GitHub's take on age assurance for developers(github.blog)
github.blog
GitHub's take on age assurance for developers
https://github.blog/news-insights/policy-news-and-insights/why-age-assurance-laws-matter-for-developers/
22 comments
When they write "GitHub", I guess they mean "Microsoft"? Maybe this is the hero we deserve, but it's not the hero we need.
There's a war for digital ID.
The most costly part of Identification is the last mile. Paying the employee/cop/etc who asks for your ID and check it.
With digital IDs, there's several players fighting to consume that cost as profit.
Microsoft is a huge player. It is the sole reason windows11 requires a TPM device, so that your windows11 device can be used for identity attestation like an iphone can. (I mean, I don't buy that device bound keys are a valid solution, but i'm not the one being fooled in governments around the world to buy this up)
So, no, microsoft will definitely not by the hero of anything here.
The most costly part of Identification is the last mile. Paying the employee/cop/etc who asks for your ID and check it.
With digital IDs, there's several players fighting to consume that cost as profit.
Microsoft is a huge player. It is the sole reason windows11 requires a TPM device, so that your windows11 device can be used for identity attestation like an iphone can. (I mean, I don't buy that device bound keys are a valid solution, but i'm not the one being fooled in governments around the world to buy this up)
So, no, microsoft will definitely not by the hero of anything here.
Right, GitHub of old is long gone.
You know that thing where someone is dying and they tell you about these plans they have, and you both know deep down that they are dying, but you let them talk as if they weren't?
"Policymakers around the world are advancing age assurance proposals to protect children and teens online." Noone is doing this in order to "protect children"
I find it a bit embarrassing that this kind of propaganda is in the first page without any form of disclaimer.
Are you saying that the proposals will not protect children?
Or that they may protect children, and that is being presented as the rationale behind such proposals, but that is not the real underlying reason?
Or that they may protect children, and that is being presented as the rationale behind such proposals, but that is not the real underlying reason?
finding it increasingly difficult to summon any optimism with respect to this stuff. opposing policy, proponents of which can fall back on "think of the children", is an uphill battle with both hands tied behind your back. the way things are going, someone born today, by the time they reach my age, simply won't have been able to get in touch with 90% of interests i value and give my life meaning.
back in my time as an (inadvisably) precociously online kid, the only real age barrier was having a credit card, so i had to beg/borrow/steal my way to someone on irc giving me a shell to a vps, and pay some other rando with a steam gift card to buy a domain then transfer it to my registrar account. and like that, i could start developing a presence in whatever online communities i insinuated myself into by acting mature enough nobody gave my age a second thought. physical realities like divorce and school troubles came and went, but moving and shaking online gave me my most steadfast friends and s/o to this day.
shift the timeframe a couple decades and i would have instead been gated by an id upload. bleak.
back in my time as an (inadvisably) precociously online kid, the only real age barrier was having a credit card, so i had to beg/borrow/steal my way to someone on irc giving me a shell to a vps, and pay some other rando with a steam gift card to buy a domain then transfer it to my registrar account. and like that, i could start developing a presence in whatever online communities i insinuated myself into by acting mature enough nobody gave my age a second thought. physical realities like divorce and school troubles came and went, but moving and shaking online gave me my most steadfast friends and s/o to this day.
shift the timeframe a couple decades and i would have instead been gated by an id upload. bleak.
The day GitHub requires me to provide an ID is the day I quit GitHub.
Can someone please ELI5?
AFAICT they're basically saying "hey lawmakers we're not going to rock the boat or take a stand so in exchange pretty please don't lump us into the app store category"
Go and play outside.
Maybe age assurance should be in the display. The display's camera has to verify the age of the viewer to display adult content.
That might be simpler. Estimating age with a camera is already common in China. Cameras are cheap, and displays now probably have enough processing power to do it locally.
Will work for TVs, too.
That might be simpler. Estimating age with a camera is already common in China. Cameras are cheap, and displays now probably have enough processing power to do it locally.
Will work for TVs, too.
Again, the point of this legislation is not about protecting children. It's about ending anonymity on the web.
Any solution that cannot be evolved into "we must know who you are before you can access the web" will fail at the gate.
Any solution that cannot be evolved into "we must know who you are before you can access the web" will fail at the gate.
This is an alternative to use as a talking point against that.
Yes of course, let's add a government mandated camera to every display that won't be abused at all. And of course this will also need the display connection and the rest of the PC DRM'd to hell so can't trivially spoof any of this.
> And of course this will also need the display connection and the rest of the PC DRM'd to hell so can't trivially spoof any of this.
That's already in place. That's how High Definition Content Protection (HDCP) works - DRM in the display.
That's already in place. That's how High Definition Content Protection (HDCP) works - DRM in the display.
Kids have already found that drawing a false mustache on themself works to defeat age checks using a camera.
Your comment is constructive but I think it would be difficult for me to disagree more. Perhaps we should stop having a moral panic and realize that a few bad actors are pushing these laws in an attempt to dodge responsibility. Let's instead ban automated advertising targeted at an individual level as well as black box personalized "engagement" (ie outrage) algorithms.
It would probably also be a good idea to find a way to ban gambling mechanics in games because if we recognize casinos as vices that lead to widespread social dysfunction and that children have no business whatsoever interacting with them then it follows that gacha games are very clearly an end run around the spirit of the law.
It would probably also be a good idea to find a way to ban gambling mechanics in games because if we recognize casinos as vices that lead to widespread social dysfunction and that children have no business whatsoever interacting with them then it follows that gacha games are very clearly an end run around the spirit of the law.
Why don't you teach your children instead? Seems to have worked well for the last millennia.
Or did you have a guard posted at every door at your home?
Or did you have a guard posted at every door at your home?