Why?
> They already got so much data on their users
There are a variety of ways (see "Verifiable Credentials") that ages can be verified without handing over any data other than "Is old enough" to social media services.
Allowing for more effective propaganda, electrol control, and lights a fire on the concept of a government _representing_ anyone.
(at least not yet)
To get it from Discord you need to sneeze.
The internet has scale and availability, that physical locations do not.
How so?
Please explain in detail, because there are already schemes such as "verifiable credentials" which allow people to prove they are of age without handing over ID to online services.
Perhaps what we're really saying is "Ban age verification that collects lots of personal information".
Or perhaps we could distil it down further to "Ban unnecessary collection and storage of PII". In which case, Congrats! You've arrived back at the GDPR :)
Which I think is a good thing, and should be strengthened further.
(Also the other response to "because most implementations are not going to be like that" is "why not?". People are already building such ecosystems.)
There is a problem with schemes like that.
The way computer security works is, attacks always get better, they never get worse. A scheme that nobody has found any privacy holes in when it's enacted will have one found a week after.
The way governments work is, the compromise bill passes if the people who care about privacy support it because then it has the votes of the people who care about privacy and the people who want to ID everyone. But then when the vulnerability is found, the people who care about privacy can't get it fixed because they can't pass a new bill without also having the votes of the people who want to ID everyone, and those people already have what they want. More specifically, many of them then have what they really want, which is to invade everyone's privacy, as they were hoping to do once the vulnerability was found.
Which means you need it to be perfect the first time or it's already ossified and can't be fixed. But the chances of that happening in practice are zero, which means it needs to not happen at all.
/goes on to discuss how government legislation of specific schemes is the issue, not the schemes themselves.
Then we don't legislate specific schemes? The GDPR doesn't do that, for instance, it spells out responsibilities and penalties but doesn't say "Though shalt use this specific algorithm".
Remember, this discussion started with a call to ban all age checks, which itself is a government action and restriction on the agency of private business.
There are ways that private entities can implement age checks both securely and without leaking much other information, so it seems very heavy-handed to ban them. Private entities are building such systems between themselves already, without government mandates on the specifics.
Except that you have to in this case because IDs are issued by the government and then it's the government having to provide some privacy-protecting means of using them, which is the thing they're incapable of in practice.
> There are ways that private entities can implement age checks both securely and without leaking much other information
I have yet to see a single one implemented in real life. People point to attempts and then you look at the implementation and it's full of dubious choices and unforced errors, before you even start looking for bugs.
Moreover, private entities have the perverse incentive to do the opposite of implementing it securely, because they find it profitable to track people, or find it unprofitable to spend the resources necessary to prevent themselves from being infiltrated by foreign governments when their business is the sort which is useful to them as these are.
Nope, not necessarily.
> I have yet to see a single one implemented in real life.
There are likely to be a lot more coming as the newer standards in this area were finalised last year. Online identity is a continually evolving space.
> Moreover, private entities have the perverse incentive to do the opposite of implementing it securely, because they find it profitable to track people
Some do in some circumstances, but far from all. Others (often financial institutions) have wised up to PII being a liability rather than an opportunity and some are working on frameworks and capabilites in this space that don't involve any more storage or transfer of anyone's ID than already happens in banks.
Necessarily, in fact, for any system that uses a government ID, because that requires there to be some interface between the government ID and a private bureaucracy that the holder of the ID would be pressured into interacting with. If that interface allows the private party to e.g. learn who you are, instead of just your age, it's only the government that could replace it with one that didn't.
> There are likely to be a lot more coming as the newer standards in this area were finalised last year. Online identity is a continually evolving space.
Evolution is supposed to cause bad ideas to die. The problem with laws, such as the ones surrounding government identity documents, is that they regularly require bad ideas to live. Which is why the use of government ID should be minimized.
> Some do in some circumstances, but far from all.
They all have that incentive, because it leads to money, and money is an incentive.
It's possible to turn someone down who is offering you money, but we're dealing with large scale systems here, and then the incentives determine the averages.
> Others (often financial institutions) have wised up to PII being a liability rather than an opportunity and some are working on frameworks and capabilites in this space that don't involve any more storage or transfer of anyone's ID than already happens in banks.
We really need to get it to stop happening in banks. The fact that every single thing you buy using a digital payment method is tied to your government ID is a preposterously dangerous status quo to leave unchallenged.
You need to 100% trust those verification services. And considering their success rate [1], you shouldn't.
[0] https://thinkingcybersecurity.com/DigitalID/
[1] https://discord.com/press-releases/update-on-security-incide...
First link - mitigation: use a well supported standard like OIDC, not a home-cooked scheme. Duh.
Second link - this is part of the problem such schemes as verifiable credentials are designed to address, random third parties collecting ID they don't need.
Yes, any system needs to be executed well. Neither of these really display that.
The point is that systems today, aren't really well executed. So it is unreasonable to expect them to be well executed.
If you can't trust people not to build the bomb well - then don't let them build a bomb.
Who was talking about the government implementing it? I wasn't.
And also "This has been done poorly in the past so we should never attempt to do it again, better" seems an odd way to go about things. There are well put together schemes by international standards bodies in this area now. Neither of the above links followed them.
Because we don't believe anyone will ever use the standards in this area, despite loads of companies and government bodies actually using OIDC already?
I'm not really sure what you're driving at.
MyGovID _is_ an age verifier. Sorry. The successor after the rebrand, is called myID [0], and advertised as:
> myID is a secure way to prove who you are online.
---
> I'm not really sure what you're driving at.
Clearly. You seem to think that because it might one day be done correctly, by one group, the rest of the world is safe. However, over in this reality, we have fuck ups by governments and private corporations, who are the people the rest of the world actually deals with.
You cannot enforce these real groups, to actually follow good practices. Thus, in practice, everyone gets fucked when you bring in these laws. Because it will always be done the wrong way, by someone.
It's an identity scheme and SSO solution for accessing government services. As said at [0] in the "What is myID" section.
I sincerely hope that they're using something standard and well tested like OIDC behind the scenes this time, because otherwise it's ripe for another fuckup like the one you linked. If it is also used for age verification that appears to be secondary.
> You cannot enforce these real groups, to actually follow good practices. Thus, in practice, everyone gets fucked when you bring in these laws. Because it will always be done the wrong way, by someone.
So we need to stop the Australian government from ever using an SSO/identity solution again because it can't be trusted to do it properly, having messed up in the past, and the rest of us have had to live with the consequences. And as they aren't the only ones to have messed up, companies do it all the time too, we should also ban all identity and SSO solutions (because that's what we're talking about in this thread, banning of age verification, not mandating it).
I don't think you get to call out age validation as a uniquely hard problem that cannot possibly be made safe, but allow other identity-style services a pass. There are many areas in which we (through the government) can and do mandate good practice, both by government and private entities.
Its a sovereign identity verification service. That is not limited to above PL2 verifications. There are age-only accredited entities in the registry.
Its one of the approved verification tools for the Online Safety Act 2021 . It was renamed as part of the passage of the law. You're just not forced to use it, for verification.
And yes, it does it poorly, and does not follow a standard. Its using Vanguard's PAS behind the scenes [1], with extras ServiceNow tacked on. Until they rearchitect the entire damn thing.
So... As I might have doxxed myself a little just now... No, uploading identity documents is never a safe process. Its a king's hoard in treasure before nations that never sleep.
Name a provider, and there will be a breach, and it will continue to affect the victims most of their lives.
[1] https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/administrative-pr...
You should probably stop pretending you understand verifiable credentials then.
Because if you did, you'd understand that they don't need to involve uploading identity documents anywhere.
The idea is to defer to service providers such as banks that have already performed such verification, often physically. And if you want to argue that banks should stop verifying who people are when they open accounts... well that's going to be an interesting conversation.
Without doxxing myself too much, I'm going to say that I know intimately the details of a project within Australia to build a standards-based non-government VC system that won't touch a single piece of ID at any stage, as an additional capability on a commercial identity system that's already active and in use.
I have absolutely not said banks should stop collecting ID. Collecting it in person is a fantastic idea. Holding it on an isolated network is difficult, but a good compromise, and banks are better suited to doing that than most.
Uploading it to a S3 bucket in Sydney, as the ABA do, is a moronic decision. That myID upload it to a Azure Blob in Sydney, is worse than I feel the need to explain.
If you think you can succeed, where literally no one else in the world has, good luck to you. But I expect the same result as Forticode.
> But I expect the same result as Forticode.
What happened there? I can't find a lot of reference to it on the net other than "we make amazing security products" and then "entering liquidation", so clearly a lot went wrong!
It's always possible for people to make mistakes and do things badly, but I don't see "age verification" as some special case in the identity landscape that presents unique challenges. And the system is already in use without major issue (touch wood). Verifiable Credentials will be an addition to the platform at some point.
This is the next two steps into 1984.
Once you start mandating this, there's no going back.
The next generation will start associating wrongthink with government IDs. (Wait, we already do that, right?)
I think that it's rather funny that people like to appeal to 1984 as if the only point of Mr. Orwell was that surveillance is bad, missing the entire point about stuff like the control of the language or the idea that the only self-justification of the (Inner) Party is power for the sake of power (see also: The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism).
I'd even go as far as to say that if "telescreens are horrible" is the only thing that someone takes away from 1984, they've frankly missed the point.
Is it? I thought that was a logical fallacy?
> This is the next two steps into 1984.
How so?
> Once you start mandating this, there's no going back. > The next generation will start associating wrongthink with government IDs.
Could you provide some more details on why you think this? For a start I talked about a scheme in which you don't hand over ID.
I don't see how verifiable credentials with zero knowledge proofs provide that however.
You might be able to get somewhere by getting a tech company on your side, but they generally also hate adult content and don't mind banning it entirely.
(people are not going to get age verification _banned_ any time soon! That's simply not going to happen!)
There are quite a few already looking at this, some in the context of providing secure verification services for the existing and upcoming social media bans etc.
Unfortunately I agree with you on the rest - facts and pragmatism have fallen by the wayside compared to feels and shouting.