7 ms·

I understand the concern but then to make this available for adults you now have to provide proof of age to companies, which opens up another can of privacy wor

I understand the concern but then to make this available for adults you now have to provide proof of age to companies, which opens up another can of privacy worms.

skybrian 6mo ago
Theoretically we don't actually need proof of age. Websites need to know when the user is attempting to create an account or log in from a child-locked device. Parents need to make sure their kids only have child-locked devices. Vendors need to make sure they don't sell unlocked devices to kids.
- WarmWash 6mo ago
  The actual problem is that there are parents, I even remember them growing up, who do not care what their kid is exposed to and won't flinch at anything. I'm sure most here had a "Jeff's mom" who didn't care if you guys were playing mortal combat while blasting Wu Tang at 9 years old. So even if 95% of kids have responsible parents locking down access, there will still be this 5% that will continue to drip horror stories that motivate knee-jerk regulation.
- polyomino 6mo ago
  Children do not want child locked devices and they will find alternatives
  - skybrian 6mo ago
    True, it's never going to be 100%, but at least it's a tractable problem for parents. Enough to change what the culture considers "normal," anyway.
  - sixsevenrot 6mo ago
    As with smoking, alcohol, sex, drugs etc Children who are smart enough to get access to a given vice without getting caught are more likely to be mature enough to be able to cope with that vice.
    - cr125rider 6mo ago
      I think we’re going to see how that plays out with gambling. It seems a bit silly to think security abstinence is the solution.
    - Nursie 6mo ago
      Sorry what? Kids with low parental supervision who steal uncle Roy's marlboro are more likely to be able to cope with tobacco addiction? Do you have any reasons to think this might be the case? Studies, research, a well thought-out article?
      - AnthonyMouse 6mo ago
        To get reliable access you either need to convince an adult to give you access (which is always game over) or you need to engage in some kind of future planning, which is a similar skill set as the one necessary to notice that getting addicted to cancer thing might be a bad idea. Stealing uncle Roy's marlboro doesn't work because uncle Roy is generally then going to notice that they're going missing and either start securing them better or deduce where they're going and visit some punishment on the kid.
        Nursie 6mo ago
        I mean what if Roy doesn't care? We're just optimising for kids with shitty family at this point.
        AnthonyMouse 6mo ago
        If Roy doesn't care then you have a kid with an adult who gives them access, which is the scenario where none of this is going to work. Even if you required government IDs with hourly retina scans, it doesn't work if Roy is willing to let the kids hold the device up to his face whenever they want.
        Nursie 6mo ago
        Sure, I agree. I only disagree with the just-so notion that kids who have an Uncle Roy are somehow better able to cope with the consequences. Ability to access something is (IMHO) pretty uncorrelated with the ability to cope with the consequences.
  - IAmBroom 6mo ago
    Imperfect solutions are still called "solutions".
  - kakacik 6mo ago
    Well then don't give them money to do so, its not like phones grow on trees. If you make selling phone/internet device to a minor under certain threshold an illegal act severely punished by law in same way alcohol and cigarettes are, many cases of access are solved. Also, paid internet subscription doesn't grow on the trees even though there are free wifi networks. All imperfect solutions, but they slice original huge problem into much smaller chunks which are easier to tackle with next approach.
  - itissid 6mo ago
    The issue is not just age verification but also device pinning. I think the framework here is to have community driven age verifiers( i recall there is an EU effort for digital wallets which besides it's bad parts has some of these good parts) which can verify ages for people and link them to( local biometrically encrypted) devices for pinning. This would be privacy preserving. The only downside is a mandate for all devices have a built-in hardware biometric encryption like a finger/face print so phones can't be just(used) with these apps installed. The verification part is a job that could be done by all the teachers and coaches and ofc parents. Any one verifying identities would be cryptographically nominated/revoked by a number of more senior members of the community. A prent always get the right to say ok for their kid ofc but so could teachers or legal guardians.. We(legally) need a mandate for smart devices to have local device only biometric verification. The law should be to have these apps follow device app store protocols.
- seanmcdirmid 6mo ago
  > Theoretically we don't actually need proof of age. Websites need to know when the user is attempting to create an account or log in from a child-locked device. Parents need to make sure their kids only have child-locked devices. Vendors need to make sure they don't sell unlocked devices to kids. Given how current parental controls work, kids are not getting access if their device is under parental control (the default for open web access is off). So Facebook still won't see any child-locked devices, even before this ruling. My guess is that this ruling applies to parents who aren't making sure their kids get access only via child locked devices.
- itissid 6mo ago
  Theoretically only > Surveys by Britain’s tech regulator, Ofcom, find that among children aged 10-12, over half use Snapchat, more than 60% TikTok and more than 70% WhatsApp. All three apps have a notional minimum age of 13. https://archive.ph/y3pQO https://archive.ph/y3pQO
- LorenPechtel 6mo ago
  Exactly. Trying to approach it from the direction of websites determining if you are an adult is a privacy nightmare and provides a huge attack surface. (Which is what the government wants--the ability to monitor.) Flipping it over is much, much safer--but fails the real mission of exposing dissent. (On-device security, the credential of the adult is loaded onto the device but not transmitted anywhere, it can only be obtained locally. The device simply responds as to whether it has a credential loaded. Bad guys are unlikely to want to sell such devices as the phone could be traced back to them.) And the parents can select a strict child lock, or permitted but copies forwarded to the parent.)
kelseyfrog 6mo ago
[flagged]
- throwaway27727 6mo ago
  Establishments don't record my data or even take down my name. They take a look at the birthdate and wave me forward.
  - triceratops 6mo ago
    We need a way to do this online.
  - kelseyfrog 6mo ago
    > Establishments don't record my data or even take down my name. What are you talking about. Have you really never rented a car before? Some establishments, as part of their business practice, require identification.
    - triceratops 6mo ago
      And many don't. Bars, nightclubs, liquor stores, tobacconists, R-rated movies.
      - kelseyfrog 6mo ago
        We don't see people worried that bars, nightclubs, liquor stores, tobacconists, R-rated movies asking for age verification will slip into requiring names too. It honestly looks like an emotional panic. People who take seriously slippery slopes aren't to be taken seriously themselves. Social media is like e-cigarettes in the sense that the shift toward nicotine salts (think Juul) around 2015 resulted in e-cigarettes becoming more dangerous and thus more age-restricted. It's also like consumer credit cards. Remember that in 1985 Bank of America just mailed out 60,000 unsolicited credit cards to residents of Fresno, CA without application, age verification, or identity check. They just landed in people's mailboxes, including those of minors. Eventually a predatory lending industry developed and we increased the age and ID requirements. My point is that systems can, and do become more dangerous overtime. Not all, but not none. Algorithmic feeds, online advertising, and attention engineering are the nicotine salts of social media. The product's changed, so should the access.

I understand the concern but then to make this available for adults you now have to provide proof of age to companies, which opens up another can of privacy worms.

skybrian 6mo ago

Theoretically we don't actually need proof of age. Websites need to know when the user is attempting to create an account or log in from a child-locked device. Parents need to make sure their kids only have child-locked devices. Vendors need to make sure they don't sell unlocked devices to kids.

WarmWash 6mo ago
The actual problem is that there are parents, I even remember them growing up, who do not care what their kid is exposed to and won't flinch at anything. I'm sure most here had a "Jeff's mom" who didn't care if you guys were playing mortal combat while blasting Wu Tang at 9 years old. So even if 95% of kids have responsible parents locking down access, there will still be this 5% that will continue to drip horror stories that motivate knee-jerk regulation.
polyomino 6mo ago
Children do not want child locked devices and they will find alternatives
- skybrian 6mo ago
  True, it's never going to be 100%, but at least it's a tractable problem for parents. Enough to change what the culture considers "normal," anyway.
- sixsevenrot 6mo ago
  As with smoking, alcohol, sex, drugs etc Children who are smart enough to get access to a given vice without getting caught are more likely to be mature enough to be able to cope with that vice.
  - cr125rider 6mo ago
    I think we’re going to see how that plays out with gambling. It seems a bit silly to think security abstinence is the solution.
  - Nursie 6mo ago
    Sorry what? Kids with low parental supervision who steal uncle Roy's marlboro are more likely to be able to cope with tobacco addiction? Do you have any reasons to think this might be the case? Studies, research, a well thought-out article?
    - AnthonyMouse 6mo ago
      To get reliable access you either need to convince an adult to give you access (which is always game over) or you need to engage in some kind of future planning, which is a similar skill set as the one necessary to notice that getting addicted to cancer thing might be a bad idea. Stealing uncle Roy's marlboro doesn't work because uncle Roy is generally then going to notice that they're going missing and either start securing them better or deduce where they're going and visit some punishment on the kid.
      - Nursie 6mo ago
        I mean what if Roy doesn't care? We're just optimising for kids with shitty family at this point.
        AnthonyMouse 6mo ago
        If Roy doesn't care then you have a kid with an adult who gives them access, which is the scenario where none of this is going to work. Even if you required government IDs with hourly retina scans, it doesn't work if Roy is willing to let the kids hold the device up to his face whenever they want.
        Nursie 6mo ago
        Sure, I agree. I only disagree with the just-so notion that kids who have an Uncle Roy are somehow better able to cope with the consequences. Ability to access something is (IMHO) pretty uncorrelated with the ability to cope with the consequences.
- IAmBroom 6mo ago
  Imperfect solutions are still called "solutions".
- kakacik 6mo ago
  Well then don't give them money to do so, its not like phones grow on trees. If you make selling phone/internet device to a minor under certain threshold an illegal act severely punished by law in same way alcohol and cigarettes are, many cases of access are solved. Also, paid internet subscription doesn't grow on the trees even though there are free wifi networks. All imperfect solutions, but they slice original huge problem into much smaller chunks which are easier to tackle with next approach.
- itissid 6mo ago
  The issue is not just age verification but also device pinning. I think the framework here is to have community driven age verifiers( i recall there is an EU effort for digital wallets which besides it's bad parts has some of these good parts) which can verify ages for people and link them to( local biometrically encrypted) devices for pinning. This would be privacy preserving. The only downside is a mandate for all devices have a built-in hardware biometric encryption like a finger/face print so phones can't be just(used) with these apps installed. The verification part is a job that could be done by all the teachers and coaches and ofc parents. Any one verifying identities would be cryptographically nominated/revoked by a number of more senior members of the community. A prent always get the right to say ok for their kid ofc but so could teachers or legal guardians.. We(legally) need a mandate for smart devices to have local device only biometric verification. The law should be to have these apps follow device app store protocols.
seanmcdirmid 6mo ago
> Theoretically we don't actually need proof of age. Websites need to know when the user is attempting to create an account or log in from a child-locked device. Parents need to make sure their kids only have child-locked devices. Vendors need to make sure they don't sell unlocked devices to kids. Given how current parental controls work, kids are not getting access if their device is under parental control (the default for open web access is off). So Facebook still won't see any child-locked devices, even before this ruling. My guess is that this ruling applies to parents who aren't making sure their kids get access only via child locked devices.
itissid 6mo ago
Theoretically only > Surveys by Britain’s tech regulator, Ofcom, find that among children aged 10-12, over half use Snapchat, more than 60% TikTok and more than 70% WhatsApp. All three apps have a notional minimum age of 13. https://archive.ph/y3pQO https://archive.ph/y3pQO
LorenPechtel 6mo ago
Exactly. Trying to approach it from the direction of websites determining if you are an adult is a privacy nightmare and provides a huge attack surface. (Which is what the government wants--the ability to monitor.) Flipping it over is much, much safer--but fails the real mission of exposing dissent. (On-device security, the credential of the adult is loaded onto the device but not transmitted anywhere, it can only be obtained locally. The device simply responds as to whether it has a credential loaded. Bad guys are unlikely to want to sell such devices as the phone could be traced back to them.) And the parents can select a strict child lock, or permitted but copies forwarded to the parent.)

kelseyfrog 6mo ago

[flagged]

throwaway27727 6mo ago
Establishments don't record my data or even take down my name. They take a look at the birthdate and wave me forward.
- triceratops 6mo ago
  We need a way to do this online.
- kelseyfrog 6mo ago
  > Establishments don't record my data or even take down my name. What are you talking about. Have you really never rented a car before? Some establishments, as part of their business practice, require identification.
  - triceratops 6mo ago
    And many don't. Bars, nightclubs, liquor stores, tobacconists, R-rated movies.
    - kelseyfrog 6mo ago
      We don't see people worried that bars, nightclubs, liquor stores, tobacconists, R-rated movies asking for age verification will slip into requiring names too. It honestly looks like an emotional panic. People who take seriously slippery slopes aren't to be taken seriously themselves. Social media is like e-cigarettes in the sense that the shift toward nicotine salts (think Juul) around 2015 resulted in e-cigarettes becoming more dangerous and thus more age-restricted. It's also like consumer credit cards. Remember that in 1985 Bank of America just mailed out 60,000 unsolicited credit cards to residents of Fresno, CA without application, age verification, or identity check. They just landed in people's mailboxes, including those of minors. Eventually a predatory lending industry developed and we increased the age and ID requirements. My point is that systems can, and do become more dangerous overtime. Not all, but not none. Algorithmic feeds, online advertising, and attention engineering are the nicotine salts of social media. The product's changed, so should the access.