Re:U.K. Abandons, for Now, Legislation That Would Have Banne...
by robertlagrant on Wednesday September 06, 2023 @03:28PM
(#37409984)
> on every child's device
Devices only in public areas in the house. Dumbphones for emergencies.
Re:U.K. Abandons, for Now, Legislation That Would Have Banne...
by duskwuff on Wednesday September 06, 2023 @10:48PM
(#37414151)
> So a solution I think we brainstormed on the show was mandating open interoperable APIs that allow easy insertion of (presumably commercial or open source) plugins into the system, within the user's end-to-end digital estate, under the control of the user (parent) and completely rejecting the MITM and endpoint compromise via back-doors that the government naively proposed.
What you're proposing would likely enable the creation of some fairly invasive stalkerware. Don't forget that 1) just because a feature says it's for use by a parent on their child's device doesn't mean that it can only be used in that context, nor that 2) not all parents have their children's best interests in mind.
So a solution I think we brainstormed on the show was mandating open interoperable APIs that allow easy insertion of (presumably commercial or open source) plugins into the system, within the user's end-to-end digital estate, under the control of the user (parent) and completely rejecting the MITM and endpoint compromise via back-doors that the government naively proposed.
In many ways that would take a much bigger stick to Big Tech,
It also transitions the definition of "online harms" to those defined by the guardian/parent rather than problematically allowing the State to define harms and control the selectors.
What that says to me is that the government are dishonest about the real aims of the bill.
And further, as a consequence, it crushes my belief that the government even truly care out child safety except as a vehicle to greater tyranny.