3 ms·
> This would require deep OS-level features from Apple/Google/etc. See my reply to a sibling comment for spitballing ideas, but I don’t think it’s necessary for
by JoshTriplett 2y ago
> This would require deep OS-level features from Apple/Google/etc. See my reply to a sibling comment for spitballing ideas, but I don’t think it’s necessary for this to be invasive.
This is by definition invasive; having the device maker or OS maker integrate it makes it more invasive, not less.
- haswell 2y agoI don't think we're using the same definition of invasive. To me, invasive would be a solution that compromises the privacy of the child or parents or both. Apple's work on driver's licenses comes to mind. The deep integration is exactly what allows such a feature to not be invasive. Limits on what "School Mode" can actually do and the actual implementation approach will determine whether or not such a feature is invasive. It certainly could be implemented in an invasive way. But being invasive is not intrinsic to such a solution. And keep in mind the alternative is an outright ban, which in terms of absolute outcomes is far more "invasive" to individual carrying devices if you're using a definition of the word that covers "limits access to your device when on school premises".
- JoshTriplett 2y agoWe definitely have different definitions. "can't use your device" is obnoxious but not invasive. "we control what you can and can't do with your device", no matter what mechanism it uses, is invasive. Think "invasive" in terms of "invades the boundaries of". If the TSA seizes my (still-encrypted-and-locked) device, that's obnoxious and wrong, but not invasive. If they try to get me to unlock it so they can see what's on it, that's invasive (and will get a "no", followed by them deciding if they want to escalate to seizing it or not).