A reason to be cautious about propositions like these isn't just the inherent belittling of children's right to information, which can be argued for or against in certain cases, but the aspect of giving any proceeding government the ability to ban a form of media from children due to their perception of toxicity, derangement, danger, et cetera.
Denmark's government aims to ban access to social media for children under 15
31–40 of 453 posts
Re: Denmark's government aims to ban access to social media for children under 15
#32I'm a bit suspicious: it was Denmark's government that pushed for chat control.
Re: Denmark's government aims to ban access to social media for children under 15
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know where you get your information, but that was not in the chat control proposal I read.
Patrick Breyer has some good thoughts on this.[1] The relevant points I believe to be: > All citizens are placed under suspicion, without cause, of possibly having committed a crime. Text and photo filters monitor all messages, without exception. No judge is required to order to such monitoring – contrary to the analog world which guarantees the privacy of correspondence and the confidentiality of written communicati…
> All citizens are placed under suspicion
> No judge is required to order to such monitoring
That sounds quite extreme, I just can't square that with what I can actually read in the proposal.
> the power to request the competent judicial authority of the Member State that designated it or another independent administrative authority of that Member State
It explicitly states otherwise. A judge (or other independent authority) has to be involved. It just sounds like baseless fear mongering (or worse, libertarianism) to me.
Re: Denmark's government aims to ban access to social media for children under 15
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
I look forward to being able to buy your porn surfing habits on the darkweb in a few years.
*everyone's The difference is meaningful. It's mostly prisoners dilemma. If only one persons porn habit is available thats bad for them. If everyones (legal) porn habits are available, then it gets normalized.
this seems to run parallel to the "i have nothing to hide" / "well they have everyone's data, so who cares about mine" arguments.
this is too narrow a view on the issue. the problem isn't that a colleague, acquaintance, neighbor, or government employee is going to snoop through your data. the problem is that once any government has everyone's data, they will feed it to PRISM-esque systems and use it to accurately model the population, granting the power to predict and shape future events.
Re: Denmark's government aims to ban access to social media for children under 15
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
Patrick Breyer has some good thoughts on this.[1] The relevant points I believe to be: > All citizens are placed under suspicion, without cause, of possibly having committed a crime. Text and photo filters monitor all messages, without exception. No judge is required to order to such monitoring – contrary to the analog world which guarantees the privacy of correspondence and the confidentiality of written communicati…
> All citizens are placed under suspicion > No judge is required to order to such monitoring That sounds quite extreme, I just can't square that with what I can actually read in the proposal. > the power to request the competent judicial authority of the Member State that designated it or another independent administrative authority of that Member State It explicitly states otherwise. A judge (or other independent au…
Didn't the proposal involve automated scanning of all instant messages? How isn't that equivalent of having an automated system opening every letter and listening to every phone call looking for crimes?
Re: Denmark's government aims to ban access to social media for children under 15
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
But why would you give your id?
You don't need to, that's the thing. The site requests "are you over 18" and you use your ID to prove it without them getting any other information from it. Requires a phone with NFC, but the app is open source
hopefully the protocol is open source too. I'd hate to find that it just works on iOS and Google certified Android.
Re: Denmark's government aims to ban access to social media for children under 15
#37A reason to be cautious about propositions like these isn't just the inherent belittling of children's right to information, which can be argued for or against in certain cases, but the aspect of giving any proceeding government the ability to ban a form of media from children due to their perception of toxicity, derangement, danger, et cetera.
The inherent belittling of children's right to the enjoyment of alcoholic drinks... Our current form of social media is a drug and it harms our children in all ways and adults too btw.
Re: Denmark's government aims to ban access to social media for children under 15
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
you are on social media right now.
And Tylenol is a drug just the same as heroin. Do you think that HN has the same sort of impacts on people as instagram or facebook?
Do you think a law which restricts "social media" will be crafted delicately enough to affect Instagram and Facebook but not HN?
Re: Denmark's government aims to ban access to social media for children under 15
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't need to, that's the thing. The site requests "are you over 18" and you use your ID to prove it without them getting any other information from it. Requires a phone with NFC, but the app is open source
hopefully the protocol is open source too. I'd hate to find that it just works on iOS and Google certified Android.
Should all be open, but I don't know for sure. Works with ungoogled android unless something changed.
Re: Denmark's government aims to ban access to social media for children under 15
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
Patrick Breyer has some good thoughts on this.[1] The relevant points I believe to be: > All citizens are placed under suspicion, without cause, of possibly having committed a crime. Text and photo filters monitor all messages, without exception. No judge is required to order to such monitoring – contrary to the analog world which guarantees the privacy of correspondence and the confidentiality of written communicati…
> All citizens are placed under suspicion > No judge is required to order to such monitoring That sounds quite extreme, I just can't square that with what I can actually read in the proposal. > the power to request the competent judicial authority of the Member State that designated it or another independent administrative authority of that Member State It explicitly states otherwise. A judge (or other independent au…
The proposal is about deploying automated scanning of every message and every image on all messaging providers and email client. That is indisputable.
It therefore breaks EtoE as it intercepts the messages on your device and sends them off to whatever 3rd party they are planning to use before those are encrypted and sent to the recipient.
> It explicitly states otherwise. A judge (or other independent authority) has to be involved. It just sounds like baseless fear mongering (or worse, libertarianism) to me.
How can a judge be involved when we are talking about scanning hundreds of millions if not billions of messages each day? That does not make any sense.
I suggest you re-read the Chat control proposal because I believe you are mistaken if you think that a judge is involved in this process.