4 ms·

Parents already have the ability to lock down Android or iOS devices for their own children, if they choose to do so.

anjiro 4mo ago
Super awesome as long as your kids never go anywhere they could access a non-locked-down device. And assuming that device parental controls work, which (at least on iOS) they don't [1]. 1. https://www.macworld.com/article/2305919/apple-parental-controls-need-improvement.html https://www.macworld.com/article/2305919/apple-parental-cont...
- archagon 4mo ago
  You can’t patch every hole. Kids will always find a way. More technological solutions to social problems.
- j-bos 4mo ago
  Same applies to alcohol at a friend's house, cigarette's behind the shop, and any other sort of restrictions when away from parents. Ultimately kid's will either take to heart their parent's guidnace or they won't.
  - the_mitsuhiko 4mo ago
    Those things are still illegal for minors. I find that to be a rather weak argument.
    - saghm 4mo ago
      They're implemented in a way that people who don't ever buy alcohol or cigarettes get effected by though. I can't feasibly opt out of the entire internet that I use to pay bills, schedule doctors appointments, file taxes, etc. because hypothetical children could use them to access completely unrelated things to those boring parts of my everyday life. The equivalent would be if I got carded every time I stepped out of my house just in case I might decide to buy alcohol later.
      - quectophoton 4mo ago
        > The equivalent would be if I got carded every time I stepped out of my house just in case I might decide to buy alcohol later. More like requiring ID verification in fridges just to be able to open them, because they might contain alcohol (probably followed by RFID stuff or something).
- laughing_man 4mo ago
  There's a big difference between your kid accessing inappropriate things at a friends house for a few hours a month and having that stuff at his or her fingertips 24/7. If parents were really concerned about this stuff they'd take the time to set up parental controls, but they don't. Which makes me pretty sure the push for all this isn't coming from parents.
  - Terr_ 4mo ago
    Also, (b)locking at the device level has a crucial benefit: It brings enforcement into a physical realm where parents can detect and manage exceptions. If Little Timmy has a phone you don't recognize in his hand, then you know that's a problem. It also insulates every website from needing to support Orthodox Latverian messianism where male children below the age of 17 lunar years cannot see unclad ankles.
  - enoint 4mo ago
    > If parents were really concerned about this stuff they'd take the time to set up parental controls, but they don't. Which makes me pretty sure the push for all this isn't coming from parents. I agree and moreover I cannot overstate how I do not want networks to have any PII about my children.
- simoncion 4mo ago
  > Super awesome as long as your kids never go anywhere they could access a non-locked-down device. Please describe how requiring a government ID in order to use a computer prevents an over-seventeen from presenting their ID to unlock their computer and then handing that computer over to an under-eighteen? An over-seventeen handing over control of their unlocked computer to a visiting under-eighteen seems to me to be an under-eighteen "go[ing somewhere] they could access a non-locked-down device". The only way I can see to even begin to combat that is to constantly surveil the operator of the computer to attempt to detect when its operator changes. Do you have a superior method?
  - saghm 4mo ago
    > The only way I can see to even begin to combat that is to constantly surveil the operator of the computer to attempt to detect when its operator changes. Do you have a superior method? The idea that I should have to figure out a mechanism for other people to police their children in order to use my devices that no child ever has access to for things like paying bills and making doctors appointments without presenting identification is absurd. Minors still drink alcohol all the time, but that would be a pretty shoddy excuse for the government making me flash my ID to leave my house and didn't let me in grocery stores because I couldn't come up with any more effective way to prevent underage drinking.
- EmbarrassedHelp 4mo ago
  > Super awesome as long as your kids never go anywhere they could access a non-locked-down device. We could lock every kid and adult in a padded cell to prevent kids from being harmed, so why don't we pass a law requiring that? Because its not a proportional response, just like demanding mandatory age verification for every adult is not proportional either.
kelseyfrog 4mo ago
If we expect the behavior of parents to change we must change their incentives. Providing access to social media must be met with the same punishment as offering heroin to children. The monopoly on violence must be brought to bear on parents who neglect parental responsibilities.
- interloxia 4mo ago
  That's how we end up with stolen generations of kids taken from parents. It was bad and suggesting state violence for lack of compliance with your world view is bad.
  - saghm 4mo ago
    I'm pretty sure the parent comment is not being serious. They're making a point that some solutions are worse than the problem they're trying to solve.
jtmarl1n 4mo ago
Parental controls are extremely weak on all the major platforms. Apple, Google, Amazon, etc. they all have them so they can check the box but they are not good and certainly not a solution. That said, it is better than nothing, but that’s about it.
- simoncion 4mo ago
  > Parental controls are extremely weak on all the major platforms. So pass laws and enact regulations that require them to be made strong. Not only does this moot the demands for capture of photo ID, beefing up the parental controls that already exist in every major OS means that -say- adults caring for their dementia-damaged parents can restrict those adults' access to things that could be very dangerous to them and/or their finances. A strictly-age-based "protection" scheme absolutely does not do that. One might argue that one could "merely" require a "This adult is seriously intellectually damaged. [0] Make sure to protect them from scammers and predators!" flag that can be flipped on by a Registered Caretaker. I humbly suggest that that is information you should never disclose to a company that makes its money by trading in dossiers of its users. [0] Dear downvoters: I understand that this isn't the PC term for the effects of these sorts of ailments. If you've ever had to watch over and care for someone who gets cored out bad by this shit, it's hard to describe it as anything else.
  - alt227 4mo ago
    > So pass laws and enact regulations that require them to be made strong. No, please dont. More regulation is not the answer. Any more restriction which is imposed on kids becomes the thing they focus on getting around. Just dont buy your kids phones until they are older, and send them outside to play. Thats all the parental restriction you need on phones.
    - simoncion 4mo ago
      > No, please dont. Why not? If the parental controls in all the mainstream OSs are effective, difficult to bypass, and don't involve any communications with third-parties beyond communicating the set of prohibited topics/actions/whatever, what's left for busybodies to complain about? NOTE: I'm not calling you a busybody. I'm calling the people who push for these "age verification" laws with the genuine belief that they're for protecting minors who lack the ability to handle the dangers of the world busybodies.
ars 4mo ago
That's just not true. If you give your kid WhatsApp access because that's how 95% of their peers text each other, then your kid has access to a hidden chat that can only be revealed by typing a secret code in the search bar. Tell me how a parent is supposed to parent their kid when they can do that? Locking down WhatsApp is no solution because then they can't talk to anyone. (Other countries do not use SMS as much as the US does, it's mostly WhatsApp.) Say you are sure your kid is being bullied or abused and you want to check their phone. You can't. From the password to encrypted apps kids can hide their communications in ways that are impossible for a parent to check. Apps do not have "child modes" that disable all the secret stuff, although that would be nice.
- gib444 4mo ago
  I don't have kids but I do wonder if maybe the downsides of WhatsApp etc outweigh the benefits? Lack of practice with face to face communication, near inability to talk on the phone, less quality connection with people in general, craned necks, myopia, hidden bullying, privacy violations, dependency on a US company etc And what do you mean by "can't talk to anyone"?
  - ars 4mo ago
    In places where WhatsApp is highly used you basically can't function without it, school events are posted there, friends organize activities on it, teachers communicate to both parents and kids on it. Giving a highschool kid a phone is basically mandatory or they will be cut off from activities, and/or rely on a friend to relay messages. In some places even middleschoolers need it. There are definitely downsides (not to mention WhatsApp is a really badly engineering program), but the network effect is too strong to fight.
- saghm 4mo ago
  > If you give your kid WhatsApp access because that's how 95% of their peers text each other, then your kid has access to a hidden chat that can only be revealed by typing a secret code in the search bar. So the solution to parents deciding to give their kids access to stuff is to make me flash my ID every time I go online on one of my devices that I use in my childless household? And you're confident that there won't be plenty of parents who just put their ID information in for their kids anyhow?

Super awesome as long as your kids never go anywhere they could access a non-locked-down device. And assuming that device parental controls work, which (at least on iOS) they don't [1]. 1. https://www.macworld.com/article/2305919/apple-parental-controls-need-improvement.html https://www.macworld.com/article/2305919/apple-parental-cont...

archagon 4mo ago
You can’t patch every hole. Kids will always find a way. More technological solutions to social problems.
j-bos 4mo ago
Same applies to alcohol at a friend's house, cigarette's behind the shop, and any other sort of restrictions when away from parents. Ultimately kid's will either take to heart their parent's guidnace or they won't.
- the_mitsuhiko 4mo ago
  Those things are still illegal for minors. I find that to be a rather weak argument.
  - saghm 4mo ago
    They're implemented in a way that people who don't ever buy alcohol or cigarettes get effected by though. I can't feasibly opt out of the entire internet that I use to pay bills, schedule doctors appointments, file taxes, etc. because hypothetical children could use them to access completely unrelated things to those boring parts of my everyday life. The equivalent would be if I got carded every time I stepped out of my house just in case I might decide to buy alcohol later.
    - quectophoton 4mo ago
      > The equivalent would be if I got carded every time I stepped out of my house just in case I might decide to buy alcohol later. More like requiring ID verification in fridges just to be able to open them, because they might contain alcohol (probably followed by RFID stuff or something).
laughing_man 4mo ago
There's a big difference between your kid accessing inappropriate things at a friends house for a few hours a month and having that stuff at his or her fingertips 24/7. If parents were really concerned about this stuff they'd take the time to set up parental controls, but they don't. Which makes me pretty sure the push for all this isn't coming from parents.
- Terr_ 4mo ago
  Also, (b)locking at the device level has a crucial benefit: It brings enforcement into a physical realm where parents can detect and manage exceptions. If Little Timmy has a phone you don't recognize in his hand, then you know that's a problem. It also insulates every website from needing to support Orthodox Latverian messianism where male children below the age of 17 lunar years cannot see unclad ankles.
- enoint 4mo ago
  > If parents were really concerned about this stuff they'd take the time to set up parental controls, but they don't. Which makes me pretty sure the push for all this isn't coming from parents. I agree and moreover I cannot overstate how I do not want networks to have any PII about my children.
simoncion 4mo ago
> Super awesome as long as your kids never go anywhere they could access a non-locked-down device. Please describe how requiring a government ID in order to use a computer prevents an over-seventeen from presenting their ID to unlock their computer and then handing that computer over to an under-eighteen? An over-seventeen handing over control of their unlocked computer to a visiting under-eighteen seems to me to be an under-eighteen "go[ing somewhere] they could access a non-locked-down device". The only way I can see to even begin to combat that is to constantly surveil the operator of the computer to attempt to detect when its operator changes. Do you have a superior method?
- saghm 4mo ago
  > The only way I can see to even begin to combat that is to constantly surveil the operator of the computer to attempt to detect when its operator changes. Do you have a superior method? The idea that I should have to figure out a mechanism for other people to police their children in order to use my devices that no child ever has access to for things like paying bills and making doctors appointments without presenting identification is absurd. Minors still drink alcohol all the time, but that would be a pretty shoddy excuse for the government making me flash my ID to leave my house and didn't let me in grocery stores because I couldn't come up with any more effective way to prevent underage drinking.
EmbarrassedHelp 4mo ago
> Super awesome as long as your kids never go anywhere they could access a non-locked-down device. We could lock every kid and adult in a padded cell to prevent kids from being harmed, so why don't we pass a law requiring that? Because its not a proportional response, just like demanding mandatory age verification for every adult is not proportional either.

kelseyfrog 4mo ago

If we expect the behavior of parents to change we must change their incentives. Providing access to social media must be met with the same punishment as offering heroin to children. The monopoly on violence must be brought to bear on parents who neglect parental responsibilities.

interloxia 4mo ago
That's how we end up with stolen generations of kids taken from parents. It was bad and suggesting state violence for lack of compliance with your world view is bad.
- saghm 4mo ago
  I'm pretty sure the parent comment is not being serious. They're making a point that some solutions are worse than the problem they're trying to solve.

jtmarl1n 4mo ago

Parental controls are extremely weak on all the major platforms. Apple, Google, Amazon, etc. they all have them so they can check the box but they are not good and certainly not a solution. That said, it is better than nothing, but that’s about it.

simoncion 4mo ago
> Parental controls are extremely weak on all the major platforms. So pass laws and enact regulations that require them to be made strong. Not only does this moot the demands for capture of photo ID, beefing up the parental controls that already exist in every major OS means that -say- adults caring for their dementia-damaged parents can restrict those adults' access to things that could be very dangerous to them and/or their finances. A strictly-age-based "protection" scheme absolutely does not do that. One might argue that one could "merely" require a "This adult is seriously intellectually damaged. [0] Make sure to protect them from scammers and predators!" flag that can be flipped on by a Registered Caretaker. I humbly suggest that that is information you should never disclose to a company that makes its money by trading in dossiers of its users. [0] Dear downvoters: I understand that this isn't the PC term for the effects of these sorts of ailments. If you've ever had to watch over and care for someone who gets cored out bad by this shit, it's hard to describe it as anything else.
- alt227 4mo ago
  > So pass laws and enact regulations that require them to be made strong. No, please dont. More regulation is not the answer. Any more restriction which is imposed on kids becomes the thing they focus on getting around. Just dont buy your kids phones until they are older, and send them outside to play. Thats all the parental restriction you need on phones.
  - simoncion 4mo ago
    > No, please dont. Why not? If the parental controls in all the mainstream OSs are effective, difficult to bypass, and don't involve any communications with third-parties beyond communicating the set of prohibited topics/actions/whatever, what's left for busybodies to complain about? NOTE: I'm not calling you a busybody. I'm calling the people who push for these "age verification" laws with the genuine belief that they're for protecting minors who lack the ability to handle the dangers of the world busybodies.

ars 4mo ago

That's just not true. If you give your kid WhatsApp access because that's how 95% of their peers text each other, then your kid has access to a hidden chat that can only be revealed by typing a secret code in the search bar. Tell me how a parent is supposed to parent their kid when they can do that? Locking down WhatsApp is no solution because then they can't talk to anyone. (Other countries do not use SMS as much as the US does, it's mostly WhatsApp.) Say you are sure your kid is being bullied or abused and you want to check their phone. You can't. From the password to encrypted apps kids can hide their communications in ways that are impossible for a parent to check. Apps do not have "child modes" that disable all the secret stuff, although that would be nice.

gib444 4mo ago
I don't have kids but I do wonder if maybe the downsides of WhatsApp etc outweigh the benefits? Lack of practice with face to face communication, near inability to talk on the phone, less quality connection with people in general, craned necks, myopia, hidden bullying, privacy violations, dependency on a US company etc And what do you mean by "can't talk to anyone"?
- ars 4mo ago
  In places where WhatsApp is highly used you basically can't function without it, school events are posted there, friends organize activities on it, teachers communicate to both parents and kids on it. Giving a highschool kid a phone is basically mandatory or they will be cut off from activities, and/or rely on a friend to relay messages. In some places even middleschoolers need it. There are definitely downsides (not to mention WhatsApp is a really badly engineering program), but the network effect is too strong to fight.
saghm 4mo ago
> If you give your kid WhatsApp access because that's how 95% of their peers text each other, then your kid has access to a hidden chat that can only be revealed by typing a secret code in the search bar. So the solution to parents deciding to give their kids access to stuff is to make me flash my ID every time I go online on one of my devices that I use in my childless household? And you're confident that there won't be plenty of parents who just put their ID information in for their kids anyhow?