That is where this become more than just gate keeping and becomes full on tracking.
> 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.
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…
> 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.
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.
100% agree with this. Community responsibility is the literal opposite of what is being proposed.
For details of what is stored on that barcode:
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
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-c...
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.
The underage crowd can't enter a space that is specifically exists for experiencing the prohibited behavior. Where the internet is a more general space and we are restricting anyone that has not proven to be adult. And what are we restricting them from? Posting/publishing & accessing content, that sounds like age based censorship.
Would someone underage have less rights to receive or publish unpleasant/controversial topics under the First Amendment? I think you need to have a very strong case to undermine those rights and I just don't think "might protect the kids" (which is debatable) is strong enough.
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".
So your argument is that ID checks are necessary simply because they are possible, and not a privacy invasion?
The question was why they are necessary.
> So why are ID checks necessary
Why are you gaslighting HN?
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!
Today OS developers implement inferior option 2 and refuse to implement superior option 1. How do you solve the problem without government involvement?
How often are children married off to old men in the US?
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-repor...)
Oh well done. America only allows men to marry half a dozen 12 year olds in the 21st century. It’s better than Afghanistan. Have a medal.
Historically, many states in the US required blood tests of both partners prior to marriage. Mostly it was a test for syphilis, which was the main reason that 16th ^ 17th Century people used tons of makeup. Do not google what that disease looks like in the tertiary stage if you want to sleep at night.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premarital_medical_examination
>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.
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. Little bundles of joy and energy with no impulse control or critical thinking until they are about a decade or older.
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.
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.
> Not you. The OS distributor breaks the law if they don't give you this ability.
Ok, but that's a technicality and it doesn't change the fact that your entire ability to see/hear/say anything online is being gatekept by a legally-compelled utterance.
You have yet to give any harms.
> your entire ability to see/hear/say anything online is being gatekept by a legally-compelled utterance.
And? If there is no First Amendment violation, what is the problem with that? There are already many de facto compelled utterances required to communicate with other devices on the Internet.
It does not bar all online communications. The law simply says the OS must provide some way for the account to have a set age and provide it to services that need that information. If a service doesn't need that information, there is no compelled utterance. COPPA and GDPR both require compelled utterances online for certain services as well.
Good luck finding a lawyer to take your case.
Please, stay far far away from my children. They do not need your help.
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!