accused everyone of supporting children's access to porn.  One can point out that the law is crap (not merely not perfect, pure, utter, crap) and still support cutting off access to porn on the internet for kids.  In fact, the more you're concerned about such unfettered access, the bigger your concern  should be at how lousy and ineffective the law is.  

I’m happy to support the best available option. Show me a better law to support and I’m happy to get behind it. 

[tshile]

3 hours ago, Captain Wiggles said:

I gotta go watch some midget amputee porn to clear my mind. 

First thought was 😂 

 

second thought was that probably exists 

[Captain Wiggles]

[bearrock]

8 hours ago, Destino said:

A lot of them had to use third party vendors like that verified your age separately by matching you name address and DOB against public records. If they can’t find you, you must submit your government ID. And they also need the name on you card to match the shipping info which has your full name and address.  

 

 

And online purchase requires name and address anyway, so I guess it's not any more intrusive than the information provided during purchase.

 

Quote

so you’re saying when there’s a demonstrable need to verify information to grant access, it’s reasonable to do so.  We agree.

 

Of course we agree because that statement is a tautology.  Where we disagree is whether there is a demonstrable need to verify any information beyond a simple credit card check when the sole purpose is to age gate, not things like shipping or verify residency.

 

Quote

I’m happy to support the best available option. Show me a better law to support and I’m happy to get behind it. 

 

And the main point of the most of the posters on this thread has been that the current law is ineffective and overly intrusive and much better alternatives exist.  That's a much more productive discussion than you falsely accusing everyone of wanting unfettered porn access for kids.

[tshile]

1 hour ago, bearrock said:

And the main point of the most of the posters on this thread has been that the current law is ineffective and overly intrusive and much better alternatives exist.

My understanding is the law just puts in a requirement to verify age. I don’t believe it does anything else. 
 

that’s not overly intrusive 

 

what is overly intrusive is many of things other people have said could be a part of it, if the state was collecting all this info on what porn you watch. 
 

but my understanding is that’s not actually part of this law. If I’m wrong I’m sorry. 

[zCommander]

What if you don't have a driver's license or state ID? Those people are not very happy about this I would imagine. 

[bearrock]

58 minutes ago, tshile said:

My understanding is the law just puts in a requirement to verify age. I don’t believe it does anything else. 
 

that’s not overly intrusive 

 

what is overly intrusive is many of things other people have said could be a part of it, if the state was collecting all this info on what porn you watch. 
 

but my understanding is that’s not actually part of this law. If I’m wrong I’m sorry. 

 

We'll see what the actual implementation looks like.  As it stands, the language requires age verification using a government or commercial "age and identity database".  I'm not sure how a database would qualify as "age and identity" database unless it is actually collecting identifying information.

[tshile]

10 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

We'll see what the actual implementation looks like.  As it stands, the language requires age verification using a government or commercial "age and identity database".  I'm not sure how a database would qualify as "age and identity" database unless it is actually collecting identifying information.

Right but that language could very easily mean they’re simply checking what your provide is valid. 
 

It doesn’t mean the government ever gets, much less collects, any information about you. 
 

for instance - the abc store checks your license and, best they can, confirms it’s valid. But the state is not collecting information on how often you visit which abc stores and what it is you’re purchasing

 

(at least I don’t believe they are)

[bearrock]

4 minutes ago, tshile said:

Right but that language could very easily mean they’re simply checking what your provide is valid. 
 

It doesn’t mean the government ever gets, much less collects, any information about you. 
 

for instance - the abc store checks your license and, best they can, confirms it’s valid. But the state is not collecting information on how often you visit which abc stores and what it is you’re purchasing

 

(at least I don’t believe they are)

 

That would be the ideal scenario.

 

In some ways, I would be less concerned with shenanigans via the government mishandling the info versus a shady porn provider that uses the verification system to now go ham on data tracking armed with personal information of the person submitting the identifying info.  The porn site would act simply as a gateway to drive traffic to the verification database and click through wall of texts grants massive leeway to track all kind of activity by the individual submitting to verification.  We need GDPR equivalent in the US asap (preferably stronger at this point).

[Renegade7]

1 hour ago, tshile said:

Right but that language could very easily mean they’re simply checking what your provide is valid. 
 

It doesn’t mean the government ever gets, much less collects, any information about you. 
 

for instance - the abc store checks your license and, best they can, confirms it’s valid. But the state is not collecting information on how often you visit which abc stores and what it is you’re purchasing

 

(at least I don’t believe they are)

 

I'll be honest, my head very early went to this as a potential working example, but the part in bold is why I backed off even bringing it up.

 

Unless the request coming in is hidden where it's coming from, the government system could in theory know and track it in logs at minimum, if not intentionally in a separate database table.

 

Edit: clarity, govt might not know what you bought, but could see which ABC stores going to and how often, talking porn that may be bad enough by itself

Edited June 28, 2023 by Renegade7

[Larry]

1 hour ago, bearrock said:

We need GDPR equivalent in the US asap (preferably stronger at this point).

Agreed. There shouldn't be a privacy invasion industry.