221–230 of 520 posts
Could we step back a little and maybe revisit the premise that we need the gov't to be protecting children to begin with? That's what parents are supposed to be doing.
Let's actually create and maintain a society.
There are still places in the world where you and your family can literally fend for yourself against nature and rival gangs and so on if you're just super attached to the concept though, it's not like this option has been foreclosed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sadly we got to this place because there are other harms that are occurring and those are forcing this conversation.
The "other harms" are made up fearmongering by rightwing cowards and incompetent parents.
I have personally had to remove NCII for teens and young adults. Grooming is a thing, self harm communities are a thing, as is sextortion.All of it at internet scale.
And this ignores the parts where the platforms released features they knew from their own tests, were harmful to teens.
It is convenient to dismiss them, because it makes it easier to hold positions that depend on them being minor harms.
These people are obsessed with risk mitigation that it's not even worth having tech class anymore. No risk. 100% control all the time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it should be, maybe I'm missing some aspect, I just cooked up a simple list of rules on the spot, sheesh :-D Edit: huh, I'm probably stupid, but can you explain more?
HN uses magical platform votes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Government builds a website where you can log in using any government issued ID or using one of the many many many available services that hold your details already(at least in the UK nearly everyone will have a DLVA account, HMRC account, HMPO account, NHS account.....all of these are government services which we can only assume hold our data securely already). On that website, you can click "give me a verification…
This means giving the government complete insight into your internet browsing. All they need to do is store a database table of handed out keys to ids. This is unacceptable tyranny on its face.
...how? All they know is you've authenticated with service X. And like I said, we can make legislation to say they are not allowed to keep the record of who authenticated.
Besides, let's not let perfect be the enemy of the good - in the UK all ISPs are required to keep a full year of your browsing history, and 17 government agencies can access this data(including DEFRA - the agriculture agency lol). So like....the "the government will have a full history of your browsing" is a ship that sailed a few years ago. Obviously I don't agree with it, and I think we should be on the streets of London and protesting this, but here we are as a country.
So like yeah, I get your point. But UK is particularily fucked on this point, let's not make it even more fucked with the way things currently are, the authentication can and should be done better.
Perhaps it's the parents who are too dumb to understand how to configure a network?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What makes you think this will be close to 90%? Unless these cards are expensive I don't see that happening. its obviously just an illustrative guess. but if the penalty of possessing the card is similar to underage possession of alcohol/tobacco, and larger penalties if a store/person is found providing a card to someone underage, i see no reason why it wouldnt have a similar success rate as alcohol/tobacco.
Why possess the card when you can just buy the UUID on the dark web
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it only "requires" browser attestation if we taken it as a given that the onus is on tech companies for verifying who they are talking to - ie identity verification that most of these schemes boil down to regardless of how cute they're dressed up. To effectively keep adult content away from kids, it merely requires secure boot and closed app stores, which are already widespread. And they are only required on the…
> To effectively keep adult content away from kids, it merely requires secure boot and closed app stores, which are already widespread. And they are only required on the devices actually given to kids, rather than every single computing device. ...I guess I don't really see the difference. Closed app stores are widespread on some platforms but certainly not others, and I for one would really like them to not spread a…
But in general there is a huge difference between the freedom-destroying properties of secure boot with closed app stores, and the next step of remote attestation. Remote attestation lets the server insist that you only run software fully of their choosing rather than your choosing, as a condition of interacting with them. This completely destroys the idea of protocols that mediate between two parties with diverging interests, and computationally disenfranchises users. Imagine the next generation of the Cloudflare nagwall that doesn't let you past unless you buy a new computer, and that new computer must be running MSWin/OSX and MSIE/Chrome.
(also note that my use of "secure boot" here includes systems like on Pixels where you can straightforwardly unlock the bootloader (erasing the data on the device), install whatever you want, and then relock. I still find these systems philosophically objectionable, as there is still a privileged key baked in and retained by the manufacturer - similar security properties could be provided without the backdoor. But pragmatically they've been working okay)