W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wicg@w3.org > September 2016

Re: Minimum Age verification

From: Doug Turner <dft@google.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 14:00:57 -0700
Message-ID: <CAABcT-vNmicZPXnigoq9tKc2cX2F8ytmKc1wBuN8g4uDAuRLLw@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Cc: Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>, Richard Dunne <richarddunnebsc@gmail.com>, "public-wicg@w3.org" <public-wicg@w3.org>
Somewhat related, there is an ietf draft that uses a HTTP header to signal
that the user agent prefers "safe" content.  See:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-safe-hint-06

This obviously is not a binding confirmation of age of consent, but rather
a simple approach to asking the publisher/server to not send content that
is "unsafe" for some meaning of "unsafe".


On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 1:16 PM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote:

>
> > On Sep 29, 2016, at 12:56 , Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > On 09/29/2016 03:35 PM, Richard Dunne wrote:
> >> On your third point David, a reasonable right to know my age.  If we
> >> take the assumption that all countries have the same age of consent
> >> (18), which I know is not the case, a minimum age verification system
> >> should not be telling me your age, only that you are either an adult or
> >> a minor.  That is the scope from my perspective.  Is that achievable?
> >
> > Examples from the Verifiable Claims work have modeled this as
> > essentially asserting that you are "18+" (or over some other important
> > age), not as your specific age or birthdate, etc.
> >
>
> This is probably getting off topic for the mailing lists, but I would urge
> you to think about what might go wrong, unintended effects, and so on. For
> example, would this enable people to target minors (e.g. for scams)?
>
>
> David Singer
> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 30 September 2016 14:18:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 30 September 2016 14:18:57 UTC