Many might’ve seen the Australian ban of social media for <16 y.o with no idea of how to implement it. There have been mentions of “double blind age verification”, but I can’t find any information on it.

Out of curiosity, how would you implement this with privacy in mind if you really had to?

    • actually@lemmy.world
      14·
      2 years ago

      Doesn’t this assume the issuing agency has all employees who are morally sound and not leaking data, unnoticed by an internally badly designed system, which is designed by people who are out of touch? Most things like this are designed that way, irregardless of country .

      I’m sure one can make it watertight but it’s so hard and still depends in trusting people. The conversation here is about one thing of a larger system. There are probably a hundred moving parts in any bureaucracy.

        • pro3757@programming.dev
          19·
          2 years ago

          Yeah, these things quickly boil down to the trusting trust thing (see Ken Thompson’s Turing award lecture). You can’t trust any system until you’ve designed every bit from scratch.

          You gotta put your trust somewhere, or you won’t be able to implement jack.

          • socsa@piefed.socialEnglish
            1·
            2 years ago

            This isn’t as limiting as it seems at first glance though. Sending pictures of a true one time pad cipher doesn’t rely on the security of the transport or the camera. From there you can choose to make a compromise of convenience and get to things like Private key cryptography where the ciphers are done via basic xor arithmetic you can do by hand.

        • actually@lemmy.world
          72·
          2 years ago

          I don’t know anything about cryptology; I have an imagination about how many things can go wrong hooking up parts and running them.

          If it’s the law to make an age verification system then it will be made.

          But I think one either has an age verification or privacy, but not both, in any country in the world.

          I’m totally sure many of the discussions here about crypto are way above my head. But I’m equally sure while any one part will look fine in paper, the sum total will be used by an expanding government agency, crime, or both.

    • leisesprecher@feddit.org
      127·
      2 years ago

      God I hate cryptography so much for making me feel stupid every time I read anything about it.

      I want to feel smat!

        • leisesprecher@feddit.org
          212·
          2 years ago

          I’m not sure what these things have to do with each other. How exactly would cryptography have prevented SBF, you know, a crypto bro.

            • leisesprecher@feddit.org
              48·
              2 years ago

              I get what you’re trying to say, but I’m not sure it makes sense.

              I mean, that’s literally every field you’re not an expert in. And most of us are experts in less than one field.

              You don’t know about medicine, car engines, electricity or tax laws, you have your guys for that. Even in our field, we have guys for databases, OSes, networking, because quite frankly nobody understands those really.

              So I’m not sure what the point of your comment is. That having experts is good? Yeah, I guess? Did we need to have that reinforced?

      • MalReynolds@slrpnk.netEnglish
        5·
        2 years ago

        I’ve always thought that it should be the relevant ID issuing organisation, with whom the damage to privacy has already been done, might as well leverage it.