Awaiting feedback Steve have not read TX law re:age verification SN1035

[dusanmal]

In SN1035 Steve states "we clearly need a privacy preserving age assertion system..." implying that there is none and contemplating various technical schemes to achieve it. However, having nor read relevant TX law he failed to grasp that problem have already been solved by legislators in legal, not technical way. TX law should be commended for detailed and precise solution of this conundrum. So, what does TX law mandate? First, it explicitly states that whatever method have been used for age assertion, ALL INFO&DOCS involved in the process MUST BE IMMEDIATELY DESTROYED and only binary "of age or not" result kept. But, there is more! TX does not stop at mandate but explicitly criminalizes any info retention from this process. And, there is more! TX explicitly assigns the harshest business criminal violation and process it has for this violation.
Hence, prove your age using any method service wants with any info it feels confident that the task is accomplished but, aside of binary yes or no, all other info must immediately be destroyed or the service becomes criminal with known harsh penalties. Privacy preserved by legal, not technical means.

 

[peterblaise]

Hoping no one will 'retain' personal
identification information is not a 'solution'.

What was the 'problem'?

Oh, legislators wanting re-election by catering
to their pearl-clutching voters instead of
upholding the Constitution.

Got it.

THAT is the problem.

No one needs identification to exercise their
Constitutionally recognized and protected
free speech rights.

Unless a convicted criminal is in charge of
the law.

Those with guns ( power ) - legislator's party
> executive's party > police > courts - make
law in practice regardless of their behavior
actually being Constitutional.

Great motivation to acquire a VPN proxy, I
suppose, maybe a few.

Perhaps change this thread title to

"How to randomly bridge multiple rotating
VPN proxies in order to maintain anonymity
on the Internet".

Thanks for the entertainment, I presume
sarcasm or facetiousness, that Texas US
legislators have any problem understanding
let alone problem solving capabilities.

 

[JimB]

Hoping no one will 'retain' personal
identification information is not a 'solution'.

What was the 'problem'?

Oh, legislators wanting re-election by catering
to their pearl-clutching voters instead of
upholding the Constitution.

Got it.

THAT is the problem.

No one needs identification to exercise their
Constitutionally recognized and protected
free speech rights.

Unless a convicted criminal is in charge of
the law.

Those with guns ( power ) - legislator's party
> executive's party > police > courts - make
law in practice regardless of their behavior
actually being Constitutional.

Great motivation to acquire a VPN proxy, I
suppose, maybe a few.

Perhaps change this thread title to

"How to randomly bridge multiple rotating
VPN proxies in order to maintain anonymity
on the Internet".

Thanks the the entertainment, I presume
sarcasm of facetiousness, that Texas US
legislators have any problem understanding
let alone problem solving capabilities.

Precisely. We've all seen the "We promise..." tropes go by the wayside.

 

[PHolder]

Privacy preserved by legal, not technical means.

I'll refer you back to the attacks on Home Depot and Target where 3rd parties got in their systems and kept copies of information (mostly credit card, but that came with name and other personal info as well) or the NPD data leak ( https://npdbreach.com/ ) where the business was unable to prevent the most sensitive financial info (the SSN/SIN) from leaking. Mandating a thing doesn't mean that it won't get breached.

 

[Clev]

In SN1035 Steve states "we clearly need a privacy preserving age assertion system..." implying that there is none and contemplating various technical schemes to achieve it. However, having nor read relevant TX law he failed to grasp that problem have already been solved by legislators in legal, not technical way. TX law should be commended for detailed and precise solution of this conundrum. So, what does TX law mandate? First, it explicitly states that whatever method have been used for age assertion, ALL INFO&DOCS involved in the process MUST BE IMMEDIATELY DESTROYED and only binary "of age or not" result kept. But, there is more! TX does not stop at mandate but explicitly criminalizes any info retention from this process. And, there is more! TX explicitly assigns the harshest business criminal violation and process it has for this violation.
Hence, prove your age using any method service wants with any info it feels confident that the task is accomplished but, aside of binary yes or no, all other info must immediately be destroyed or the service becomes criminal with known harsh penalties. Privacy preserved by legal, not technical means.

If only you gave this law and its governing body the same scrutiny that you gave the CA Data Brokers law in your other message. Texas will expend zero resources making sure that the data is handled correctly. They only put that bit in to try to avoid it being struck down by the courts.