Internet privacy, security, age restrictions, VPNs and backups

How have you reacted to internet restrictions

  • I have gone decentralised ages ago

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    23
Why would the data leak be an issue? I had to verify my identity to bet on sports from my phone and order beer online. I would have to do the same to order cape products or firearms/ammunition.
The data leak would be an issue if they were to have to store images of government ID and/or face scans. In this day and age of deep fakes that could be easily enough to make an account with a financial organisation as well as possibly social engineering ones existing accounts.

I do not know what protections your online supply of gambling and beer have, but it is certainly a possibility that that could be a problem if they keep the data and get hacked. I try and minimise my attack surface for that sort of problem.
 
Bluesky has pulled out of Mississippi 'cos unlike the UK version, where they can farm out the problem to a third party personal data broker, they require Bluesky to collect and store sensitive information from all its users, in addition to the detailed tracking of minors.

This causes all sorts of problems, not least because of the potential for a data leak to be highly damaging to the individuals involved.
How does X handle this situation?
 
How does X handle this situation?
I do not know anyone still one Xitter so I cannot say. I do know a few on fecesbook, and none of them have been asked for age verification which surprised me.
 
I do not know what protections your online supply of gambling and beer have, but it is certainly a possibility that that could be a problem if they keep the data and get hacked. I try and minimise my attack surface for that sort of problem.

I'm not sure either. ID theft is a potential concern but I already locked my credit after last year's mass leak (and I don't need my SSN for beer). My online brokerage is the biggest risk in terms of personal data as they have the most information on me. I'm not worried about a leak showing what's in my portfolio though.
 
I do not know anyone still one Xitter so I cannot say. I do know a few on fecesbook, and none of them have been asked for age verification which surprised me.

I never had Twitter. I joined X to troll Bama football when they didn't make the playoffs. X sucks. There are too many accounts that just post the same meme 2-3 times a week long past the point of being funny, and the content I would actually want to see (updates from the Saints, Pels, and LSU) can be found elsewhere.
 
If it is I am not aware of it. Who is doing it?
Not specifically the coded username part, but using a third party provider for age/ID verification. It has the benefit of not directly revealing your credentials to the site you're actually trying to join, with the drawback of giving them to the certification provider and giving them the ability to track the sites you join. I'm sure it's a money maker.
 
Not specifically the coded username part, but using a third party provider for age/ID verification. It has the benefit of not directly revealing your credentials to the site you're actually trying to join, with the drawback of giving them to the certification provider and giving them the ability to track the sites you join. I'm sure it's a money maker.

Correct.

So the third party source would give you a token which you could then present to an age restricted site. They wouldn't necessarily need to know what site you're using.

The pro is if they have a leak, the hackers know only that you received a token. The con would be that simply obtaining a token could potentially be a bad look.

Being verified directly by the restricted site is better if you're gambling or buying booze since who cares if that gets leaked?

Third party verification is better if you're accessing X rated since it can't be directly linked to your activity without a second link. With the caveat that Draft Kings or Juul might do their own verification which would attach a stigma to third parties. Kind of like Only Fans, by allowing adult content, became associated with adult content and deterred G rated producers from participating.
 
***** and Kiwi Farms Sue the UK Over its Age Verification Law Avoiding paywall and auto censor

***** and Kiwi Farms sued the United Kingdom’s Office of Communications (Ofcom) over its age verification law in U.S. federal court Wednesday, fulfilling a promise it announced on August 23. In the lawsuit, ***** and Kiwi Farms claim that threats and fines they have received from Ofcom “constitute foreign judgments that would restrict speech under U.S. law.”

Both entities say in the lawsuit that they are wholly based in the U.S. and that they do not have any operations in the United Kingdom and are therefore not subject to local laws. Ofcom’s attempts to fine and block ***** and Kiwi Farms, and the lawsuit against Ofcom, highlight the messiness involved with trying to restrict access to specific websites or to force companies to comply with age verification laws.

The lawsuit calls Ofcom an “industry-funded global censorship bureau.”

“Ofcom’s ambitions are to regulate Internet communications for the entire world, regardless of where these websites are based or whether they have any connection to the UK,” the lawsuit states. “On its website, Ofcom states that ‘over 100,000 online services are likely to be in scope of the Online Safety Act—from the largest social media platforms to the smallest community forum.’”

Both ***** and Kiwi Farms are notorious online communities that are infamous for their largely anything-goes attitude. Users of both forums have been tied to various doxing and harassment campaigns over the years. Still, they have now become the entities fighting the hardest against the UK’s disastrous Online Safety Act, which requires websites and social media platforms to perform invasive age verification checks on their users, which often requires people to upload an ID or otherwise give away their personal information in order to access large portions of the internet. Sites that do not comply are subject to huge fines, regardless of where they are based. The law has resulted in an internet where users need to provide scans of their faces in order to access, for example, certain music videos on Spotify.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has said the Online Safety Act “is a threat to the privacy of users, restricts free expression by arbitrating speech online, exposes users to algorithmic discrimination through face checks, and leaves millions of people without a personal device or form of ID excluded from accessing the internet.”

Ofcom began investigating ***** over alleged violations of the Online Safety Act in June. On August 13, it announced a provisional decision and stated that ***** had “contravened its duties” and then began to charge the site a penalty of £20,000 (roughly $26,000) a day. Kiwi Farms has also been threatened with fines, the lawsuit states.

"American citizens do not surrender our constitutional rights just because Ofcom sends us an e-mail. In the face of these foreign demands, our clients have bravely chosen to assert their constitutional rights," Preston Byrne, one of the lawyers representing ***** and Kiwi Farms, told 404 Media.

"We are aware of the lawsuit," an Ofcom spokesperson told 404 Media. "Under the Online Safety Act, any service that has links with the UK now has duties to protect UK users, no matter where in the world it is based. The Act does not, however, require them to protect users based anywhere else in the world.”
 
I would have thought most such companies would wait until the UK government tried to get its fines enforced in US courts.

But I suppose there is always one which lets the lawyers jump in early.
 
Back
Top Bottom