No more holidays for US telcos, FCC is cracking down The Federal Communications Commission plans to overhaul its security reporting rules for the telecom industry to, among other things, eliminate a mandatory seven-day wait for informing customers of stolen data and expand the definition of what constitutes an incident. In a unanimous 4-0 vote, the FCC published a notice of …
Not that they're interested in using it this way, but it wouldn't be impossible for your Auth provider to issue you a token (JWT?) that you can then paste into whatever platform wants to verify your age.
The token only contains proof that the bearer is over 18. Doesn't contain any identifying information. Auth provider don't know where you used it, Auth consumer knows what provider it came from but not who it was assigned to.
Combine that with rate limits (restrict how long tokens are valid, how many each user account can generate per day, how many times the consumer will accept the same key) and you're most of the way there! It won't entirely prevent a black market for them, but nothing can
They'd have to retain a copy of the proof of age in order to prove that they checked your age. It isn't the same as a bar, where you're in and out the same night with your ID on you, or a physical store that checks ID like a liquor store. Digital requirements are and will always be different.
For those worrying about their privacy while surfing porn: maybe you should find a new hobby.
This post has been deleted by its author
But then again, I live in Canada, where our courts strike a balance between competing interests in society instead of giving leeway to free-speech fanatics that quote American laws, and "muh rights" nutbars who've never read out Constitution and Charter of Rights.
We do not have any set-in-stone "rights" because our courts recognize that the real world isn't black and white.
Would it be safe to assume that Louisiana have also enacted laws requiring age verification on sites containing guns, images of guns and other forms of violence? Because, lord forbid, any children should get to see guns and learn about violence that may corrupt them and lead them astray.
Well, that's a Federal thing now. One of the measures passed last year and now in effect requires sites that sell guns (and maybe parts?) to "verify" that the viewer is over 21 years old. And by "verify", so far most of them just have a button to click that says "I certify that I am over 21 years old" or some such, nothing as onerous as this requirement before being allowed to look at another person's naughty bits that Louisiana has.
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
IMNSHO, you're wrong. A password manager is highly recommended when you have to deal with multiple passwords without reusing them. Using the same password for multiple usages is wrong.
I do understand your concern, just don't use an online password manager. There are many local tools to deal with passwords. For instance, Keepass rocks.
> just don't use an online password manager
Indeed. If you're worried (I am), you simply use a local password manager (I do). It allows me to handle hundreds of strong and different passwords.
I'm not so lazy as not to be able to handle the unspeakable strain of having to manage my passwords database and copy/backup it as needed myself, so no drawbacks I can think of.
That won't work very well. Such tokens would be very easily resold, meaning that unless it's tied in some way to the identification used to verify it, in which case the privacy purpose of the measure is ruined, anyone who wants one can probably get one. I don't really like the verification in the first place, so I'm fine if it goes that way, but with such an obvious method of breaking everything, I doubt you could get anyone who wants verification to agree to that method.
This post has been deleted by its author
1. If you are obviously over 18 years old, nobody asks for your ID in a shop.
2. Illegal reselling is possible with any item, but is considerably less in scale. And possible to track/prosecute by token card numbers.
3. The idea is not to 100% protect against adult or shocking content, but reduce the scale of access, to say 99.8%. Some horny teenagers may find a way around, but this has always been so. Younger children are unlikely to be much interested - and they are the target audience.
4. Non-digital age tokens can be made as scratch cards and verify the age ONLY ONCE on the OS account level or browser level. The code is not allowed to be reused.
5. Responsibility will be shifted towards parents. If you don't have children, there is no problem or inconvenience.
6. Anonymity is easily maintained (well, your internet provider knows which sites you visit, but not which specific content you watch).
7. The cards can be sold with minimal price to compensate the tech implementation and maintenance.
8. This whole topic and related tech to protect children will be closed once and forever.
10. Tech companies will save billions on censoring content. Small companies will benefit most.
11. Political and dictatorial censorship will be hard to justify by the goal of "protecting children". So free speech will benefit.
Or just ignore them... they don't exactly have global jurisdiction and good luck charging/extraditing/suing someone in a country where an operator hasn't broken any laws.
I don't even see how they could enforce this at all outside of Louisiana. It's a stupid law with loopholes too... have directories with thousands and thousands of cat photos, so your site isn't more than "33.33...%" adult content lol
This pisses me off so much that I've got a good mind to START a porn website with photochops of those lawmakers fellating turds emerging from a big ol' stretched goatse rectum.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
