A company contracted by the government to assess technologies for verifying the ages of online users says it can be done privately, robustly and effectively.
My problem is that for privacy reasons, I’m opposed to any system that requires giving information about the sites that you’re visiting to anyone other than that site. It’s not that I don’t trust JPs, it’s that I don’t believe I should have to tell a JP that I use aussie.zone.
… I don’t believe I should have to tell a JP that I use aussie.zone.
I wasn’t exactly proposing it as a solution, the amount of manual work it would generate to have millions of Australians going to JPs around the country with this for all their social media sites staggers the mind. But if it were to be implemented this way, I’m not really sure how to get around the issue of naming the explicit sites you visit. You don’t want it to be a blank “this person is verified on every site”, because that’ll be abused by everyone (and their kids) on every site. There needs to be some sort of personalisation to the verification.
And before anyone proposes it: I have zero interest in you sending me your personal ID. We are not equipped to store that level of sensitive information, and this is a side-hobby. We don’t take the site anywhere near seriously enough to take that sort of responsibility on.
If Government-issued ID is used, it cannot be stored past the length of time it takes to verify
That just reverses the circle of trust. If I can’t trust the users not to lie about their age (“trust me, bro”) in a DM, then the users can’t trust me not to keep copies/sell their private information (“trust me, bro”). That’s a super-flawed verification method.
My problem is that for privacy reasons, I’m opposed to any system that requires giving information about the sites that you’re visiting to anyone other than that site. It’s not that I don’t trust JPs, it’s that I don’t believe I should have to tell a JP that I use aussie.zone.
I wasn’t exactly proposing it as a solution, the amount of manual work it would generate to have millions of Australians going to JPs around the country with this for all their social media sites staggers the mind. But if it were to be implemented this way, I’m not really sure how to get around the issue of naming the explicit sites you visit. You don’t want it to be a blank “this person is verified on every site”, because that’ll be abused by everyone (and their kids) on every site. There needs to be some sort of personalisation to the verification.
And before anyone proposes it: I have zero interest in you sending me your personal ID. We are not equipped to store that level of sensitive information, and this is a side-hobby. We don’t take the site anywhere near seriously enough to take that sort of responsibility on.
For what it’s worth, the legislation seems pretty clear on this one point (despite being unbelievably unclear on just about every other point):
How that’s going to play out in practice is anybody’s guess at this point.
That just reverses the circle of trust. If I can’t trust the users not to lie about their age (“trust me, bro”) in a DM, then the users can’t trust me not to keep copies/sell their private information (“trust me, bro”). That’s a super-flawed verification method.
Oh yeah definitely. I just view that as a separate problem. Both are problems, but as I see it: