11 ms·

No ID checks at clubs, bars, or other adults-only venues. No school zone speed limits, or protected crossings on streets near schools. No requirements for rai

No ID checks at clubs, bars, or other adults-only venues. No school zone speed limits, or protected crossings on streets near schools. No requirements for railings on public balconies, fencing around public pools, protective covers over drains or other holes in the ground. Parents/guardians can just supervise. Sounds great!

pipes 1mo ago
None of those come with the downside of a permanently stored record of my conversations attached to ID.
- inigyou 1mo ago
  Neither do most of the things TFA is fearmongering about.
ColdStream 1mo ago
While what you say seem intuitive, it is missing one point. Those locations probably are not recording exactly who is coming and going and what they are saying/doing. That is where this become more than just gate keeping and becomes full on tracking.
- ytoawwhra92 1mo ago
  You are saying something quite different to the comment I responded to: > The right people to protect children are those responsible for them - their parents and guardians. My position is that there is a social responsibility to protect children which extends to the community at large, not just their immediate guardians.
  - LeBit 1mo ago
    You are being facetious.
    - jfengel 1mo ago
      I really don't believe that they are. Historically, communities raised children, and leaving everything up to parents is an anomaly.
      - LeBit 1mo ago
        You are talking about leaving "everything" to the parents. Those are extreme positions. There are things where you want the government to intervene. There are things where you don’t want the government to intervene. What I do in my bedroom should not be monitored by the government. Me speeding on the road should be monitored by the government. Conversations I am having online should not be monitored by the government. It’s my job to teach my kid how to behave when he is bullied at school. The government does not help with that. It is my job to make sure my kid does not become the bully. The government does not help with that. It is also my job to teach my kid what the internet is, that there are wackos out there, and how to recognize dangerous patterns. That’s life. If you think this is to save the children…
        ytoawwhra92 1mo ago
        > You are talking about leaving "everything" to the parents. > Those are extreme positions. It's a very extreme position, and yet on every HN thread about digital ID there are multiple, upvoted, top-level comments suggesting that responsibility for children's safety lies solely with parents. Well, if that's the case, why do these commenters accept ID checks at bars and the other things I mentioned? Move the goalposts all you want, but I replied directly to a comment which said: > The right people to protect children are those responsible for them - their parents and guardians. > If there is a problem with children not being sufficiently protected, that is the level at which to solve it. Give families tools and information to do so. That is the context with which my comments should be read. I'm trying to point out how absurd that position is when you extend it to anything in the physical world.
      - modo_mario 1mo ago
        Historically those communities were quite small and we typically had a feeling of kinship with them trough families, tribes/clans, village life, etc.
  - globular-toast 1mo ago
    Yes. There is also an inequality issue because not all parents/guardians are equipped to afford the same protections for their children. For example, there are parents out there who would let their children smoke at 8 years old because they don't care. This isn't fair. Such lack of care becomes abuse and parents shouldn't have a right to abuse their children. It's really on us to figure out how we can have things like the internet without harming children. Now, this is quite annoying, because I have never, and would never, give a child access to the internet in the first place. The internet was never driving around on public streets. I never wanted to force it on anyone. We all dropped the ball here. We've all accepted and even celebrated more and more of our lives being online. But, more importantly, nobody noticed when children started to get smartphones with internet access. In my mind this is no different than giving children cigarettes or other adult materials. But nobody batted an eye. I'm also not surprised, though. Loads of people here have made tons of money from children having access to the internet. Unfortunately it's so hard to go back from something like this. So we end up in this stupid situation where people will accept more surveillance because we can't just take phones away from children.
  - chr15m 1mo ago
    > there is a social responsibility to protect children which extends to the community at large 100% agree with this. Community responsibility is the literal opposite of what is being proposed.
- dgroshev 1mo ago
  A lot of clubs in a lot of places scan and store your ID on entrance.
- Tangurena2 1mo ago
  When venues (bars, clubs, supermarkets) scan your ID, they are scanning the barcode on the back. For details of what is stored on that barcode: https://www.aamva.org/getmedia/99ac7057-0f4d-4461-b0a2-3a5532e1b35c/AAMVA-2020-DLID-Card-Design-Standard.pdf https://www.aamva.org/getmedia/99ac7057-0f4d-4461-b0a2-3a553... What's on passports and some identity docs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine-readable_passport https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine-readable_passport There have been many cases where clubs stored the documents scanned which were then hacked. Or where club/bar staff used the scanned/stored documents to stalk attractive women. Sample: https://www.theverge.com/tech/947157/passports-data-breach-cannabis-club-systems-nefos-puffpal https://www.theverge.com/tech/947157/passports-data-breach-c...
trashb 1mo ago
> No ID checks at clubs, bars, or other adults-only venues. Those are mostly there because of alcoholic drinks being served and the venue wants to create a certain atmosphere. There are plenty of parents that would take their kids there if they could. The rest is not just there for kids but also for adults (or elderly). There is a bunch of adults who would step in a hole in the ground or fall off a balcony.
- inigyou 1mo ago
  So why are ID checks necessary at venues that serve alcoholic drinks in particular, out of all the venues that exist?
  - GoblinSlayer 1mo ago
    1) venue is in meatspace, 2) age can be eyeballed, 3) they don't routinely hoard data, 4) they don't routinely leak hoarded data, 5) they aren't monopoly with billions of users routinely extorted for PII, 6) they don't routinely leak all that hoarded data, 7) they don't have bots, 8) they aren't connected to PRISM for routine surveillance, 9) they don't routinely leak all the hoarded data, 10) they don't sell hoarded data on black market, 11) they don't sell hoarded data to thousands of business partners, 12) they don't have thousands business partners that routinely hoard, leak and resell data Maybe that's why metabase was hacked - to conceal sale of data. "It's just a hack, it happens, we fixed the hole, nothing to see here until we find the next buyer".
    - inigyou 1mo ago
      > 1) venue is in meatspace, 2) age can be eyeballed, 3) they don't routinely hoard data, 4) they don't routinely leak hoarded data, 5) they aren't monopoly with billions of users routinely extorted for PII, 6) they don't routinely leak all that hoarded data, 7) they don't have bots, 8) they aren't connected to PRISM for routine surveillance, 9) they don't routinely leak all the hoarded data, 10) they don't sell hoarded data on black market, 11) they don't sell hoarded data to thousands of business partners, 12) they don't have thousands business partners that routinely hoard, leak and resell data So your argument is that ID checks are necessary simply because they are possible, and not a privacy invasion?
sophrosyne42 1mo ago
Ok, take it the other way. You want to marry someone? Make sure the government approves for your safety. Want to make dinner? First you have to send the recipe to your local overseer with proof of your safe cooking credentials or you will have to pay heafty fines for noncompliance. Want to make love, read a book, speak your mind, make a contract with someone, work the job you want? Sorry, you can't decide that yourself, first the politburo must approve it. Sounds great!
- deleted 1mo ago
  [deleted]
- hdgvhicv 1mo ago
  While children are often married off to old men in the US and Afghanistan in more civilised countries the state tend to intervene.
  - bentley 1mo ago
    > children are often married off to old men in the US How often are children married off to old men in the US?
    - hdgvhicv 1mo ago
      More than zero. How often is it acceptable for a 12 year old girl to be married off to an adult?
      - bentley 1mo ago
        > More than zero. I’m not convinced it is more than zero. Do you know of a single case in the 21st century of a 12‐year‐old marrying an adult in the United States? After all, you rhetorically mentioned America in the same breath as Afghanistan, where 15% of women were married below the age of 15. (page 11: https://www.unicef.org/afghanistan/media/2711/file/afg-report-Child%20Marriage%20in%20Afghanistan.pdf.pdf https://www.unicef.org/afghanistan/media/2711/file/afg-repor...)
cucumber3732842 1mo ago
>No ID checks at clubs, bars, or other adults-only venues. No school zone speed limits, or protected crossings on streets near schools. >No requirements for railings on public balconies, fencing around public pools, protective covers over drains or other holes in the ground. >Parents/guardians can just supervise. >Sounds great! I know you're commenting in bad faith, but at the margin essentially nothing would change except the amount of whining from people of your bent when someone doesn't get punished enough. The primary determinant of whether society engages in all those activities is not the government but the level of wealth to pay for it all.
keybored 1mo ago
The subject of Internet anonymity and children really presents a pest or cholera situation. No, I don’t want to scan my face or my passport to use the Web. And also no, this glib, thought-terminating, “common sense” quip about “the parents are responsible” is also something to be rejected. We should try to both collectively protect kids and leave adults alone. Leave it all to the corporations and you would have them prey on your children on every street corner, splash screen, TV menu, and ad board, with no “parental management” option anywhere. “But parents are responsible”, they would say.
txrx0000 1mo ago
The things you've listed are obviously reasonable, but the laws being proposed for digital parenting are very much not the same as those benign, locally-implemented guardrails. Take the recent Illinois law as an example: they're mandating all Internet-capable operating systems to broadcast the user's age bracket to all software that requests it. That effectively means you can't communicate online if you don't comply. The physical equivalent of that is making it illegal for you to see, hear, or talk at all, unless you utter the magic words "I am x years old". That is compelled speech, and it's deeply incompatible with the First Amendment.
- lern_too_spel 1mo ago
  They don't mandate what x is. Is the fact that the government requires service providers to ask if their users are above 13 years old for COPPA also compelled speech that is incompatible with the First Amendment?
  - txrx0000 1mo ago
    They do not mandate what x is, but they do mandate that you must say a specific age in any Internet-capable OS, and that age must be communicated to any software asking for it. Either comply with the law and utter an age, or you're breaking the law if you communicate online without such an utterance. It is using compelled speech to threaten your right to all digital speech. There are cases where compelled speech is considered constitutional, but surely not when it's used to threaten the primary way people communicate. And contrary to your claim, COPPA does not legally require service providers to ask every user how old they are, nor are users obligated to reply. Age questions are just how service providers chose to implement it. And I don't think COPPA is a good example of a law working as intended.
    - lern_too_spel 1mo ago
      > Either comply with the law and utter an age, or you're breaking the law if you communicate online without such an utterance. Not you. The OS distributor breaks the law if they don't give you this ability. > And contrary to your claim, COPPA does not legally require service providers to ask every user how old they are, nor are users obligated to reply It requires service providers to ask if you are under 13 if they collect any personal information, including email address. Users are required to respond in the negative in order to use these services without them getting permission from an adult. > I don't think COPPA is a good example of a law working as intended. The question is whether it is a First Amendment violation. In the almost three decades since it was proposed, it hasn't been challenged. No serious person thinks AB 1043 is a First Amendment violation either.
jollyllama 1mo ago
The thing is, if you really care about your kid, that is your assumed threat model anyway. Sure, it's nice that it's somewhat mitigated by these rules, but in reality people don't assume the school zone is safe, they know there's still impaired drivers to account for, etc. Yeah, the railing is there, but you'll tell your kid not to lean on it.
chr15m 1mo ago
Do you actually think a railing on a balcony is the same as collecting the private information of minors in a centralised database? Please, stay far far away from my children. They do not need your help.
- lern_too_spel 1mo ago
  Do you think the laws in the article are about collecting the private information of minors? The first few laws listed on that page aren't at all. It's rage bait. The about page confirms that it is AI slop.
  - chr15m 1mo ago
    Yes, this is literally what they are doing in countries where these measures have already been implemented. First hand experience.

pipes 1mo ago

None of those come with the downside of a permanently stored record of my conversations attached to ID.

inigyou 1mo ago
Neither do most of the things TFA is fearmongering about.

ColdStream 1mo ago

While what you say seem intuitive, it is missing one point. Those locations probably are not recording exactly who is coming and going and what they are saying/doing. That is where this become more than just gate keeping and becomes full on tracking.

ytoawwhra92 1mo ago
You are saying something quite different to the comment I responded to: > The right people to protect children are those responsible for them - their parents and guardians. My position is that there is a social responsibility to protect children which extends to the community at large, not just their immediate guardians.
- LeBit 1mo ago
  You are being facetious.
  - jfengel 1mo ago
    I really don't believe that they are. Historically, communities raised children, and leaving everything up to parents is an anomaly.
    - LeBit 1mo ago
      You are talking about leaving "everything" to the parents. Those are extreme positions. There are things where you want the government to intervene. There are things where you don’t want the government to intervene. What I do in my bedroom should not be monitored by the government. Me speeding on the road should be monitored by the government. Conversations I am having online should not be monitored by the government. It’s my job to teach my kid how to behave when he is bullied at school. The government does not help with that. It is my job to make sure my kid does not become the bully. The government does not help with that. It is also my job to teach my kid what the internet is, that there are wackos out there, and how to recognize dangerous patterns. That’s life. If you think this is to save the children…
      - ytoawwhra92 1mo ago
        > You are talking about leaving "everything" to the parents. > Those are extreme positions. It's a very extreme position, and yet on every HN thread about digital ID there are multiple, upvoted, top-level comments suggesting that responsibility for children's safety lies solely with parents. Well, if that's the case, why do these commenters accept ID checks at bars and the other things I mentioned? Move the goalposts all you want, but I replied directly to a comment which said: > The right people to protect children are those responsible for them - their parents and guardians. > If there is a problem with children not being sufficiently protected, that is the level at which to solve it. Give families tools and information to do so. That is the context with which my comments should be read. I'm trying to point out how absurd that position is when you extend it to anything in the physical world.
    - modo_mario 1mo ago
      Historically those communities were quite small and we typically had a feeling of kinship with them trough families, tribes/clans, village life, etc.
- globular-toast 1mo ago
  Yes. There is also an inequality issue because not all parents/guardians are equipped to afford the same protections for their children. For example, there are parents out there who would let their children smoke at 8 years old because they don't care. This isn't fair. Such lack of care becomes abuse and parents shouldn't have a right to abuse their children. It's really on us to figure out how we can have things like the internet without harming children. Now, this is quite annoying, because I have never, and would never, give a child access to the internet in the first place. The internet was never driving around on public streets. I never wanted to force it on anyone. We all dropped the ball here. We've all accepted and even celebrated more and more of our lives being online. But, more importantly, nobody noticed when children started to get smartphones with internet access. In my mind this is no different than giving children cigarettes or other adult materials. But nobody batted an eye. I'm also not surprised, though. Loads of people here have made tons of money from children having access to the internet. Unfortunately it's so hard to go back from something like this. So we end up in this stupid situation where people will accept more surveillance because we can't just take phones away from children.
- chr15m 1mo ago
  > there is a social responsibility to protect children which extends to the community at large 100% agree with this. Community responsibility is the literal opposite of what is being proposed.
dgroshev 1mo ago
A lot of clubs in a lot of places scan and store your ID on entrance.
Tangurena2 1mo ago
When venues (bars, clubs, supermarkets) scan your ID, they are scanning the barcode on the back. For details of what is stored on that barcode: https://www.aamva.org/getmedia/99ac7057-0f4d-4461-b0a2-3a5532e1b35c/AAMVA-2020-DLID-Card-Design-Standard.pdf https://www.aamva.org/getmedia/99ac7057-0f4d-4461-b0a2-3a553... What's on passports and some identity docs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine-readable_passport https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine-readable_passport There have been many cases where clubs stored the documents scanned which were then hacked. Or where club/bar staff used the scanned/stored documents to stalk attractive women. Sample: https://www.theverge.com/tech/947157/passports-data-breach-cannabis-club-systems-nefos-puffpal https://www.theverge.com/tech/947157/passports-data-breach-c...

trashb 1mo ago

> No ID checks at clubs, bars, or other adults-only venues. Those are mostly there because of alcoholic drinks being served and the venue wants to create a certain atmosphere. There are plenty of parents that would take their kids there if they could. The rest is not just there for kids but also for adults (or elderly). There is a bunch of adults who would step in a hole in the ground or fall off a balcony.

inigyou 1mo ago
So why are ID checks necessary at venues that serve alcoholic drinks in particular, out of all the venues that exist?
- GoblinSlayer 1mo ago
  1) venue is in meatspace, 2) age can be eyeballed, 3) they don't routinely hoard data, 4) they don't routinely leak hoarded data, 5) they aren't monopoly with billions of users routinely extorted for PII, 6) they don't routinely leak all that hoarded data, 7) they don't have bots, 8) they aren't connected to PRISM for routine surveillance, 9) they don't routinely leak all the hoarded data, 10) they don't sell hoarded data on black market, 11) they don't sell hoarded data to thousands of business partners, 12) they don't have thousands business partners that routinely hoard, leak and resell data Maybe that's why metabase was hacked - to conceal sale of data. "It's just a hack, it happens, we fixed the hole, nothing to see here until we find the next buyer".
  - inigyou 1mo ago
    > 1) venue is in meatspace, 2) age can be eyeballed, 3) they don't routinely hoard data, 4) they don't routinely leak hoarded data, 5) they aren't monopoly with billions of users routinely extorted for PII, 6) they don't routinely leak all that hoarded data, 7) they don't have bots, 8) they aren't connected to PRISM for routine surveillance, 9) they don't routinely leak all the hoarded data, 10) they don't sell hoarded data on black market, 11) they don't sell hoarded data to thousands of business partners, 12) they don't have thousands business partners that routinely hoard, leak and resell data So your argument is that ID checks are necessary simply because they are possible, and not a privacy invasion?

sophrosyne42 1mo ago

Ok, take it the other way. You want to marry someone? Make sure the government approves for your safety. Want to make dinner? First you have to send the recipe to your local overseer with proof of your safe cooking credentials or you will have to pay heafty fines for noncompliance. Want to make love, read a book, speak your mind, make a contract with someone, work the job you want? Sorry, you can't decide that yourself, first the politburo must approve it. Sounds great!

deleted 1mo ago
[deleted]
hdgvhicv 1mo ago
While children are often married off to old men in the US and Afghanistan in more civilised countries the state tend to intervene.
- bentley 1mo ago
  > children are often married off to old men in the US How often are children married off to old men in the US?
  - hdgvhicv 1mo ago
    More than zero. How often is it acceptable for a 12 year old girl to be married off to an adult?
    - bentley 1mo ago
      > More than zero. I’m not convinced it is more than zero. Do you know of a single case in the 21st century of a 12‐year‐old marrying an adult in the United States? After all, you rhetorically mentioned America in the same breath as Afghanistan, where 15% of women were married below the age of 15. (page 11: https://www.unicef.org/afghanistan/media/2711/file/afg-report-Child%20Marriage%20in%20Afghanistan.pdf.pdf https://www.unicef.org/afghanistan/media/2711/file/afg-repor...)

cucumber3732842 1mo ago

>No ID checks at clubs, bars, or other adults-only venues. No school zone speed limits, or protected crossings on streets near schools. >No requirements for railings on public balconies, fencing around public pools, protective covers over drains or other holes in the ground. >Parents/guardians can just supervise. >Sounds great! I know you're commenting in bad faith, but at the margin essentially nothing would change except the amount of whining from people of your bent when someone doesn't get punished enough. The primary determinant of whether society engages in all those activities is not the government but the level of wealth to pay for it all.

keybored 1mo ago

The subject of Internet anonymity and children really presents a pest or cholera situation. No, I don’t want to scan my face or my passport to use the Web. And also no, this glib, thought-terminating, “common sense” quip about “the parents are responsible” is also something to be rejected. We should try to both collectively protect kids and leave adults alone. Leave it all to the corporations and you would have them prey on your children on every street corner, splash screen, TV menu, and ad board, with no “parental management” option anywhere. “But parents are responsible”, they would say.

txrx0000 1mo ago

The things you've listed are obviously reasonable, but the laws being proposed for digital parenting are very much not the same as those benign, locally-implemented guardrails. Take the recent Illinois law as an example: they're mandating all Internet-capable operating systems to broadcast the user's age bracket to all software that requests it. That effectively means you can't communicate online if you don't comply. The physical equivalent of that is making it illegal for you to see, hear, or talk at all, unless you utter the magic words "I am x years old". That is compelled speech, and it's deeply incompatible with the First Amendment.

lern_too_spel 1mo ago
They don't mandate what x is. Is the fact that the government requires service providers to ask if their users are above 13 years old for COPPA also compelled speech that is incompatible with the First Amendment?
- txrx0000 1mo ago
  They do not mandate what x is, but they do mandate that you must say a specific age in any Internet-capable OS, and that age must be communicated to any software asking for it. Either comply with the law and utter an age, or you're breaking the law if you communicate online without such an utterance. It is using compelled speech to threaten your right to all digital speech. There are cases where compelled speech is considered constitutional, but surely not when it's used to threaten the primary way people communicate. And contrary to your claim, COPPA does not legally require service providers to ask every user how old they are, nor are users obligated to reply. Age questions are just how service providers chose to implement it. And I don't think COPPA is a good example of a law working as intended.
  - lern_too_spel 1mo ago
    > Either comply with the law and utter an age, or you're breaking the law if you communicate online without such an utterance. Not you. The OS distributor breaks the law if they don't give you this ability. > And contrary to your claim, COPPA does not legally require service providers to ask every user how old they are, nor are users obligated to reply It requires service providers to ask if you are under 13 if they collect any personal information, including email address. Users are required to respond in the negative in order to use these services without them getting permission from an adult. > I don't think COPPA is a good example of a law working as intended. The question is whether it is a First Amendment violation. In the almost three decades since it was proposed, it hasn't been challenged. No serious person thinks AB 1043 is a First Amendment violation either.

jollyllama 1mo ago

The thing is, if you really care about your kid, that is your assumed threat model anyway. Sure, it's nice that it's somewhat mitigated by these rules, but in reality people don't assume the school zone is safe, they know there's still impaired drivers to account for, etc. Yeah, the railing is there, but you'll tell your kid not to lean on it.

chr15m 1mo ago

Do you actually think a railing on a balcony is the same as collecting the private information of minors in a centralised database? Please, stay far far away from my children. They do not need your help.

lern_too_spel 1mo ago
Do you think the laws in the article are about collecting the private information of minors? The first few laws listed on that page aren't at all. It's rage bait. The about page confirms that it is AI slop.
- chr15m 1mo ago
  Yes, this is literally what they are doing in countries where these measures have already been implemented. First hand experience.