Post Av5QeqryfpTi2GLWC0 by elricofmelnibone@mastodon.social
(DIR) More posts by elricofmelnibone@mastodon.social
(DIR) Post #Av20KXqeVLNwy3VETA by mcc@mastodon.social
2025-06-11T18:40:56Z
2 likes, 1 repeats
Always remember- Age verification is deanonymization- Deanonymization is censorshipThere is no nuance on thishttps://icosahedron.website/@bstacey/114666162022621001
(DIR) Post #Av2G2qQkHCRceYy0BM by piegames@flausch.social
2025-06-11T22:38:43Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mcc shouldn't it be possible to build truly anonymous age verification with some zero knowledge proofs?
(DIR) Post #Av2G2r0u6lMsShssXg by gsuberland@chaos.social
2025-06-11T22:52:03Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@piegames @mcc no. I've assessed identity provider stuff before and all the solutions we have still have deanonymisation vectors when your threat model includes the provider being compelled by the state.
(DIR) Post #Av2G2rn7DVvssERNgm by ignaloidas@not.acu.lt
2025-06-11T23:01:40.160Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@gsuberland@chaos.social @piegames@flausch.social @mcc@mastodon.social I think there is some EU ID cryptography work that kinda can keep it anonymous? Or at least I've heard claims of them working on a system where you can get some kind of assurances (of e.g. age), where both the checker and the assurer (which would be the state) can't deanonymyze the usage of them.But haven't looked into it so idk if it would work
(DIR) Post #Av2HJ8I3k1esdGEbY0 by gsuberland@chaos.social
2025-06-11T23:13:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ignaloidas @piegames @mcc yeah, exactly the kind of stuff I've looked at. it breaks down for non-technological reasons: all that fancy ZKP magic is useless if the implementation is told to do something else, and you don't control the implementation.
(DIR) Post #Av2HJ8nxpPBAEDA5HE by ignaloidas@not.acu.lt
2025-06-11T23:15:51.351Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@gsuberland@chaos.social @piegames@flausch.social @mcc@mastodon.social I thought it was open source on at least the client/carried side? Then everything is succeptible to that
(DIR) Post #Av2HYpSfVxHgrvgJfc by gsuberland@chaos.social
2025-06-11T23:15:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ignaloidas @piegames @mcc also the part where you don't even need the implementation to deanonymise people for it to have a chilling effect. the simple perception that what you're viewing or searching for is tied to your legal identity is more than enough.
(DIR) Post #Av2HYqQvttURspsRbU by ignaloidas@not.acu.lt
2025-06-11T23:18:42.272Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@gsuberland@chaos.social @piegames@flausch.social @mcc@mastodon.social that's indeed very true, there's some things where chilling effect is needed (say alcohol), but it shouldn't be communications related.
(DIR) Post #Av3hOxyBokA4KNLJlA by gsuberland@chaos.social
2025-06-11T23:00:35Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@piegames @mcc for example, one of the better implementations I looked at works like this:a website requires proof of identity from the user. that website forwards the user to an identity mediator. the identity mediator supports a range of identity providers, and the user picks one. the identity mediator forwards them to the identity provider without revealing which website it is for. the user proves their identity. a proof token is returned without revealing which provider it came from.
(DIR) Post #Av3hOypMd2hCzIDmds by gsuberland@chaos.social
2025-06-11T23:05:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@piegames @mcc this wasn't implemented for proof of age, but it's the same kind of design.the key goal here was privacy preservation. the website shouldn't know which types of identity your carry, or what providers might be able to prove that identity. the identity provider shouldn't know anything about what you're trying to get your ID verified for, because that could be anything, including sensitive or personal matters.when implemented properly, you can have some pretty strong guarantees.
(DIR) Post #Av3hOzPATvKsmKyNRw by gsuberland@chaos.social
2025-06-11T23:08:42Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@piegames @mcc the fundamental problem is trust. no matter how clever the cryptography, you have to trust that the system operates as designed and and does not disclose information or allow collusion / deanonymisation through error or intentional manipulation. it's an acceptable risk if we're talking about getting your driver's license updated, but not for general-purpose age verification on information deemed to be age-sensitive by the state (even if we ignore the fundamental censorship there)
(DIR) Post #Av3hP0AfdJKj9fCJUW by gsuberland@chaos.social
2025-06-11T23:10:56Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@piegames @mcc since the state controls the standards and systems by which the verification is performed, and the state mandates the information classes which must be restricted behind age verification, there's no technological trickery that gets you out of that bind. it's broken right at the core of the threat model.
(DIR) Post #Av3hP0ziZWANhz553g by piegames@flausch.social
2025-06-12T07:01:51Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@gsuberland @mcc Thank you. I'm naive and my cryptography is rusty. But assume: the ID card contains a TPM with an identity certificate. I can zero knowledge prove to a website that I own such a certificate without revealing it, the proof protocol is open and its result can be verified. What am I missing?
(DIR) Post #Av3hP1Y6VffjQdAXei by mcc@mastodon.social
2025-06-12T15:05:17Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@piegames @gsuberland Holy shit I am not letting my id card have an E2E connection to a remote server, why the fuck would I trust that. E2E is supposed to protect the user's data from other parties. A TPM on the other hand is a chip that allows third parties to protect their data from *me*. You're suggesting my ID card should have a private key which represents me, yet which I don't have access to! That's Orwellian as heck!
(DIR) Post #Av3hP28GLEazEm5Q12 by piegames@flausch.social
2025-06-12T15:18:48Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mcc @gsuberland "I am not letting my id card have an E2E connection to a remote server" I never said that? And I did not mean to imply that. "A TPM on the other hand is a chip that allows third parties to protect their data from *me*" Then how do you call devices where you securely store your private keys on? Because that's what I meant
(DIR) Post #Av3hP2eWPIOqqpBBIW by mcc@mastodon.social
2025-06-12T15:24:56Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@piegames @gsuberland "I am not letting my id card have an E2E connection to a remote server" I never said that?You said:"the ID card contains a TPM with an identity certificate"At some point, a piece of software makes a connection to a thing which has access to the identity certificate. What piece of software reads the identity certificate, and where does it run?
(DIR) Post #Av3hP3Ivz2j4sA5SHw by piegames@flausch.social
2025-06-12T15:28:56Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mcc @gsuberland the certificate never leaves the TPM, and instead one merely proves its *ownership* via ZK cryptography. All communication is open and verifiable by the user.(FWIW, my original question has been answered since)
(DIR) Post #Av3hP3oq4QFMT70w1A by mcc@mastodon.social
2025-06-12T15:31:19Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@piegames @gsuberland "the certificate never leaves the TPM, and instead one merely proves its *ownership* via ZK cryptography."Okay. So the government requires me to carry a card which has a secure drive on it I can't access. This contains private keys which represent my identity, but which are secret to me as a person. And you're suggesting a system where the card does crypto interactions with a remote server to prove my identity.That's *terrifying*! That would wind up being *ubiquitous*!
(DIR) Post #Av3hP8aULCjrG3L2qO by mcc@mastodon.social
2025-06-12T15:33:05Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@piegames @gsuberland A technology such as this should never exist! The moment entities like websites have the ability to prove my identity , they'll start requiring it for even the most trivial interactions. It's simply too useful a thing. Think about the creeping trend of more and more websites requiring phone numbers for moderation purposes.
(DIR) Post #Av5QeqryfpTi2GLWC0 by elricofmelnibone@mastodon.social
2025-06-11T20:10:10Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mcc This really grinds my gears.Setting age limits on social media is stupid, pointless, and draconian. Might as well set an age limit on the village square.The best defense against the negatives of social media, are internet literacy and critical thinking skills. Trying to keep young people away from social media will have the opposite effect. Especially when it'll apparently be fine for them to talk to their AI Girlfriends instead. Yikes.1/2
(DIR) Post #Av5Qery2alvFRMBsHY by mu@mastodon.nz
2025-06-12T09:20:52Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@elricofmelnibone I disagree. I think social media has proved that it is causing harm to everyone, but including kids. We put safety rules on driving, drinking and cigarettes, it would seem sensible to do something about social media. Now, is *this* intervention going to work? Maybe not, but we need to try something, and maybe it will work.
(DIR) Post #Av5QesrhFqRSDyEK24 by untsuki@udongein.xyz
2025-06-13T11:44:38.761612Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mu @elricofmelnibone None of the measures you listed existing require long-term storage of personal id by a third party (excluding government itself, but it's not specifically, like, looking at you buying specific alchoholic beverage).But this, even if you try to introduce some complex cryptographical trickery, will still involve handling of data, that could deanonymize the person if any single party involved mishandles the data they get to proccess. And this point, I, and many more people who are either paranoid or have a specific threat model on mind, would rather try to circumvent this system in any way they can. And chidren will, too. And we are left with the system that:- Somewhat excludes kids (supposedly good, let's assume children who rely on online friends as the only support they have don't exist).- Excludes anyone who isn't willing to give out their identifiable information.- Doesn't exclude kids that, idk, trick their grandparents to give them their ids or buy accounts at the newly emerged black market of accounts. Such kids would definitely try to search something harmful for them for fun, too, feeling intoxicated with freedom.- Is a major pain in the ass to social media operators, which would render nearly impossible to operate, like, a small fediverse server on your own without either geoblocking or being blocked in countries where this system is enforced.
(DIR) Post #Av5Qeuw1Yj5kdyGo3U by elricofmelnibone@mastodon.social
2025-06-11T20:10:20Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mcc Protecting the online privacy of everyone, including children, is important. Just like protecting their offline privacy. Age verification garbage will inevitably lead to even more centralisation, easier censorship, less informed citizenry, and dumber children.We, as a society, are failing to adequately find a new social contract that works for everyone, and we really should get on that, instead of trying to restrict more and more rights in the name of "safety".2/2
(DIR) Post #Av7FKATPsiKZZhiDs8 by mu@mastodon.nz
2025-06-13T20:57:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@untsuki I mean, yeah, making it harder for kids to get into harmful situations is the point. I don't think anyone feels that getting 100% compliance would be likely, just like minors at the moment drive cars and drink, but if it's harder to get there, fewer will be harmed.And I imagine that the whole point behind having some government or third party handle the id requirements would be so that (for example) small Mastodon servers wouldn't have to do that.
(DIR) Post #Av7FKBmF2Cz1cNWlqy by mu@mastodon.nz
2025-06-13T21:00:38Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@untsuki as a side note, most instances already require personally identifiable information, specifically most require an email address.
(DIR) Post #Av7FKCmzGvAqkyssee by untsuki@udongein.xyz
2025-06-14T08:47:05.484143Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mu Email address is not an identifaable information to the same extend. At least in some countries, phone number is, since you need to show id and provider stores your legal name, but getting a email may require little to no info at all (one-time emails, or invite-based smaller ones, etc.). Third party or government handling that info will still open up unnecessary risk of mishandling that data, and once again, it will be easier to circumvent the whole system than to convince a child to not attempt to circumvent it, leading to a child just lying about their age on the internet, which will more likely harm them than not.
(DIR) Post #Av7FcIVOl1mFhLHg0m by untsuki@udongein.xyz
2025-06-14T08:50:24.653629Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mu I think my general point is, the only way to protect children from harm on the internet is for parents of said children to resposibly educate their children, while maintaining their trust.And while it's hard to expect that's always the case, it's still their responsibility, not of the random adults on the internet who will be engangered from legislations that attempt to force a technical solution to a social issue.
(DIR) Post #Av7HMWNxaGnA1NPU00 by untsuki@udongein.xyz
2025-06-14T09:09:58.328345Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mu And also, I'm not speaking just theoretically here.I was a child, and me trusting my parents got me away from most harm until late teens, and only then my curiosity led me to go to places underage me should've avoided. And my government banning porn sites, requiring age verifications on social media via requiring id-bound phone number, and an adult-only chat being very strict about banning underage folks, none of it really stopped me at the time, and only led me to keep it more secret. And even then, my parents' guidance still protected me a lot.
(DIR) Post #Av94n3kbFHUvwVF9l2 by mu@mastodon.nz
2025-06-14T21:56:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@untsuki I'm glad you were helped by your parents advice, but not everyone will be in that position. Right now people are getting hurt, and if enough parents were spontaneously able to educate their kids, then a lot fewer people would getting hurt. So, we both agree there are too many people getting hurt. I admire your faith in some sort of education campaign for parents and guardians, but I don't think it will be as effective as legislative controls. And yes, I think some kids will get past it, although the number will be fewer if it's will designed, but if you stop enough, it will be worth it. And yes, any time you have someone storing more information, there is a risk it could leak, but I feel we already trust the government with personal information that could cause us harm, because as a society we have agreed that the risk is worth the peace of mind. And this can be designed in a pretty good way also. All I know is that the current system isn't working, and I tend to feel that education will be less effective than some sort of mandate. There is a risk that it will be designed poorly, but there is the same risk with education campaigns.
(DIR) Post #Av94n4kHXwq11o6Ptw by untsuki@udongein.xyz
2025-06-15T05:58:26.634802Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mu So you absolutely ignored everything I said about how in every variation that currently was thought of, such mandate it will be uneffective to the point it will be more of an insentive for children to lie their way through and then getting hurt more?Also, "So we both agree that way too many people getting hurt" - I never said that specifically in the way you mean it. I am sure that amount of people getting hurt from social media is comparable to amount of people getting hurt from domestic abuse, or social isolation of sorts, and system that excludes children from social media will harm those people leaving them with no moral support they are getting from there.Of course, they could keep in contact with some direct friends and communities via messengers, but most of those are a social media in a thin veiled disguise nowadays, so in that regard it would be a more dangerous than social media anyway, as it's semi-private...Like, in theory, this is for the greater good of protecting children, but in practice, even technically well designed system could harm both children and adults. And do you really trust governments to not turn a system requiring a national id into a survelliance machine? Because I don't, even EU already devised some law projects that were supposedly made to protect children but were technical disasters for security and privacy.
(DIR) Post #Av95qzOzSHELZIZcdE by untsuki@udongein.xyz
2025-06-15T06:10:26.676762Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mu Of course, if there would be a well-designed, privacy-respecting way to age check, a proven mechanism that social media could adopt, and social media was just forced to, it would eliminate a lot of issues (not all, of course, it is still up to debate whether we should at all, but I don't think I'll ever convince you otherwise).But given that this isn't the case, this whole initiative in it's various forns is governments reaching to the places they don't understand and attempting to force a technical solution to social issue without predicting consequences, at best, and a thin veiled excuse to put a surveliance machine here, at worst.