34 ms·

If UK government really cared about children, and not about surveillance and censorship, they would solve the problem another way. The only way protect childre

If UK government really cared about children, and not about surveillance and censorship, they would solve the problem another way. The only way protect children online is to ban them from Internet. Children should not have access to normal laptops and smartphones, instead they should use "kid phones". Such phones would allow children to communicate only with people approved by parents or teachers and visit only approved sites. This way they will enjoy perfect safety which this Bill fails to provide. Every site which wants to become approved, must fulfill all the requirements from the Bill and indicate this with a HTTP header. Kid phones and laptops should allow only to visit such compliant sites. Kid-oriented phones and laptops must be visually distinctive: for example, have a shape of a cute animal. In this case teachers, parents or police will be able to instantly spot and confiscate illegal devices. This is a win-win plan: kids would be safe and adults would be safe from government overreach. Obviously no government will agree to such plan.

worldofmatthew 4y ago
The truth of cause, it is about control. The kids part is to allow for a moral panic that the government needs to "save the kids" from. It would be profitable if you could charge a monthly fee for a kids specific social network that parents had control over who the kids could chat to and what news they could read. The funny thing is that if I created a phone that had a kids mode lock-down (with kids friendly appstore, social media, browser and education content) with a monthly fee and no-ads. The government would scream that I was harming competition and locking people out by daring to charge for a product that would be expensive to operate.
- SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
  “We must do something, for the children, even if it saves just one life” The great triple fallacy. Never wants you to stop for even a moment to think if doing something is a good idea if the some * we must do* is the wrong thing, if children be used for exploitation, and if not doing something could “save” more people long term than the feel good initial change”.
doublerabbit 4y ago
Only until you discover kids selling "adult phones" in the playground at school. This is as much as a parent problem as content author of a internet website. My parents tried, they installed web filters, everything. I still got round them. I bought a BB gun at school, even a butterfly knife. I feel that it's education on how to use the internet that's missing. As well as finance.
- baobob 4y ago
  We're actively discussing this at the moment, and the only solution we have is judicious bugging of a real 'adult' phone for the kid. If they're old enough to know Santa Claus doesn't exist, they'll also be old enough to know the phone company wasn't reporting on their naughtiness to their parents, it was just the phone that was rigged by their parents before they ever got a hold of it all along
- eikenberry 4y ago
  Our system for our kids was no smart phone until ~14 and not taking it to bed until senior year. With all computers, each person has their own, in a shared family office. That and answering questions and talking to our kids about the internet, the good and the bad. No filters or other bullshit. So far (oldest is about to head to university) so good.
  - Thorentis 4y ago
    I plan to take it further. No smart phones at all until 18, and only a dumb phone (calls, texts, etc) whenever they start high school, or possibly a bit earlier if they're on public transport by themself. I see absolutely no reason for somebody till in school to need a smart phone.
    - dingleberry420 4y ago
      You will destroy their social life and make them outcasts. A smartphone is absolutely necessary to stay in touch with friends nowadays, everyone is using various messaging apps.
c7DJTLrn 4y ago
You just came up with a better idea than the entire UK government ever has.
MarcScott 4y ago
Okay, but what is the age bracket you are using to define a child? In the UK a sixteen year old is considered to be old enough to give consent in a sexual relationship. They're also old enough to enlist in the armed forces. Are you suggesting that sixteen year olds shouldn't be able to look up information about sex and war? What about a fourteen year old that is feeling confused about their gender identity or sexuality. Are they not permitted to do some research or reach out to supportive online communities? I've never blocked, monitored, or filtered my childrens' access to the web. I just parent properly, and try to make sure they are responsible users. You can't regulate your way around this type of problem. Kids will find a way around any barriers that are put in place, and to be honest, good luck to them.
- sjtgraham 4y ago
  > In the UK a sixteen year old is considered to be old enough to give consent in a sexual relationship. Not quite. It's 16 unless with someone in a position of trust, e.g. your school teacher, social worker, doctor or care worker. A person under 18 cannot legally consent to that in UK.
  - bloak 4y ago
    > A person under 18 cannot legally consent to that That's a bizarre way of putting it, isn't it? It's not as if the person under 18 would be committing an offence by giving consent, and the consent would still be valid for defending against an accusation of rape (as far as I know; see the Sexual Offences Act 2003).
- codedokode 4y ago
  > but what is the age bracket you are using to define a child? At least 18, or more if local government considers it reasonable to raise the age. > Are they not permitted to do some research or reach out to supportive online communities? They are permitted as long as they use only compliant sites. Talking to random strangers about this is not a good idea.
  - ThePowerOfFuet 4y ago
rhacker 4y ago
I mean, when I was like 12 my friends and I got on BBS's and started to see naked pictures of beautiful women for the first time around 1991-ish. I mean at that point my computer was even more "adult" than my parent's usage of computers. And yeah on AOL there were people that "lived near by and could hang out some time" but I already knew what a creep was... so.. why are kids these days so stupid? Is it because we treat them so?
- andrewstuart2 4y ago
  As a parent, I don't think kids these days are any stupider. The tech has gotten easier for both good and nefarious purposes, and IMO the education around it has kept up. I think it's FUD that's leveraged (deliberately or otherwise) to influence and gain authority, more than anything. I'm certainly biased as a more technical parent than most, but I don't think the average layperson knows that much less about the risks. If anything it's shouted from the news any time something remotely internet related happens, and people notice, because it plays on a pretty fundamental fear. I think awareness is up (not always in a good way) more than anything. There's a balance to strike between trying to make things safer and just teaching kids to navigate dangers that will always be there (and always be changing) and I tend to think these laws are a step or so too far into diminishing returns on making things safer. Even then, that's assuming we can even agree what safer means.
enlyth 4y ago
The problem I see with this is you are disadvantaged from your peers if you're the only kid without access to the internet. You can't just shield your specific kid from the world and then they go to school and their friends all show them tiktok/4chan/porn/gore/whatever. We've crossed this line already, the internet is out there and everyone can access everything. Instead of being regressive and focusing on futile efforts like banning children from the internet (hint: never going to work), we need to embrace the new age we live in and adapt. I don't claim to know the answer, it is a difficult question on how to properly raise children in the globally interconnected world we live in, but I don't think simply closing our eyes and pretending the internet doesn't exist will solve anything. I was born in the 90s, had access to dialup internet from since I was 5 years old, have seen all the horrors the internet has to offer and still turned out fine. I'm sure there is a way without censorship.
- MonkeyMalarky 4y ago
  If ArkAngel were a real product and not just something from black mirror I bet we'd be seeing the same arguments in favor of it as above. Funny thing is, even in the fictional show they were aware enough that kids were sharing all the the crazy stuff they saw and the girl was just ostracized when she couldn't see it.
- codedokode 4y ago
  You can say the same thing about alcohol or cigarettes. Obviously, kids can find a way to buy them illegally but it doesn't mean that we should allow that. I propose to make it illegal to help kids to obtain access to adult Internet the same way as it is illegal to help them to buy alcohol.
  - concordDance 4y ago
    Alcohol and cigarettes physically harm you. As best I can tell internet access is no more harmful than gaming. The two classes of risk are too different for the analogy to work.
    - 4y ago
iudqnolq 4y ago
Only if you don't believe kids should have significant liberties (even in opposition to their parent's wishes) and also that a fundamental part of liberty is the right to make a bad decision that only harms yourself. Should kids have the right to "ruin" their future by gaming instead of studying? Yes, and I think the solution should instead be to make it harder for anyone, kid or adult, to "ruin" their future by making it easier to get back on track at any point in life.
Akronymus 4y ago
> If UK government really cared about children, and not about surveillance and censorship, they would solve the problem another way. Like not allowing them to get off essentially scot free just by apologizing? https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/870-sex-offenders-uk-escape-23712009 https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/870-sex-... (ironically, cant actually read that article atm because of the company firewall) I personally think MOST legislative to do x to protect children is just BS reasoning to intrude on privacy.
plaguepilled 4y ago
This seems like the correct move. Legal culpability of the parents would ensure they only give their kids approved devices. The devices would get a govt kickback to the manufacturer and require 6 years of service, so the parents only have to upgrade their kids device once.

worldofmatthew 4y ago

The truth of cause, it is about control. The kids part is to allow for a moral panic that the government needs to "save the kids" from. It would be profitable if you could charge a monthly fee for a kids specific social network that parents had control over who the kids could chat to and what news they could read. The funny thing is that if I created a phone that had a kids mode lock-down (with kids friendly appstore, social media, browser and education content) with a monthly fee and no-ads. The government would scream that I was harming competition and locking people out by daring to charge for a product that would be expensive to operate.

SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
“We must do something, for the children, even if it saves just one life” The great triple fallacy. Never wants you to stop for even a moment to think if doing something is a good idea if the some * we must do* is the wrong thing, if children be used for exploitation, and if not doing something could “save” more people long term than the feel good initial change”.

doublerabbit 4y ago

Only until you discover kids selling "adult phones" in the playground at school. This is as much as a parent problem as content author of a internet website. My parents tried, they installed web filters, everything. I still got round them. I bought a BB gun at school, even a butterfly knife. I feel that it's education on how to use the internet that's missing. As well as finance.

baobob 4y ago
We're actively discussing this at the moment, and the only solution we have is judicious bugging of a real 'adult' phone for the kid. If they're old enough to know Santa Claus doesn't exist, they'll also be old enough to know the phone company wasn't reporting on their naughtiness to their parents, it was just the phone that was rigged by their parents before they ever got a hold of it all along
eikenberry 4y ago
Our system for our kids was no smart phone until ~14 and not taking it to bed until senior year. With all computers, each person has their own, in a shared family office. That and answering questions and talking to our kids about the internet, the good and the bad. No filters or other bullshit. So far (oldest is about to head to university) so good.
- Thorentis 4y ago
  I plan to take it further. No smart phones at all until 18, and only a dumb phone (calls, texts, etc) whenever they start high school, or possibly a bit earlier if they're on public transport by themself. I see absolutely no reason for somebody till in school to need a smart phone.
  - dingleberry420 4y ago
    You will destroy their social life and make them outcasts. A smartphone is absolutely necessary to stay in touch with friends nowadays, everyone is using various messaging apps.

c7DJTLrn 4y ago

You just came up with a better idea than the entire UK government ever has.

MarcScott 4y ago

Okay, but what is the age bracket you are using to define a child? In the UK a sixteen year old is considered to be old enough to give consent in a sexual relationship. They're also old enough to enlist in the armed forces. Are you suggesting that sixteen year olds shouldn't be able to look up information about sex and war? What about a fourteen year old that is feeling confused about their gender identity or sexuality. Are they not permitted to do some research or reach out to supportive online communities? I've never blocked, monitored, or filtered my childrens' access to the web. I just parent properly, and try to make sure they are responsible users. You can't regulate your way around this type of problem. Kids will find a way around any barriers that are put in place, and to be honest, good luck to them.

sjtgraham 4y ago
> In the UK a sixteen year old is considered to be old enough to give consent in a sexual relationship. Not quite. It's 16 unless with someone in a position of trust, e.g. your school teacher, social worker, doctor or care worker. A person under 18 cannot legally consent to that in UK.
- bloak 4y ago
  > A person under 18 cannot legally consent to that That's a bizarre way of putting it, isn't it? It's not as if the person under 18 would be committing an offence by giving consent, and the consent would still be valid for defending against an accusation of rape (as far as I know; see the Sexual Offences Act 2003).
codedokode 4y ago
> but what is the age bracket you are using to define a child? At least 18, or more if local government considers it reasonable to raise the age. > Are they not permitted to do some research or reach out to supportive online communities? They are permitted as long as they use only compliant sites. Talking to random strangers about this is not a good idea.
- ThePowerOfFuet 4y ago

rhacker 4y ago

I mean, when I was like 12 my friends and I got on BBS's and started to see naked pictures of beautiful women for the first time around 1991-ish. I mean at that point my computer was even more "adult" than my parent's usage of computers. And yeah on AOL there were people that "lived near by and could hang out some time" but I already knew what a creep was... so.. why are kids these days so stupid? Is it because we treat them so?

andrewstuart2 4y ago
As a parent, I don't think kids these days are any stupider. The tech has gotten easier for both good and nefarious purposes, and IMO the education around it has kept up. I think it's FUD that's leveraged (deliberately or otherwise) to influence and gain authority, more than anything. I'm certainly biased as a more technical parent than most, but I don't think the average layperson knows that much less about the risks. If anything it's shouted from the news any time something remotely internet related happens, and people notice, because it plays on a pretty fundamental fear. I think awareness is up (not always in a good way) more than anything. There's a balance to strike between trying to make things safer and just teaching kids to navigate dangers that will always be there (and always be changing) and I tend to think these laws are a step or so too far into diminishing returns on making things safer. Even then, that's assuming we can even agree what safer means.

enlyth 4y ago

The problem I see with this is you are disadvantaged from your peers if you're the only kid without access to the internet. You can't just shield your specific kid from the world and then they go to school and their friends all show them tiktok/4chan/porn/gore/whatever. We've crossed this line already, the internet is out there and everyone can access everything. Instead of being regressive and focusing on futile efforts like banning children from the internet (hint: never going to work), we need to embrace the new age we live in and adapt. I don't claim to know the answer, it is a difficult question on how to properly raise children in the globally interconnected world we live in, but I don't think simply closing our eyes and pretending the internet doesn't exist will solve anything. I was born in the 90s, had access to dialup internet from since I was 5 years old, have seen all the horrors the internet has to offer and still turned out fine. I'm sure there is a way without censorship.

MonkeyMalarky 4y ago
If ArkAngel were a real product and not just something from black mirror I bet we'd be seeing the same arguments in favor of it as above. Funny thing is, even in the fictional show they were aware enough that kids were sharing all the the crazy stuff they saw and the girl was just ostracized when she couldn't see it.
codedokode 4y ago
You can say the same thing about alcohol or cigarettes. Obviously, kids can find a way to buy them illegally but it doesn't mean that we should allow that. I propose to make it illegal to help kids to obtain access to adult Internet the same way as it is illegal to help them to buy alcohol.
- concordDance 4y ago
  Alcohol and cigarettes physically harm you. As best I can tell internet access is no more harmful than gaming. The two classes of risk are too different for the analogy to work.
  - 4y ago

iudqnolq 4y ago

Only if you don't believe kids should have significant liberties (even in opposition to their parent's wishes) and also that a fundamental part of liberty is the right to make a bad decision that only harms yourself. Should kids have the right to "ruin" their future by gaming instead of studying? Yes, and I think the solution should instead be to make it harder for anyone, kid or adult, to "ruin" their future by making it easier to get back on track at any point in life.

Akronymus 4y ago

> If UK government really cared about children, and not about surveillance and censorship, they would solve the problem another way. Like not allowing them to get off essentially scot free just by apologizing? https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/870-sex-offenders-uk-escape-23712009 https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/870-sex-... (ironically, cant actually read that article atm because of the company firewall) I personally think MOST legislative to do x to protect children is just BS reasoning to intrude on privacy.

plaguepilled 4y ago

This seems like the correct move. Legal culpability of the parents would ensure they only give their kids approved devices. The devices would get a govt kickback to the manufacturer and require 6 years of service, so the parents only have to upgrade their kids device once.