4 ms·

We should recognize that this is a political issue and that a problem exists that needs a solution. One party to the debate claiming that the solution (age ver

We should recognize that this is a political issue and that a problem exists that needs a solution. One party to the debate claiming that the solution (age verification) to the problem (kids accessing adult content) is imperfect, is worthless. We know what the position of the EFF or FSF is on the matter, they prioritize online privacy over kid safety, got it. But if the message is going to be that the solution has a problem and there is no more contributions, then the implicit proposal is that there needs to be no solution and the initial problem is ignored. If the opposition to current age verification take this naive approach of denouncing age verification and offering no solutions, they will be kept at the sidelines while the adults vote in the senate for these solutions. Newsflash, you lost the debate, if you want back in, you are going to need more than this.

c22 2y ago
Online privacy is a key component of kid's safety on the internet.
- TZubiri 2y ago
  It's also a huge risk. The privacy of attackers is a risk to kid safety. The privacy of messages sent is a risk to kid safety (law enforcement should be able to access them) The privacy of chilren activity is a risk to their safety (Parents should be able to view what their children do.)
  - c22 2y ago
    Yes, parental responsibility is perhaps the most critical component of kid safety. However, I know of no children who independently acquired and maintain a device with a connection to the internet. Are you entirely sure we need a governmental edict to allow parents to monitor and influence what their kids see and do online? Should law enforcement be able to access messages sent to my kid? I'm going to have to say no to this one.
    - TZubiri 2y ago
      It's not a matter of should government be allowed to protect kids. They already do, that's not the discussion. In the same way that parents can control what kids do with their devices, so can governments and they do, all the time. Through regulation they control what software companies like Google or Apple approve for kids, and they can control or subpoena data from kid apps. >Should law enforcement be able to access messages sent to my kid? I'm going to have to say no to this one. 100% should, and 100% does, you are misinformed on what is and what should be. Thankfully you are not in charge of this decisions.
      - throwaway83267 2y ago
        > It's not a matter of should government be allowed to protect kids. They already do, that's not the discussion. The discussion is about what the government should be allowed to do to protect kids. > >Should law enforcement be able to access messages sent to my kid? I'm going to have to say no to this one. > 100% should, and 100% does, you are misinformed on what is and what should be. Thankfully you are not in charge of this decisions. Every major messaging platform is E2EE by default.
Spivak 2y ago
I think this analysis presumes that the initial problem is real and the concern for it is made in good faith. The senate isn't immune to concern trolling and "protecting the children" is probably the most famous and most used smokescreen for people with ulterior motives. Accepting the premise is not usually a good strategy. And we don't even have to speculate anymore what they are because the plan is out in the open. So when someone shows up with what is ostensibly a non-problem in the real world but the solution to which happens to be the legal tool they need for this other less popular worse thing they've loudly said they want I think it's normal and intellectually honest for that to be the analysis. "The EFF doesn't care about child safety" is exactly what they wanted you to say to dismiss any reasoned opposition.
- TZubiri 2y ago
  That's a great way to be excluded from a political conversation, pretend that the other side does not exist and that we are a strawman from a conspiracy. How about recognizing the inevitable conflict between two priorities: kid safety and online privacy? Simple thing really. Again, you don't need to do this, but you will be ignored and put in a kiddy table while the adults talk in the senate and in school boards. Most schools have deep inspecting firewalls btw. Go tell them that it's an invasion onto kid's privacy, and that you should be able to speak with them without their parents or guardians snooping. See how they look at ya
  - LorenPechtel 2y ago
    It's not that we pretend the other side doesn't exist. Rather, we recognize that it's a false flag recruitment effort. And note that I haven't noticed anyone objecting to any client-side filtering approaches--I've even suggested one. We are objecting to mandated server-side verification because we know it's a camel's nose.
  - Spivak 2y ago
    If your philosophy on how to best protect the children under your care is to install monitoring and filtering software on devices you own and require id verification to bypass (such as teacher's overrides) then that is your right. That being said if I a parent at such a school I would assist my child in every way possible to make sure that their own browsing is exempted or shielded from such systems because I do think it's a violation of their privacy and that's my right as a parent but I digress. If that same philosophy requires everyone to be subject to such a monitoring and filtering system by law then that's where I take issue. Because having teacher's credentials by virtue of being an adult isn't enough. I'm still being monitored and identified. Do you really not see the difference between an opt-in filtering system controlled by the responsible party for specific children and a global mandatory filtering system controlled by literally the worst human beings alive? That have an explicitly adversarial relationship to you and control the global definition of child appropriate to suit their agenda?
LorenPechtel 2y ago
The reason we denounce it is that it's *always* an attempt to get the camel's nose in. Just look at the article--politicians admitting their intent! And the reality is as always it's focusing on the wrong "threat". Like the vast majority of sexual abuse is by trusted people in the kid's life, not by anything on the web. The real threats on the web are social media and chat rooms, not the "naughty" stuff. Or look at the perennial attempts to allow governments to block "child sexual abuse images"--since it's always done with hashes there's no verification that that's all they're doing. Think China wouldn't block images of tank man in Tienanmen Square?

c22 2y ago

Online privacy is a key component of kid's safety on the internet.

TZubiri 2y ago
It's also a huge risk. The privacy of attackers is a risk to kid safety. The privacy of messages sent is a risk to kid safety (law enforcement should be able to access them) The privacy of chilren activity is a risk to their safety (Parents should be able to view what their children do.)
- c22 2y ago
  Yes, parental responsibility is perhaps the most critical component of kid safety. However, I know of no children who independently acquired and maintain a device with a connection to the internet. Are you entirely sure we need a governmental edict to allow parents to monitor and influence what their kids see and do online? Should law enforcement be able to access messages sent to my kid? I'm going to have to say no to this one.
  - TZubiri 2y ago
    It's not a matter of should government be allowed to protect kids. They already do, that's not the discussion. In the same way that parents can control what kids do with their devices, so can governments and they do, all the time. Through regulation they control what software companies like Google or Apple approve for kids, and they can control or subpoena data from kid apps. >Should law enforcement be able to access messages sent to my kid? I'm going to have to say no to this one. 100% should, and 100% does, you are misinformed on what is and what should be. Thankfully you are not in charge of this decisions.
    - throwaway83267 2y ago
      > It's not a matter of should government be allowed to protect kids. They already do, that's not the discussion. The discussion is about what the government should be allowed to do to protect kids. > >Should law enforcement be able to access messages sent to my kid? I'm going to have to say no to this one. > 100% should, and 100% does, you are misinformed on what is and what should be. Thankfully you are not in charge of this decisions. Every major messaging platform is E2EE by default.

Spivak 2y ago

I think this analysis presumes that the initial problem is real and the concern for it is made in good faith. The senate isn't immune to concern trolling and "protecting the children" is probably the most famous and most used smokescreen for people with ulterior motives. Accepting the premise is not usually a good strategy. And we don't even have to speculate anymore what they are because the plan is out in the open. So when someone shows up with what is ostensibly a non-problem in the real world but the solution to which happens to be the legal tool they need for this other less popular worse thing they've loudly said they want I think it's normal and intellectually honest for that to be the analysis. "The EFF doesn't care about child safety" is exactly what they wanted you to say to dismiss any reasoned opposition.

TZubiri 2y ago
That's a great way to be excluded from a political conversation, pretend that the other side does not exist and that we are a strawman from a conspiracy. How about recognizing the inevitable conflict between two priorities: kid safety and online privacy? Simple thing really. Again, you don't need to do this, but you will be ignored and put in a kiddy table while the adults talk in the senate and in school boards. Most schools have deep inspecting firewalls btw. Go tell them that it's an invasion onto kid's privacy, and that you should be able to speak with them without their parents or guardians snooping. See how they look at ya
- LorenPechtel 2y ago
  It's not that we pretend the other side doesn't exist. Rather, we recognize that it's a false flag recruitment effort. And note that I haven't noticed anyone objecting to any client-side filtering approaches--I've even suggested one. We are objecting to mandated server-side verification because we know it's a camel's nose.
- Spivak 2y ago
  If your philosophy on how to best protect the children under your care is to install monitoring and filtering software on devices you own and require id verification to bypass (such as teacher's overrides) then that is your right. That being said if I a parent at such a school I would assist my child in every way possible to make sure that their own browsing is exempted or shielded from such systems because I do think it's a violation of their privacy and that's my right as a parent but I digress. If that same philosophy requires everyone to be subject to such a monitoring and filtering system by law then that's where I take issue. Because having teacher's credentials by virtue of being an adult isn't enough. I'm still being monitored and identified. Do you really not see the difference between an opt-in filtering system controlled by the responsible party for specific children and a global mandatory filtering system controlled by literally the worst human beings alive? That have an explicitly adversarial relationship to you and control the global definition of child appropriate to suit their agenda?

LorenPechtel 2y ago

The reason we denounce it is that it's *always* an attempt to get the camel's nose in. Just look at the article--politicians admitting their intent! And the reality is as always it's focusing on the wrong "threat". Like the vast majority of sexual abuse is by trusted people in the kid's life, not by anything on the web. The real threats on the web are social media and chat rooms, not the "naughty" stuff. Or look at the perennial attempts to allow governments to block "child sexual abuse images"--since it's always done with hashes there's no verification that that's all they're doing. Think China wouldn't block images of tank man in Tienanmen Square?