Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You could make it even more robust if you required a cellphone store employee And you would accept a device that would require a third party for setup?!?!?! That is what I meant with "either proving identity or lunatic workarounds"... That "robust enough" is full grounds to have a population rise, given that an expectable combination of stupidity as ineptitude and stupidity as radical psychosis from the state can s…
> Have they (the keir starmer bunch) or have they not issued a law without the crucial details - how to do it, the whole matter is absurd without full clarity on "how to do it"? This (a law with a separate binding statutory instrument to implement it) is actually a pretty normal formulation of British law. It's not unique to this situation, nor is it a sign of malfeasance. It's worked pretty well before, it is far fr…
Surely there exist cases where details are unimportant - but normally what counts is achieving in the conception of a solution, because pointing at the problem is trivial. Setting an abstract goal is a no-cost effort; navigating the "compromises" is the actual work.
As I wrote, «the whole matter is absurd without full clarity on "how to do it"?»: plainly the issue is "how to have an age verification mechanism" when it clashes with the basicmost right to anonimity, and not defining the crucial detail consists in abysmal levels of inability and in criminal terror.