31–40 of 123 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't want it in my hardware but I'd buy an accessory that does this.
Would you be OK with everyone who wants to browse the web unhindered being required to buy an accessory that does this...?
Oh look, we’re back where we started. The only winning move is to not play.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure why we don't just make a law that parents must set parental controls on their kids' devices. We do this for most other things.
What is the punishment you want to give to parents who don't? That's the implication of making a law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. My kids are young right now, but I'm wondering if we can just have a shared family room computer like in the 90s. (school-based laptops might thwart this, but maybe by the time they're school-aged people will realize that constantly putting kids in front a screen is a bad thing to do?)
With my family, I shut down and threw away my last PC; too many security head aches. I bought the cheapest large screen iPad(s) and promptly locked them down. One of my best decisions.
In my opinion, access to internet should always be behind a device controlled by an adult. And it should be this adult's responsibility to set appropriate restrictions for minors.
Agreed. My kids are young right now, but I'm wondering if we can just have a shared family room computer like in the 90s. (school-based laptops might thwart this, but maybe by the time they're school-aged people will realize that constantly putting kids in front a screen is a bad thing to do?)
We also have pi-hole running that blocks a lot of things, and can turn on and off certain domains (so they can play roblox etc for a short while, then its blocked again) and their devices are pretty locked down
Are we also at assume that the EFF fail to see the similarity of age-gating porn websites and age-gating entrance to strip clubs?
That doesn't seem likely to me, and I find it way more likely that the EFF is purposefully excluding the best argument against their chosen position.
Paradoxically this is one of those features/requirements that i feel should be on the end-user-device with zero knowledge proof. It would make sense to have the enduser verification ondevice with a simple reply to any online property : Passed age verification/or not. Otherwise the centralization and eventual leak of this data is a can of worms in waiting.
Any on-device solution that simply sends back a yes/no result as you describe is guaranteed to have one of two problems: 1) It is vulnerable to modifications and hacks on the local device that get it to send back a "yes" result without actually verifying anything OR 2) It requires the device to use some kind of closed, proprietary system that allows the service to guarantee that #1 cannot happen Now, in general, the…
At the end of the day the tool should be there enforcement down to the relevant local authorities or not.
Scratch out the age in „online age verification“ and you get to real reason
In my opinion, access to internet should always be behind a device controlled by an adult. And it should be this adult's responsibility to set appropriate restrictions for minors.
You can't.
In my opinion, access to internet should always be behind a device controlled by an adult. And it should be this adult's responsibility to set appropriate restrictions for minors.
"Stranger Danger" is no longer don't get into a van with someone who promises you sweets kinda thing.
In my opinion, access to internet should always be behind a device controlled by an adult. And it should be this adult's responsibility to set appropriate restrictions for minors.
I'm not sure why we don't just make a law that parents must set parental controls on their kids' devices. We do this for most other things.