491–500 of 549 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you know yourself that the parent poster didn't mean literally coins in a bank vault like Scrooge McDuck.
He/she literally said "more than 100 million in the bank". Care to explain what that means other than bank balance in a checking/saving account?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're making the mistake of assuming that every kid has access to identified device and that device is under parent control. You can't make this assumption because that's not true. It might be true for some middle class helicopter parents that have iPhones and time to manage and keep it under strict control but there are non-middle class kids out there who just use whatever device they can get their hands on and the…
How many children, actually have the money to buy themself another smartphone, or get a smartphone gifted by random people? I bet that's very rare.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It cannot work *perfectly*, but unlike most crypto stuff, it doesn't have to (at least, that part doesn't need to). It's a social/political problem, not a technical one. The goal doesn't even need to be to make a completely perfect, impossible to circumvent, barrier for all minors; all this needs to do is just make it equally difficult for a minor to get adult (for whatever definition thereof) content online as it is…
> (for whatever definition thereof) See, that's why this can't be solved technically. Pornhub has a decent amount of sexual health material on it so there's an argument to be made for allowing teens access to at least parts of it. > privacy being the bit which has to be done perfectly. > It cannot work perfectly So we agree that this is going to end poorly?
Which "this"? There's multiple things here. I'm suggesting one specific "this" (anonymous age verification) in response to another "this" (the internet is not suitable for all ages).
> Pornhub has a decent amount of sexual health material on it so there's an argument to be made for allowing teens access to at least parts of it.
There's more content on the internet than any human can consume in a lifetime, so the presence of age-appropriate stuff as a subset of some website is no more relevant than how the intro to a porn film ("there's something wrong with my fridge, it's sooooo hot", though I am thinking of a beer commercial parodying this) is not itself 18 or R18 or whatever your local certification is called.
> So we agree that this is going to end poorly?
On the contrary, literally all the rest of my comment after that quote is cut explain why we *do not agree* about this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So as soon as any one uuid is leaked, it becomes plausible for any child to bypass the gates until the uuid is manually revoked? How? Phones are already locked down pretty hard. Anything like this would need to be in something secured at the OS level just to stop signatures getting leaked between apps. If you're thinking "kid roots device, replaces OS entirely", that's not the problem of the manufacturer of the OS…
> How? Phones are already locked down pretty hard But never well enough, it seems. If you can't revoke the token then I'll just sell mine to whomever needs it. Kids will beg/borrow/steal their parents / older siblings ... etc. The "harden the device, bake in controls that are difficult to circumvent and managed by not-the-primary-device-user" approach is _very_ similar to DRM. All that does is punish the innocent. I…
"Never well enough" for stopping teens (and pre-teens) installing access tokens?
Has any adolescent in history ever managed to so much as spoof someone else's session cookie *on their phone*? And if so, when? If this is a flaw which comes up once every five iOS versions or whatever, who cares?
> Kids will beg/borrow/steal their parents / older siblings ... etc.
They occasionally get alcohol, too, despite restrictions. The point is to *mostly* stop them.
And it's not like the payment systems have not already solved the same problem.
> All that does is punish the innocent.
Which is literally something I'm trying to solve with my suggestion up-thread: here's a way to do age attestation that doesn't need to punish anyone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Through a Google account. It's not some device check.
Well it's google and google does everything through their accounts. But the principle of this can work on everything. Own an iphone, apple can do the same tied to the apple account. On a windows machine you can do the same tied the user account login for the child. People will no doubt pick holes in something like this, but it's the least intrusive, least effort solution to the problem that will actually work.
I have never signed in to a Google account on my Android phone, by the way.
Even from a pro-corporate perspective, is enshrining two companies as the gatekeepers of the internet a good idea? How would a new competitor stand a chance at breaking in?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m from The Government, and I’m here to help. One not entirely inaccurate definition of government is a loose agglomeration of third parties. Or, less flatteringly, a stupendously large way too loose agglomeration of way too many third parties welding way too much power way too arbitrarily.
Despite that fun trope, in reality democratic government reguarly delivers very well: Traffic safety systems work easily, dependably, economically. The Internet was developed by the government, the web at a government-funded research institution. NASA is the most cutting edge, most adventurous organization in the history of humanity. The US military created GPS for example, and has more globalized operations than any…
Although more recently, at least in Australia, it would be difficult to claim the federal government, and the Victorian state government, have done anything good.
By any metric one might care to measure they've made everything worse.
I hate it so much it makes my blood boil. The internet as we knew it comes to an end and we are... complicit? Judging from comments here it seems like some of HN readers do actually unironically take this at face value. Which is weird. Of all people, we should be ones to see what is this going towards.
Seriously ready to fully drop google emails and services, i'm using vivaldi + personal email for a while now, the migration was slow a bit painful but complete. Only the phone is still attached to play store and google, but i'm 100% ready to switch to the fully supported Chinese variant of ColorOS and flush Google into the toilet once and for all. But my next phone will 100% be a Sailfish again.
Seriously? You replace Google's proprietary software with Chinese proprietary software, one big brother for another? Why not switch to a GNU/Linux phone (Librem 5 or Pinephone) or maybe GrapheneOS/eOS?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because raising children is unequivocally the parents' responsibility. It's, like, their main job.
But we don't put barbed wire on random sidewalks and then blame parents if a kid walks over it and gets hurt. There is the attractive nuisance doctrine, among other things.
Kids need varying levels of guidance until their brains mature and they learn how to navigate the adult world, which is why we have the legal concept of adulthood, and age-restricted laws for things like drinking alcohol and voting. Kids are not tiny adults, they're adults-in-training.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The easiest way would be for websites to send an HTTP header to the client so that censorware can know to block or allow it accordingly. That sounds very similar to the suggestion of the original commenter, that you responded to with >> That just entertains the false justification for what is ultimately about surveillance and control.
I assumed that when he asked "What might those be?" he was talking about privacy preserving ways to address that same false justification. I'm not sure how you took it some other way.