3 ms·
It'd be the sensible non-surveillance option. All that would be required is that the OS or SIM sold is a tiny bit different with a flag that the browsers/apps r
by flowerbreeze 2mo ago
It'd be the sensible non-surveillance option. All that would be required is that the OS or SIM sold is a tiny bit different with a flag that the browsers/apps respect and that each website that accepts underage users sends a header that browsers can check and allow/disallow access. Compliance with child friendly legal requirements would still be with the company owning the website.
Of course it's not as attractive to the governments as putting in place a full scale surveillance aparatus that puts KGB to shame.
- astrobe_ 2mo agoWell if one assumes "Never attribute to malice..." for a moment here, it's quite understandable that they'd like to kill 3 birds with one stone, and one would agree that having ways to fight against pedos and mafias is actually helping with one of the "mission statements" of most states. However, laws are a delicate matter, especially those that have to limit some rights to guarantee others (here privacy and security). Making distinct laws for children protection and against online activities related to crime certainly should allow more fine tuning of each framework.