4 ms·
Brilliant. They're repackaging the argument governments have long made about E2EE being dangerous to children.
by xeckr 7mo ago
Brilliant. They're repackaging the argument governments have long made about E2EE being dangerous to children.
- debazel 7mo agoChildren are just too effect of a tool when building a surveillance state. We should have banned children from owning open computers a long time ago just like we do with Alcohol, Driving licenses, etc. Instead children would own special devices that are locked down and tagged with a "underage" flag when interacting with online services, while adults could continue as normal. We already heavily restrict the freedom of children so there is plenty of precedent for this. Optionally we could provide service points to unlock devices when they turn 18 to avoid E-waste as well. This way it's the point of sale where you provide your ID, instead of attaching it to the hardware itself and sending it out to every single SaaS on the planet to do what they wish.
- tayo42 7mo agoI can't tell if this is sarcasm or not
- travisgriggs 7mo agoHyperbole of some sort. I think it works on both the positive and negative side of the axis too.
- nandomrumber 7mo agoI’ll have a packet of cigarettes, a fifth of vodka, and an unrestricted personal electro device. ID please. Seems entirely reasonable. Possibility entirely ineffective, but then again I don’t often see children walking around with bottle a of booze.
- pants2 7mo agoTikTok has a drug-like effect on the brain. Multiple studies show a clear link between excessive TikTok engagement and increased levels of anxiety, depression, and stress. Maybe it is time we regulate it like a drug?
- Shitty-kitty 7mo agoWhat do you mean exactly, tax it as a vice?!
- voidUpdate 7mo agoIs that because of engaging with tiktok, or because of the content on tiktok? If the app was exclusively pictures of kittens and nice flowers you saw on your commute, would it have a detrimental effect?
- true_religion 7mo agoThis is how the internet is run in countries where you need ID to connect to services. It’s not at all dystopian.
- keybored 7mo agoIt’s about 15 years ahead of its time. Too enlightened for most.
- pinkmuffinere 7mo ago> We should have banned children I see you Mr Quaker Oats
- azinman2 7mo agoWould be a nightmare to implement and achieve the goal, but I have to say I think it’s more right than wrong. All of the data is very clear about the harms. China has restrictions for social media and screen time for kids — how do they implement this?
- k1musab1 7mo agoPassport /citizen ID linked to your WOW account, etc.
- TkTech 7mo agoWhich has never worked. Korea had a system to prevent kids from gaming after midnight for something like 15 years. All it did was make Korean kids very good at memorizing their parents ID.
- hnfong 7mo agoIn China they link the ID to a phone number (via mobile carriers) and the online services require you to authenticate using the phone (SMS etc.) Unless the kids are able to secretly access the parent's phone there's no low-effort way to work around the system. I don't know about Korea but if memorizing an ID number works, then that's just a badly designed system. I'm not sure what your argument is really, unless you're saying there's technically and absolutely no feasible way to securely verify the age of a person before allowing them to access an online service (even if you allow the government to be authoritarian)
- reactordev 7mo agoThe point is, where there’s a will, there’s a way.
- em-bee 7mo agowhen i signed up for mobile service or for internet service in china (i don't remember the specifics), i was given half a dozen sim cards for use in my family. so they were all tied to my or my wife's name, but used by anyone who needed one. i believe the in-laws got at least one or two, and my kids would have gotten one, had they been old enough to have their own phone. i don't know if there was any rule that would restrict who we give those cards. the actual users of each simcard did not have to identify themselves. so at least then it wasn't about age controls, but it obviously would allow tracing the owner eventually.
- jjmarr 7mo ago> Instead children would own special devices that are locked down and tagged with a "underage" flag when interacting with online services, while adults could continue as normal. California is mandating OSes provide ages to app stores, and HN lost their mind because it's a ban on Linux.
- consp 7mo ago> California is mandating OSes provide ages to app stores, They forgot to put in the provision which exempts apps which do not need an age rating? As in: everything os related. Sounds like a good way to get rid of snap at least since that is where all the commercial bloat is located. Last time I did a fresh Debian install I do not remember installing any app from the os repository which would require age restrictions (afaik).
- jjmarr 7mo ago> They forgot to put in the provision which exempts apps which do not need an age rating? As in: everything os related. That's correct. You need to provide your age to install grep.
- greybcg 7mo agoAt the same time, I remember growing up in the internet's wild west and bad encounters weren't an issue for me because of the golden rule I was taught from the start: you don't give your personal information and you don't interact with complete strangers. Learning to navigate the web instead of being in a walled garden was helpful in many ways. The better question to ask ourselves is, does the capability to gather more information also lead to more power to act on this information? If the investigative resources are spread thin already it's not like they're gonna catch more criminals with investing more there. Repelling questionable individuals off the platform with lots transparancy -is- an effective way, but just a specific tool for a symptom. I think a part of a better solution is to give parents and children better tools to manage their social graph themselves. Essentially the real problem is discovery and warding off of social outliers in a way that doesnt out all responsibility on opaque algos or corporations. A part of their e2e keys could be shared using an intentionally obtuse way like mailing an item or a physical "friend code". That way parents and vetted friends can have their privacy. You don't need to tie an id to someone's person to get positive confirmation on someone's poor behaviour. If someone crossed the line then parents can see it and escalate. In additon, what would happen to a child with abusive parents who can then arbitrarily restrict and deny a childs freedom to communicate? I did not have this myself, but without free access to other minds and information I would have been duller. Does a large information dragnet really serve our collective interests or are more precise tools needed?
- debazel 7mo ago> I think a part of a better solution is to give parents and children better tools to manage their social graph themselves. Essentially the real problem is discovery and warding off of social outliers in a way that doesnt out all responsibility on opaque algos or corporations. This is actually a key consideration for the proposed implementation. The biggest issue for parents when restricting their children's online activity is that they simply don't understand the tool available for it. By having a "child mode" iPhone, parents don't have to know any of that. They simply buy the iPhone Kids for their children and then get a plain iPhone for themselves. If these restrictions were to actually be enforced by law as well, then it would make it very easy for teachers and other guardians to check if a device is appropriate for the child using it.
- eru 7mo agoParents are already allowed to restrict their children access to 'dangerous' things like open computers or knives.
- thaumasiotes 7mo agoI don't think debazel was saying that children should have been banned from owning computers for the benefit of the children. He was saying that children should have been banned from owning computers so that the government would have no excuse to regulate what's allowed on computers.
- bougainvilley 7mo agoso we agree that governments only using the safety of children as pretext to extend their control of people's lives, otherwise there are better solution protect children of the harms of the internet.
- eru 7mo agoI would put the blame on voters more than governments.
- eru 7mo agoWell, it didn't work for alcohol and tobacco: in addition to being banned for children in many jurisdictions they are still heavily regulated.
- jaapz 7mo agoParents are also allowed to restrict their children access to alcohol and cigarettes, but it seems a government ban on them buying those things works better
- AnthonyMouse 7mo agoGiven the ease with which kids who want them can get any of those things in schools, it's not clear that the government ban is actually doing anything of significance or that the reduction in usage isn't more a result of convincing people that those things are actually bad for them so they choose not to partake despite the continued widespread availability. Notice that consumption of those things is also down for adults even though adults are not banned from getting them.
- chillfox 7mo agoThis honestly sounds like the best proposed solution I have heard.
- fhd2 7mo agoAgreed. Putting the burden on parents is quite something: 1. You end up being the bad guy, other parents don't restrict their kids internet usage etc. Some folks would argue to just not set up restrictions and trust them. But it's a slippery slope and puts kids in a weird position. They start out with innocent YouTube videos, but pretty quickly a web search or even a comment can lead them to strange places. They want to play games online, but then creeps abuse that all the time. Even if you trust them to not do anything "wrong", it's a lot to put on their shoulders. 2. If you want to put restrictions in place, even if you're an expert, the tools out there are pretty wonky. You can set up a child protection DNS, but most home routers don't make it easy (or even allow you) to set a different DNS server. And that's not particularly hard to circumvent. I suppose a proxy would be a more solid solution, but setting that up would be major yak shaving. Any "family safety" features (especially those from Microsoft) are ridiculously complicated and often quite buggy. Right now, I got the problem on my plate that I need to migrate one of my kid's accounts from a local Windows account to a Microsoft account (without them loosing all their stuff), because for local accounts, it seems the button to add the device is just missing? Naturally, the docs don't mention that, I had to do research to arrive at that hypothesis. The amount of yak shaving, setup and configuration you have to do for a reasonable setup is just nuts. 3. If you're not good with tech - I don't see how you have _any_ chance in hell to set up meaningful restrictions. Some countries are banning social media - sure, that's one thing. But there's a _lot_ of weird places on the internet, kids will find something else. I for one would appreciate dedicated devices or modes for kids < 18. Would solve all this stuff in a heartbeat.
- mwigdahl 7mo agoAfter struggling with this problem for a while, we started using Qustodio. It's not perfect by any means, but it's the most broadly effective and usable tool for parental control I've found. Loads better than the confusing iOS native screen time tools.
- MrToadMan 7mo agoLocking down children’s devices doesn’t stop adults sharing illegal content with other adults though, so there would still be pressure to monitor communications between adults.
- hsbauauvhabzb 7mo agoI don’t think they’re doing that on TikTok
- psychoslave 7mo agoAt some points, laws become an ineffective tool to prevent malevolent people to act in detrimental manners, no matter what it states. But prejudices of wicked states will always continue to impact more badly general public as ever more drastic laws lacking any balance become enacted.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- larodi 7mo agoIndeed way past time. Though no CEO would admin publicly what the addiction to attention/social media, gaming, and general screen use, causes to children. Of course this should've been regulated similarly to Alcohol, but billions would dry and it's much easier to witch-hunt marijuana, and illegal raves, right?
- brainzap 7mo agoapple SDK already can return underage/adult
- Razengan 7mo ago> while adults could continue as normal. After providing their identities to prove they are adults, and having all their activities tracked wherever they go and whatever they do. The first 18 years aren't freedom either, just the system prepping you for what's ahead.
- keybored 7mo agoThe most important principle in the modern age is the freedom to prey on wallets. You can’t give parents tools to conveniently restrict what their children do. Impressionable minds ought to live in a lord of the flies state where they are bombarded with stuff to nag to their parents about and give them FOMO about what their friends have that they don’t have. That’s why children must be free.
- threatofrain 7mo agoUltimately your neighbors must buy the argument. The reason why this argument wins is not because framing is so tricky, but because it connects with the values of your neighbors. Trying to convince people that these aren't actually their values is swimming upriver.
- Tepix 7mo agoThe solution is simple: Take away the argument by blocking children's access to social media. Win-Win.
- haritha-j 7mo agoI don't understand why all teh child safety systems require age verification. Why not have a single setting on a smartphone that sends a 'child' flag to every single app or website, which then reacts accordingly? As long as you ensure that the browser can't be changed or modifed, it should be fine.
- medi8r 7mo agoTikTok is the government, morealess
- pino83 7mo agoDoes it matter. It's just some arbitrary company. They do have the freedom to decide those things however they want, right? The customer can then decide whether to switch or not.
- hk__2 7mo agoSwitch to what exactly?
- pino83 7mo agoIf there is nothing else, then you as a customer has screwed up with it before, right? And then the entire strategy/philosophy is maybe to be reviewed?! Or, in other words: If there is no alternative, this is due to your own faults. Either deal with it, or find ways to undo your mistakes.
- hk__2 7mo agoHow is it the customer’s fault that no good alternative to TikTok exists?
- gzread 7mo agoAlternatives to private messaging on TikTok? Uh, Signal. SimpleX. Session. XMPP/OTR. PGP. Discussing things on TikTok, that the government must not know about, seems a bad idea.
- pino83 7mo agoExactly. And once those ones are established: Why not have all discussions there; not just the ones where you explicitly want to hide something (for whatever dubious or legit reason).
- gzread 7mo agoBecause you know someone's TikTok handle and you don't know their email address and PGP key