6 ms·

Edit: 1 hour later: I am signing off for the night folks. If I don't respond to new replies to my comment, that's why. You all have a good night, or day. -- OG

by Manu40 4y ago

Edit: 1 hour later: I am signing off for the night folks. If I don't respond to new replies to my comment, that's why. You all have a good night, or day. -- OG comment -- Forgive me for being potentially controversial here, but considering the topic I think it should be fine for me to suggest this, especially since this measure is (Edit: In my opinion after reading it) about 'grooming', which requires interaction. We don't allow children/minors into bars, and many other places where adults congregate, right? Why are we allowing them on the internet? Seems rather simple to me that if we just remove their access to the internet, that nearly almost all the potential issues involving children cease to exist. Companies can't exploit them. (as easily) Creeps can't harm them. (as easily) Etc and so forth. Sure, the internet is a wonderful tool for learning, and having fun, and communicating. But so is going outside, playing with your friends, and paying attention in school. That's all I have to say on this. --- Edit:30 minutes after post: I guess there is one more solution. Make a kids only internet, if we really must allow them to have such a thing. All adults are restricted from it. *except perhaps their parents, but even then that opens new loopholes. So even that's not perfect.

mixmastamyk 4y ago
Generally agreed but that’s not a solution to what this article is about.
- Manu40 4y ago
  > "Meanwhile the UK is considering its own Online Safety Bill, which also imagines bypassing encryption via device-side scanning. Similar proposals, such as the EARN IT bill, keep surfacing in the US. The paper by Levy and Robinson – itself a response to a paper opposing device-side scanning that Anderson co-authored with 13 other security experts in 2021 – outlines the various types of harms children may encounter online: consensual peer-to-peer indecent image sharing; viral image sharing; offender to offender indecent image/video sharing; offender to victim grooming; offender to offender communication; offender to offender group communication; and streaming of on-demand contact abuse." ---- Maybe not specifically only grooming, but considering that most of the potential harm caused is going to start with interaction between the creep and the child, that means grooming is going to be one of the starting points they will be on the look out for, which is why this is all about client side infiltration. Seems to me that by nipping that problem in the bud first and foremost, by removing the potential for interaction at all in the first place; we remove the potential for harm to occur as well (edit: Which means there is no need to snoop on the client side.) But like you said, you already agree for the most part.
  - mixmastamyk 4y ago
    This is about surveilling adults, not specifically children. Restricting children won’t end child abuse. Sure they may mention it.
    - Manu40 4y ago
      Yeah, I know that it's about surveilling adults. I'm sorry, but what part about my comment made that confusing? I'm saying that by fixing the mistake of ever letting minors onto the internet in the first place, we fix the problem of governments trying to use child safety as a reason to spy on adults. And no, restricting children from the internet won't end child abuse that occurs on the local level, but that's a whole other can of worms. Besides, it's often friends, family and trusted loved ones who do that sort of abuse as I understand. Or at least that's what they keep telling us.
      - mixmastamyk 4y ago
        The whole original comment describes restricting children but never directly makes the point you just made in your second paragraph of your last comment.
        Manu40 4y ago
        Sorry, I guess I expected people to understand the context of why restricting children from using the internet full of adults would remove the need to spy on adults. My mistake.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
morpheuskafka 4y ago
For younger children, I would accept this as a reasonable argument. For older children, I disagree with the premise that minors are generally not allowed in "adult" spaces. You might have to be 18 or even 21 to enter a bar or strip club or whatever, but in high school you might well be going to a job, a university class, mall, etc. All of which are "adult" spaces open to basically anyone, where you could meet anyone and talk about anything. And in fact, back when it was more common for kids to hang out at places like the mall, there was a lot more talk/hysteria of IRL "stranger danger" in those places. Even at younger ages you have public libraries, parks, etc.--and in a functioning city, you'd be walking/biking to school, encountering all sorts of people on the street.
- Manu40 4y ago
  This is a fair argument, but I would like to counter it by saying that it should be reasonably understood that at that point we are talking about teenagers. Teenagers who hate being called children, treated like children, so on and so forth. Also, until they reach the age of like... 17 and 18 (?) I believe they need parents permission to be able to work in such places anyways. Or at least I needed my parental guardian to sign off on me working my first job at 15. Of which was not some pub/bar, but was instead a burger flipping joint much like MacDonalds. I realize that there is no one trick catch all solution here. But we need to start somewhere. And preferably that place we start would be somewhere that doesn't infringe upon the privacy and rights of law abiding citizens. Or at the very least not being treated as guilty without having proven lack of innocence.
toast0 4y ago
> Why are we allowing them on the internet? It's damn hard to interact with the world without the internet these days. Want to coordinate with someone? Internet. Want to see when a store is open? Internet. Want to do your homework? Internet (sometimes; hello Google Classroom). Want to see what's playing at the cinema? Internet, mostly. Age makes a difference, of course. But high school aged kids are going to be hard to keep off the internet. Kids only internet isn't really feasible, even Yahoo killed Yahooligans, which used to live on its own cookie free domain to protect the privacy of kids. Anyway, some of the predators are kids too, so that doesn't really solve the issue. There's also the issue that it's probably easier for an adult to impersonate a child to get access than for a child to impersonate an adult to get access... but that's not hard either. The Internet is a dangerous place, but it's also an important place to be. As children get older, we (parents, community, etc) need to teach them how to spot and avoid the dangers. Just like we do with other dangerous and important places.
- Manu40 4y ago
  > It's damn hard to interact with the world without the internet these days. Want to coordinate with someone? Internet. Want to see when a store is open? Internet. Want to do your homework? Internet (sometimes; hello Google Classroom). Want to see what's playing at the cinema? Internet, mostly. Sure, yeah it can be. But I guess the point I was trying to go for is that once upon a time ago, we did just fine without the internet. We managed to do all those things without the internet. Imagine what would happen today if we removed everyone from the internet and said "Welcome back to the 1980's" People would lose their collective shit. Most wouldn't have a clue how to do anything. Heck, it took me a week to get used to having a flip phone again when I did that to myself for a bit to see how I would handle it without a smart phone at least. > Age makes a difference, of course. But high school aged kids are going to be hard to keep off the internet. I think this part is where many of us seem to have some sort of disagreement on what is or is not a kid. I do not see teenagers as 'kids'. Sure, I'll call them 'kid' now and then just to razz them, cause teenagers hate it; but otherwise I actually see them as adolescents. I.E. Synonym basically for teenager. It is at this point that I would have less issue with them being on the internet, though with maybe some sort of restrictions in place to help ensure that the... uhm... less intelligent ones... are protected from themselves and others. > Kids only internet isn't really feasible, even Yahoo killed Yahooligans, which used to live on its own cookie free domain to protect the privacy of kids. Oh yeah... I forgot about Yahooligans. Okay, fair point. > Anyway, some of the predators are kids too, so that doesn't really solve the issue. Yeah... Not much you can do about that except catch them in the act and try to fix the problem before they become adult predators... > There's also the issue that it's probably easier for an adult to impersonate a child to get access than for a child to impersonate an adult to get access... but that's not hard either. This is why I was saying in my edit that there are potential loopholes if you even allow the parents onto the "kidternet" > The Internet is a dangerous place, but it's also an important place to be. As children get older, we (parents, community, etc) need to teach them how to spot and avoid the dangers. Just like we do with other dangerous and important places. Agreed. I just wish the government would stop trying to use red herring type things (is it a red herring, not sure.) to try to inject themselves further into our lives to control us all under a ruse of protecting children we all know they actually give zero shits about. If they did, then my original point about kids being restricted from the internet would have been made law long ago. Governments may seem incompetent, but that's just part of their bag of parlor tricks. (IMHO) Anyways, I'm gonna go play some games now. I need to relax again, lol. Dealing with a case of oral thrush induced by marijuana edibles, and stress. (The marijuana was to help the stress, but now I can't have the marijuana...) Here's a link to help prove the concept of my condition. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32857052/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32857052/
grecy 4y ago
Children in bars is perfectly legal in many countries around the world. Last night I was in a crowded pub with dozens and dozens of kids running all over while everyone 18+ was drinking plenty. Are you suggesting the laws of one country should be enforced on all countries? If you are, keep in mind the US is less than 5% of the worlds population, so it’s unlikely to be their laws which get enforced.
- Manu40 4y ago
  Yeah, so... This discussion is about countries where that sort of thing isn't allowed. Unless I am mistaken. It's quite possible the UK and such still allow children in bars I guess. It was a thing during the 90's when I was a kid here in Canada. But that bar also doubled as a restaurant, so that's why it was allowed for a while until the rules changed and no longer was allowed. I see the internet as being in the same situation. Yes, we have allowed certain things up to a point, but guess what? Now some of us are saying "no more". Also, it would be a good idea to not assume a persons place of origin while on the internet. Not everyone you think is American, is.
  - grecy 4y ago
    > This discussion is about countries where that sort of thing isn't allowed You think Australia, New Zealand, Belgium, etc. etc. shouldn't be included? >Also, it would be a good idea to not assume a persons place of origin while on the internet. Not everyone you think is American, is. Please see the word "if" in my comment.
    - Manu40 4y ago
      > Children in bars is perfectly legal in many countries around the world. Last night I was in a crowded pub with dozens and dozens of kids running all over while everyone 18+ was drinking plenty. > Are you suggesting the laws of one country should be enforced on all countries? > If you are, keep in mind the US is less than 5% of the worlds population, so it’s unlikely to be their laws which get enforced. --------------------------------------------------- {Please see the word "if" in my comment.} Alright, so I did. And I found it. And the way you used it is not in the same function as you are trying to imply at the moment. They way you used it is implying that "If I am suggesting X, then I must be in the US" since your stats you quote are from the US, thus you are implying I must be from the US. That said, I accept that you meant to use it a different manner. But that is how it comes off the way you wrote what you did write. {You think Australia, New Zealand, Belgium, etc. etc. shouldn't be included?} I never said they shouldn't. I am merely saying that the article is about the UK and Europe. Belgium may be part of Europe, as per your list, but the other countries you mention are not. Also, just because X country does something different, doesn't mean other countries have to conform to their ideas of what is right or wrong either. Just because they do things that other countries see as backwards, wrong, immoral or otherwise unethical; take your pick... doesn't mean those countries have to accept it. I do not agree with allowing children in bars. I don't see it as needed. It's not a place meant for children (anymore at least), and just because some of them have old customs, doesn't mean they need to continue them. Just like how just because kids used to drink beer back in the day because it was safer than water once upon a time ago, doesn't mean they need to continue to do so. Water is safer now. Besides, most of those bars that have kids in them in those places, probably also serve food as a local restaurant, much like how my old town had a pub doing similar. We went to the local bar to have dinner, we were to go straight to the restaurant side, and behave. We were never allowed to go into the bar side, except to enter/leave the building, since that was the only way in or out anyways for customers. Now, are we good here?
pas 4y ago
that's not controversial, that's just - allow me to be blunt - stupid. going outside? playing with friends? paying attention in school? the kids at risk of being exploited, harmed, groomed, etc are the ones that already lack parental attention, already have trouble making friends and going outside. regarding kids only internet. who will curate the content on it? oh right companies. for profit. (or it may be managed by some public body and it will be promptly taken over by some niche special interests, and it will be just the most useless thing ever.)
- Manu40 4y ago
  Well, in an attempt to show charity in return at least, I will say this. 1. > are the ones that already lack parental attention, already have trouble making friends and going outside. Sounds to me like that's more of an issue with: A. Parents needing to do their job. B. Parents needing to do their job. C. Parents needing to do their job. Hmmm... seems like the parents might be the problem here. Good parents go out of their way to help their kids succeed. If their kid is struggling somehow, then perhaps the parents should ... Oh, I dunno... Do their job. 2. > regarding kids only internet. who will curate the content on it? oh right companies. for profit. (or it may be managed by some public body and it will be promptly taken over by some niche special interests, and it will be just the most useless thing ever.) Yes, you might be right about this one. When I wrote that originally I forgot all about Yahoo's Yahooligans. But with that said, it's not like it can't be done on a local level where intranets are formed instead for kids to communicate with each other. My old schools used to have something similar to what I am talking about, and it worked just fine. And we already trust schools to be mostly safe for children, right?
  - pas 4y ago
    Parents are always the problem, that's the problem :) Disadvantaged families have a hard time providing the nurture their kids need to overcome the gap. This is an incredibly self-reinforcing cycle, because the more help these kids get the more help other kids get too, so the gal remains. Social status, including all the things from home ownership, how green is your lawn, how big is your investment account to extracurricular activities for admissions (and credentialism) in general - but also the larger labor market too - are all close to zero sum locally. And mobility for disadvantaged groups is ridiculously low, because - again - things like status preserving structures like zoning regulations, school districts, etc.

by Manu40 4y ago

mixmastamyk 4y ago

Generally agreed but that’s not a solution to what this article is about.

Manu40 4y ago
> "Meanwhile the UK is considering its own Online Safety Bill, which also imagines bypassing encryption via device-side scanning. Similar proposals, such as the EARN IT bill, keep surfacing in the US. The paper by Levy and Robinson – itself a response to a paper opposing device-side scanning that Anderson co-authored with 13 other security experts in 2021 – outlines the various types of harms children may encounter online: consensual peer-to-peer indecent image sharing; viral image sharing; offender to offender indecent image/video sharing; offender to victim grooming; offender to offender communication; offender to offender group communication; and streaming of on-demand contact abuse." ---- Maybe not specifically only grooming, but considering that most of the potential harm caused is going to start with interaction between the creep and the child, that means grooming is going to be one of the starting points they will be on the look out for, which is why this is all about client side infiltration. Seems to me that by nipping that problem in the bud first and foremost, by removing the potential for interaction at all in the first place; we remove the potential for harm to occur as well (edit: Which means there is no need to snoop on the client side.) But like you said, you already agree for the most part.
- mixmastamyk 4y ago
  This is about surveilling adults, not specifically children. Restricting children won’t end child abuse. Sure they may mention it.
  - Manu40 4y ago
    Yeah, I know that it's about surveilling adults. I'm sorry, but what part about my comment made that confusing? I'm saying that by fixing the mistake of ever letting minors onto the internet in the first place, we fix the problem of governments trying to use child safety as a reason to spy on adults. And no, restricting children from the internet won't end child abuse that occurs on the local level, but that's a whole other can of worms. Besides, it's often friends, family and trusted loved ones who do that sort of abuse as I understand. Or at least that's what they keep telling us.
    - mixmastamyk 4y ago
      The whole original comment describes restricting children but never directly makes the point you just made in your second paragraph of your last comment.
      - Manu40 4y ago
        Sorry, I guess I expected people to understand the context of why restricting children from using the internet full of adults would remove the need to spy on adults. My mistake.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]

morpheuskafka 4y ago

For younger children, I would accept this as a reasonable argument. For older children, I disagree with the premise that minors are generally not allowed in "adult" spaces. You might have to be 18 or even 21 to enter a bar or strip club or whatever, but in high school you might well be going to a job, a university class, mall, etc. All of which are "adult" spaces open to basically anyone, where you could meet anyone and talk about anything. And in fact, back when it was more common for kids to hang out at places like the mall, there was a lot more talk/hysteria of IRL "stranger danger" in those places. Even at younger ages you have public libraries, parks, etc.--and in a functioning city, you'd be walking/biking to school, encountering all sorts of people on the street.

Manu40 4y ago
This is a fair argument, but I would like to counter it by saying that it should be reasonably understood that at that point we are talking about teenagers. Teenagers who hate being called children, treated like children, so on and so forth. Also, until they reach the age of like... 17 and 18 (?) I believe they need parents permission to be able to work in such places anyways. Or at least I needed my parental guardian to sign off on me working my first job at 15. Of which was not some pub/bar, but was instead a burger flipping joint much like MacDonalds. I realize that there is no one trick catch all solution here. But we need to start somewhere. And preferably that place we start would be somewhere that doesn't infringe upon the privacy and rights of law abiding citizens. Or at the very least not being treated as guilty without having proven lack of innocence.

toast0 4y ago

> Why are we allowing them on the internet? It's damn hard to interact with the world without the internet these days. Want to coordinate with someone? Internet. Want to see when a store is open? Internet. Want to do your homework? Internet (sometimes; hello Google Classroom). Want to see what's playing at the cinema? Internet, mostly. Age makes a difference, of course. But high school aged kids are going to be hard to keep off the internet. Kids only internet isn't really feasible, even Yahoo killed Yahooligans, which used to live on its own cookie free domain to protect the privacy of kids. Anyway, some of the predators are kids too, so that doesn't really solve the issue. There's also the issue that it's probably easier for an adult to impersonate a child to get access than for a child to impersonate an adult to get access... but that's not hard either. The Internet is a dangerous place, but it's also an important place to be. As children get older, we (parents, community, etc) need to teach them how to spot and avoid the dangers. Just like we do with other dangerous and important places.

Manu40 4y ago
> It's damn hard to interact with the world without the internet these days. Want to coordinate with someone? Internet. Want to see when a store is open? Internet. Want to do your homework? Internet (sometimes; hello Google Classroom). Want to see what's playing at the cinema? Internet, mostly. Sure, yeah it can be. But I guess the point I was trying to go for is that once upon a time ago, we did just fine without the internet. We managed to do all those things without the internet. Imagine what would happen today if we removed everyone from the internet and said "Welcome back to the 1980's" People would lose their collective shit. Most wouldn't have a clue how to do anything. Heck, it took me a week to get used to having a flip phone again when I did that to myself for a bit to see how I would handle it without a smart phone at least. > Age makes a difference, of course. But high school aged kids are going to be hard to keep off the internet. I think this part is where many of us seem to have some sort of disagreement on what is or is not a kid. I do not see teenagers as 'kids'. Sure, I'll call them 'kid' now and then just to razz them, cause teenagers hate it; but otherwise I actually see them as adolescents. I.E. Synonym basically for teenager. It is at this point that I would have less issue with them being on the internet, though with maybe some sort of restrictions in place to help ensure that the... uhm... less intelligent ones... are protected from themselves and others. > Kids only internet isn't really feasible, even Yahoo killed Yahooligans, which used to live on its own cookie free domain to protect the privacy of kids. Oh yeah... I forgot about Yahooligans. Okay, fair point. > Anyway, some of the predators are kids too, so that doesn't really solve the issue. Yeah... Not much you can do about that except catch them in the act and try to fix the problem before they become adult predators... > There's also the issue that it's probably easier for an adult to impersonate a child to get access than for a child to impersonate an adult to get access... but that's not hard either. This is why I was saying in my edit that there are potential loopholes if you even allow the parents onto the "kidternet" > The Internet is a dangerous place, but it's also an important place to be. As children get older, we (parents, community, etc) need to teach them how to spot and avoid the dangers. Just like we do with other dangerous and important places. Agreed. I just wish the government would stop trying to use red herring type things (is it a red herring, not sure.) to try to inject themselves further into our lives to control us all under a ruse of protecting children we all know they actually give zero shits about. If they did, then my original point about kids being restricted from the internet would have been made law long ago. Governments may seem incompetent, but that's just part of their bag of parlor tricks. (IMHO) Anyways, I'm gonna go play some games now. I need to relax again, lol. Dealing with a case of oral thrush induced by marijuana edibles, and stress. (The marijuana was to help the stress, but now I can't have the marijuana...) Here's a link to help prove the concept of my condition. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32857052/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32857052/

grecy 4y ago

Children in bars is perfectly legal in many countries around the world. Last night I was in a crowded pub with dozens and dozens of kids running all over while everyone 18+ was drinking plenty. Are you suggesting the laws of one country should be enforced on all countries? If you are, keep in mind the US is less than 5% of the worlds population, so it’s unlikely to be their laws which get enforced.

Manu40 4y ago
Yeah, so... This discussion is about countries where that sort of thing isn't allowed. Unless I am mistaken. It's quite possible the UK and such still allow children in bars I guess. It was a thing during the 90's when I was a kid here in Canada. But that bar also doubled as a restaurant, so that's why it was allowed for a while until the rules changed and no longer was allowed. I see the internet as being in the same situation. Yes, we have allowed certain things up to a point, but guess what? Now some of us are saying "no more". Also, it would be a good idea to not assume a persons place of origin while on the internet. Not everyone you think is American, is.
- grecy 4y ago
  > This discussion is about countries where that sort of thing isn't allowed You think Australia, New Zealand, Belgium, etc. etc. shouldn't be included? >Also, it would be a good idea to not assume a persons place of origin while on the internet. Not everyone you think is American, is. Please see the word "if" in my comment.
  - Manu40 4y ago
    > Children in bars is perfectly legal in many countries around the world. Last night I was in a crowded pub with dozens and dozens of kids running all over while everyone 18+ was drinking plenty. > Are you suggesting the laws of one country should be enforced on all countries? > If you are, keep in mind the US is less than 5% of the worlds population, so it’s unlikely to be their laws which get enforced. --------------------------------------------------- {Please see the word "if" in my comment.} Alright, so I did. And I found it. And the way you used it is not in the same function as you are trying to imply at the moment. They way you used it is implying that "If I am suggesting X, then I must be in the US" since your stats you quote are from the US, thus you are implying I must be from the US. That said, I accept that you meant to use it a different manner. But that is how it comes off the way you wrote what you did write. {You think Australia, New Zealand, Belgium, etc. etc. shouldn't be included?} I never said they shouldn't. I am merely saying that the article is about the UK and Europe. Belgium may be part of Europe, as per your list, but the other countries you mention are not. Also, just because X country does something different, doesn't mean other countries have to conform to their ideas of what is right or wrong either. Just because they do things that other countries see as backwards, wrong, immoral or otherwise unethical; take your pick... doesn't mean those countries have to accept it. I do not agree with allowing children in bars. I don't see it as needed. It's not a place meant for children (anymore at least), and just because some of them have old customs, doesn't mean they need to continue them. Just like how just because kids used to drink beer back in the day because it was safer than water once upon a time ago, doesn't mean they need to continue to do so. Water is safer now. Besides, most of those bars that have kids in them in those places, probably also serve food as a local restaurant, much like how my old town had a pub doing similar. We went to the local bar to have dinner, we were to go straight to the restaurant side, and behave. We were never allowed to go into the bar side, except to enter/leave the building, since that was the only way in or out anyways for customers. Now, are we good here?

pas 4y ago

that's not controversial, that's just - allow me to be blunt - stupid. going outside? playing with friends? paying attention in school? the kids at risk of being exploited, harmed, groomed, etc are the ones that already lack parental attention, already have trouble making friends and going outside. regarding kids only internet. who will curate the content on it? oh right companies. for profit. (or it may be managed by some public body and it will be promptly taken over by some niche special interests, and it will be just the most useless thing ever.)

Manu40 4y ago
Well, in an attempt to show charity in return at least, I will say this. 1. > are the ones that already lack parental attention, already have trouble making friends and going outside. Sounds to me like that's more of an issue with: A. Parents needing to do their job. B. Parents needing to do their job. C. Parents needing to do their job. Hmmm... seems like the parents might be the problem here. Good parents go out of their way to help their kids succeed. If their kid is struggling somehow, then perhaps the parents should ... Oh, I dunno... Do their job. 2. > regarding kids only internet. who will curate the content on it? oh right companies. for profit. (or it may be managed by some public body and it will be promptly taken over by some niche special interests, and it will be just the most useless thing ever.) Yes, you might be right about this one. When I wrote that originally I forgot all about Yahoo's Yahooligans. But with that said, it's not like it can't be done on a local level where intranets are formed instead for kids to communicate with each other. My old schools used to have something similar to what I am talking about, and it worked just fine. And we already trust schools to be mostly safe for children, right?
- pas 4y ago
  Parents are always the problem, that's the problem :) Disadvantaged families have a hard time providing the nurture their kids need to overcome the gap. This is an incredibly self-reinforcing cycle, because the more help these kids get the more help other kids get too, so the gal remains. Social status, including all the things from home ownership, how green is your lawn, how big is your investment account to extracurricular activities for admissions (and credentialism) in general - but also the larger labor market too - are all close to zero sum locally. And mobility for disadvantaged groups is ridiculously low, because - again - things like status preserving structures like zoning regulations, school districts, etc.