Age verification, Failure or Success?

Well we have a keyring system on many companies and our internet banking that requires ou to enter a code from the digital keyring when logging in, not 100% effective but a damn lot better than a "tick a box if this is your bank account " system.
Challenge for you perhaps you can show to us a "tick the box if you are 18" system that is more effective keeping kids out than credit card ID.
Or how about explaining how exactly to implement "Good Parenting" with 100% effectiveness on 100% of children with internet access?
As I said we can't verify 100% that the user is the same person, but we can increase the possibility, just because we can't have 100% defence doesn't mean we should settle for just a "don't access this" sign.

Thank you for your intelligent input, flawed or not the question was "Age verification, Failure or Success?" meaning did you succeed at verifying with Aristotle or not as it stands and that is irrespective if its flawed or not as most of us know it doesn't work very well in game but maybe thats another poll altogether

inheirently = inherently btw

The keyring does not verify the user.

It's still data entered in the form field.

There is nothing saying the person using the keyring to get the data is the person it is supposed to be.

Try again.

100% way to protect your kids online: Supervise them. If they can not be supervised, they don't get online. Simple and effective.

IF a kid lies on the data fields, they stop being a good kid.

i thought the poll was useful.......might give an indication of % leavers once the Verification policy goes through.....although i think that % might be higher if it were proper sampling from all our foreign communites in SL.

60% of the actual SL user base comes from "misc.other countries" category but only 20% were represented here in this sampling.
It also kind of indicates that more than half of the posters here on these forums particularly RA come from the U.S...which is the impression i always had.(i think around 75% actually)

Thats one of the reasons i dragged the poll over, notwithstanding the fact that it will not give a really true answer but I was thinking more of the trends in using Aristotle and what people thought about it all, hopefully over the coming days it will have more votes on it and give some form of indication as to what potentially could happen as you suggest

Supervising them does work, but you can not guarantee 100% that a kid will not use the computer when parents are not present, or use someone elses, so unless you are supervising your kids 100% of the time it fails.
Any kid that can get their parents SSN or Credit Card details by your logic is obviously unsupervised, if we can't even supervise them enough to stop that how is there going to be enough supervision to prevent them bypassing a "I am over 18" checkbox?
Perhaps some people believe the rest of the world supervises their kids, and that those kids fear the US legal system and the same legal system will protect you when you are dragged through the courts by the media, but I do not.

If I have to supervise or babysit a kid because the parents and guardians are not doing their job... I damn sure better get paid for it.

It is not LL or anyone's job to babysit people's kids.

If a parent doesn't know how to set up a password on the computer, or not give the child the internet access passwords then they shouldn't bring a computer into the house.

If a parent does not understand the technology, then they need to learn about it and how to set it up.

All that you can verify is data online, a keyring can be sent to a mail box. But the system doesn't know if the person there is actually the person listed in the data given. Many a mail fraud has been run from an abandoned house with a mailbox by the road.

A password is not parental supervision, kids can learn enough to get around them nowdays so your system fails. It puts the computer doing the babysitting instead of the parents. It fails so no point putting a password on your computer, responsible parents will spend every minute next to their child observing in detail what they are doing every minute.
Well seeing the keyring is so easily defeated, it's obviously completely ineffective agains bad people so then banks and corporations should just abandon all password protection too.
Many a kid didn't get into a porn site because they didn't have their parents or a pre-paid credit card sitting next to the computer.

Nope, a parent can set up the computer in such a way little jhonny can't get online without them there. It's called taking the network cable and modem

Seems you want a magical solution that works a hundred percent, that allows parents to let others do the job for them. Ain't going to happen. Anything can be bypassed and will be.

Plus here is a big catch on the internet: there are no laws that affect all of it.

Country A bans porn sites, yet in country B they are fine and available to all ages because there are no laws.

Country A can't do anything to keep their kids from being able to access those sites unless the parents actually parent and learn how to protect their kids vs screaming like you for some magical corporate/government lock to do the duty for them.

Never heard of the sample page?

Except that the entire premise of your point is invalid.

It isn't about "protecting the children". It IS about "absolution of responsibility".

I am not responsible for your kids. If they want to peek in my bedroom window and get an eyeful of my mate and I working through the Kama Sutra, that's *THEIR* problem, and thus, *YOUR* problem, not mine nor my mate's. Same thing applies to an "Adult" establishment. I put forth the maximum effective effort possible to keep your kids out, but if they get in anyway, it isn't *MY* problem, it is *YOURS*. They shouldn't be there, period, and the maximum effective effort for the internet is to put a sign on the front door that says "NO ENTRY UNLESS YOU ARE 18+". No online age verification scheme devised by anyone anywhere is significantly more effective than that, because it is IMPOSSIBLE to identify who is really sitting at the keyboard, regardless of any information they provide. In the end, it is not the responsibility of the content provider to keep your kids out, beyond not specifically targeting and/or enticing them to participate.

Let's keep the burden of responsibility where it belongs, with the children and their guardians (ie, parents), not with those who are engaging in legal, consenting content and behavior with one another with ZERO intent to involve minors or, indeed, anyone else who is not consenting to be a part of it.

What I find particularly amazing is how civilization came to be with all the sex and violence of humanity's early beginnings. You think parents cared if their kids were sitting there in the cave whilst mommy and daddy mixed the batter and put another bun in the oven? You think anyone else cared? OK, so we're more civilized now, we want to have more control over our children's life experience to make sure they grow up "right" (whatever the fuck that is). Fine. That's still the parent's job, the "It takes a Community to raise a child" crowd be damned.

You don't want your kids to see adult content? Teach them to not lie, nor to trespass, punish them swiftly and severely when they do, and none of this stupidity will be considered necessary.

Obvious Disclaimer: "you" is not intended to refer to the QP or anyone specific, just the group of people who don't believe in parental responsibility.

I totally agree on that

Has there ever been a case of note where someone has been "dragged through the courts by the media" for interacting online with someone they presumed was an adult who was really not? If you know it's a kid, different story. Even is sting operations, it's not until a RL meeting is setup that the crime is committed.

Unfortunately, I have a distant relative who was just sent up the river for 40 years for precisely this reason. He met some girl online who said she was 18, they met in RL, had sex, and he got hauled into jail because she turned out to be 15.

However, a couple things: 1) He should have been a LOT more careful than that, taking extra care to make damn sure he wasn't boinking a minor, and 2) he was fighting it until they were going to reveal the contents of his personal computer, which was apparently damaging to his case (I don't know why; the plea bargain details were sealed). As such, it was a lot more complicated than that, but as far as I am concerned, ANYone who would make plans to meet and have casual sex with that they met online better require proof of age are before they do anything more than dinner and a movie (which is a good period of time to find out with whom they are really dealing).

In general, the cases tend to be very split on the "I didn't know she was a minor!" defenses. No matter what, if you are going to play with fire, you better wear your oven gloves, and cover your ass. That's pretty much the way judges and juries see it, too. You, as an adult, are expected to be older, wiser, and more intuitive about whether someone is a minor or not, so the material facts of the case had better show that you exercised a great deal of restraint and effort to make sure the person was not a minor before the two of you jumped into the sack together. If you did, and can materially prove it, you'll likely escape being crucified in court (being crucified by the community is another issue, however). Otherwise, well, let's just say that prison denizens, despite their sociopathic proclivities, tend to take a very dim view of child molesters.

But that was a real meeting, it left the confines of cyberspace. I was referring to a strictly online situation.

Oh the Sample page is the same as getting into a porn site? Please explain how the magical "tick a box if you are 18" prevents access to the sample page?

there are none

Due to the simple reason the data given in regards to who they are can be false and usually is.

It has to be a physical meeting so they can be sure to catch the suspect, otherwise the DA will not even try to prosecute based on the flimsy information of: This is the ip address used, this is the data used to create the account.

A perp is not going to use a paid account that requires information on them, unless they can use time cards and the like (one reason a lot of them chase after targets in WoW and the like)

Yep so if you think you are protected by laws which is all you are relying on with a "tick if you are over 18" approach then you are out of luck, it provides the barest legal covering to the website opperators, and the legal system could deem it inadequate at any time.
You seem to think if a sytem doesn't work 100% that you are better off with a system that only keeps out the purest of heart kids. Please explain why you think taking the cable an modem can stop a determined teenager, because apparently they still have a enough smarts to get your credit card details and SSN anyway. So there's no chance your litle checkbox will even slow them down.

It's about protecting the adults from the kids just as much, and if you trust the rest ofthe world to keep their kids in check, why are you against kids being allowed to roam SL freely, might as well remove the checkbox, because it does nothing but a provide a wisp of legal obligation for LL, and obviously they aren't happy with this and want more, so it's their game, their lawyers call.
Obvious Disclaimer: "you" is not intended to refer to the QP or anyone specific, just the group of people who believe the rest of the world has parental responsibility just because some of us do.

For the same reason you don't get in trouble at some bars and clubs where sex happens in the side rooms if someone gets past the bouncer at the door with a fake ID.

You need to realize that from here on you're being ignored as a fool that fails to realize there is no tool that does what you want.

The reason there are those check boxes is simple: it meets the requirement due to the fact there is nothing better. So by committing fraud little johnny can get in and see what he shouldn't because his parents didn't parent expecting the world to raise little johnny for them.

Anyway, shoo troll. You're just trolling... but maybe many others will realize all you can do is verify data online. To protect the children, the parents are going to have to do their job because the world can not do it for them.

Just on principle. The little bastards are a pain.

There have been setups where people from overseas have been arrested at the airport when they entered countries before even having a RL meeting. How far the charges get in court I don't know. but apparentl intent is enough to warrant being taken into custody. Too bad for you if that's when you find out they are under age.

People have been charged before from just chatroom cybering with minors, or at least it was used as a basis for search warrants if they find nothing after raiding our house infront of the neighbours with a media circus and taking your computer into custody for 3 months it's all good isn't it? <Sarcasm Mode Off>

Well if you want to give up just do so no need to resort to insults just because we don't agree on a point of view.
And maybe some will realsie verifying data isn't perfect, buit it's better than verifying nothing.

Parental Responsibility prevents that from happening of course