this post was submitted on 01 May 2026
121 points (98.4% liked)

Canada

11924 readers
424 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 Sports

Baseball

Basketball

Curling

Hockey

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Has passed third Senate reading 15/4/2026

Has passed first House of Commons reading 30/4/2026.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old

*identity verification

[–] Malyca@lemmy.zip 5 points 6 hours ago

Funny how coordinated this global surveillance movement is. Almost enough to lend credence to tin foil conspiracies.

[–] brax@sh.itjust.works 26 points 17 hours ago

Lmao, what a waste of tax dollars. Like, it's been a complete failure in the other countries that have lobotomized themselves and done it - yeah we should do it too! What could possibly go wrong?

...idiots

[–] GuyIncognito@lemmy.ca 6 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

So I'm gonna have to go on the darkweb to see pictures of naked milves?

They will track that to, we're going to need to go back to Gutenberg presses

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 11 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

i'm not saying this isn't BAD but honestly it's hard to care that much because the internet i care about is already dead, anyway. we need to build our own mesh network

[–] a_gee_dizzle@lemmy.ca 1 points 14 hours ago

How can we build a mesh network for the internet?

[–] tleb@lemmy.ca 26 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Age verification would be fine if it was an OAuth type thing - I sign in with the government on the government's website, they report back that I have the 18+ grant. I don't know why they're going in this direction of just requiring that private companies collect a bunch of personal information to "verify" me

[–] nik282000@lemmy.ca 16 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Is there anything to stop the government side from compiling a list of users and the sites that request verification? Because that just makes a centralized target for hacking or internal crime. There's got to be a way that allows for both verification and zero trust :/

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 10 points 16 hours ago

Or just the next government comes in and targets gay/trans people based on the websites they use.

[–] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 16 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

I mean...yeah...but it sounds really bad on the surface.

Crypto. Namely, certificates or smartcards.

Imagine if your driver's license were a smartcard. It'd essentially just be a cryptographic key pair that asserts that you are "you" because the card says you are and you both have the card and know the unlock PIN.

Now, that sounds like the government could easily track you, but not quite. All that really matters is that the certificate is valid. Not expired, not revoked, and there is a mutual trust in a third party (the issuer).

This doesn't require a query to the issuer. It can, and should, i.e. using OCSP or CRLs. CRLs, in particular, are a bit better here...instead of the service going back to the issuer and saying "is this certificate still good", instead, the issuer periodically publishes a list of all revoked serial numbers that get downloaded by anybody who wants them.

The important thing is, the service provider (i.e. the website) never has to ask about you by name. They know you are you, because you possess your private keys, and they trust that the issuer of your certificate (a corresponding public key, signed by the issuers private key) is thorough in verifying your identity.

I think a mutual-third-party trust model (basically, certificates) is about as good as it can get. I don't think you can verify without trust. That's not how the proverb goes. Not at all.

[–] teyrnon@sh.itjust.works 9 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

If age verification was an inevitability, you might be right here. I do not think we should accept age verification as an inevitability. This is a cynical attempt to 1984 us.

[–] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 6 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

I really do feel that there should be an official means to verify your identity online. And it 100% should not be this shady bullshit we are being sold of uploading a video of your face and drivers license. Government-issued cryptographic identifies are about as good as you can get for something thats universally trusted (enough) to issue and validate IDs. That's...kind of their thing.

But...it needs to be reserved for when you need to do "official" stuff, like accessing your health records, banks, interacting with the government, signing forms as legally required, signing emails (at senders discretion), etc.

Needing to provide your ID to shitpost on reddit or search yandex for femboy dwarves is a bridge too far.

[–] teyrnon@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 hours ago

But it was always about identifying everyone in seeing who is jerking off to what, and so forth. You are saying we need we need to bring the Trojan Horse Behind the Walls, I am saying we don't.

[–] prodigalsorcerer@lemmy.ca 3 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

That has the same issue as a lot of privacy-protecting age verification services, which is that there's never actually a moment when someone verifies that you are you.

Like, if someone sold their key and password to a few people, it would still work everywhere and there would be no obvious reason for the key to be revoked. All it takes is one poorly implemented (or malicious) website to capture everyone's keys and passwords, and then they sell them to kids.

I don't think there's a way to avoid that issue. You can either implement privacy or verifiability, but not both, and governments are going to trend towards verifiability.

[–] panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 1 points 16 hours ago

There should be no reason that any website gets access to your private key.

[–] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 1 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

This just demonstrates a common misconception of smartcards. The private keys are non exportable. They never leave the card. They can't. Leaving the card destroys them.

The PIN may be compromised, but without physically having the card, the PIN is worthless. Likewise, without the PIN, the card is worthless. You have to have both.

Now, yeah, people could sell them...but the only people who would are the very same whose identity is already practically "worthless" (in the capitalist sense) to begin with, so the market sort of solves itself there. If a person's identity were of any value, they wouldn't need to sell it.

It can be used for authentication, but it should be thought of more as a signature (but in many ways more secure and verifiable)

[–] prodigalsorcerer@lemmy.ca 1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Can you explain how I'd use my smartcard to verify my age on a website? Does everyone need to buy a card reader for their computer?

[–] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 1 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

That's the thing, you shouldn't have to.

But it could be used that way. The problem is, the types of certificates that I'm suggesting would offer no privacy at all, as they would have your real name associated with them, and they'd be issued by the government...essentially, the exact same idea as DoD "CAC" cards.

If it's the type of business that you want to supply with that info, that's one thing. But it would eventually, be compulsory, and that's not really what anybody wants.

There could be a happy medium, where you have to get validated in-person that you are 18+ by a mutually trusted agency, and get an 18+ "badge", through some sort of trusted medium.

Plenty of legitimate, innocent, reasons to be getting an 18+ badge..and technically no real reason to record a persons information, except for anti-fraud measures.

I doubt there would be much more of a black market for that than there is already existing for getting nicotine and alcohol to kids. Shady people gonna shade. And of course, parents can slip one under their (teenage) kids pillow if they think they can be responsible with it.

Either way has a dystopian end...but that doesn't dismiss the value of having an "official" digital identity for "official" purposes (for whatever is deemed "official" by the holder).

[–] prodigalsorcerer@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 hours ago

Gotcha. That was my misunderstanding then. I've seen people talk about something similar: a government issued "id" (potentially tied to your driver's license or whatever) that digitally identifies that the holder is of a certain age, but nothing more. That's what I thought you were proposing here as well.

I don't think there's anything wrong with your idea, but it also seems unnecessary, and makes it easier for businesses to track you - not harder. If the purpose isn't to obfuscate information, they can just look at a driver's license and see their birth date and that the picture matches the person using it. It also doesn't really have anything to do with the subject of the post (online age verification).

[–] DiarrheaSommelier@lemmy.ca 3 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

This is the way. There are many cryptographic ways to make this possible without sharing any personal or usage information with any party. Too bad our legislators as a group are too fucking stupid to understand any tech more complicated than two cans with a string.

[–] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 3 points 17 hours ago

Such is the problem. IME, most people in tech can't wrap their heads around PKI, I have zero faith in legislatures to do so.

[–] nik282000@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 day ago

Seems reasonable. Lets see how our political dinosaurs fuck it up!

[–] Sunshine@piefed.ca 6 points 1 day ago

Regulate algorithms, beef up moderation and dns filtering is the proper way to protect kids.

[–] Sunshine@piefed.ca 55 points 1 day ago (5 children)

We the people need to write to our mps that we oppose this attack on privacy.

[–] panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 8 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

I’m writing my MP, this is important.

This bill is fucking wrong. I don’t care if you think teens shouldn’t have access to porn, THIS bill as written is not the way.

All this bill will do is funnel that pen you watch directly to the US government and corporations.

[–] OrteilGenou@lemmy.world 3 points 17 hours ago

We the people is an American thing.

You're a subject, knave.

[–] CapuccinoCoretto@lemmy.world 26 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'm pretty sure they know. I don't think they care.

[–] panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 10 points 17 hours ago

Still write them. Make them have no deniability of the issues.

[–] ZombieCyborgFromOuterSpace@piefed.ca 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

We the people don't matter to this government.

I tried emailing my mp on multiple occasion and never got so much as an automated response

[–] panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 3 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Mine has written me back personalized responses.

Varies by MP.

[–] ZombieCyborgFromOuterSpace@piefed.ca 1 points 17 hours ago (1 children)
[–] panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 2 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

I do not want to disclose what riding I live in.

[–] ZombieCyborgFromOuterSpace@piefed.ca 1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)
[–] panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 2 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Liberal. I get the feeling is not everyone’s experience, but mine is good.

I’ve found NDP MPs can be good as well, some they’re often community minded people.

You're one of the lucky ones.

[–] imrighthere@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 day ago (3 children)

They don't give the slightest fuck. Sounds like a good time to ditch the net.

[–] thatonecoder@lemmy.ca 15 points 1 day ago (1 children)

No. That's what they want: to silence y'all. Fight back.

[–] Sunshine@piefed.ca 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

There’s literally bad actors paying people $33 per letter to sway their representatives in democracies.

[–] teyrnon@sh.itjust.works 1 points 16 hours ago

You have any sauce for that? They pay influence operations to write thousands and thousands of fake comments and all sorts of things, not usually Americans though, and not individual people, but companies based out of low-income countries like India speak English.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] DiarrheaSommelier@lemmy.ca 3 points 22 hours ago

Time to build a new net.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] runsmooth@kopitalk.net 25 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I think with recent news of the data leak of Alberta voters information, it goes without saying that age verification, and the data leak that will follow, is part of the design.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/livestory/elections-alberta-electors-list-9.7182971

https://kopitalk.net/c/canada/p/431201/alberta-separatist-group-ordered-to-pull-down-list-with-millions-of-voters-personal-info

load more comments
view more: next ›