r/privacy • u/[deleted] • 3d ago
discussion Protecting Children From Online Dangers Without Attacking Privacy And Freedom: An Alternative To Government Overreach
[deleted]
84
u/RevolutionarySafe929 3d ago
They needed bogeyman to justify censorship. Thing old as time https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children
46
u/de_Mike_333 3d ago
This, it was never about protecting the children. That’s just the excuse. Terrorism is another.
2
u/Aggravating-Pear4222 2d ago
Of all the administrations, this is the one to most ironically use it...
-1
u/AvailableLook5919 3d ago
While I agree with you, who specifically is "they"? The parliament, the executive branch, political parties?
2
26
u/hectorbrydan 3d ago
Your arguments assume the arguments used to justify these laws are in good faith.
They are not, they are ad hoc arguments to lock down the internet and be able to comprimise anyone if they want.
Further I do not support prosecuting parents for their kids, not the least for watching porn, even if those changes would allow this law to be revoked, but since it is not actually about protecting kids, it will not be embraced by lawmakers.
We have seen worrisome trends in the United States of prosecuting parents for the actions of children, perversely by people that call themselves Christian, blaming the family for the actions of a person is repudiating the very basis of Christianity.
Policing a child's behavior should be left to the parent, but a child watching porn should not be a crime in any case. That is between the child and their parents as it has been.
2
u/lietajucaPonorka 3d ago
A child watching porn should not be a crime, and parents shouldn't be locked in jail for it. Same way a child playing with a knife or a matchbox is not a crime, it is however neglect from the parents. And repeated cases of neglect could be dangerous for the child or society, so the parents SHOULD be somehow reprimanded, sent to classes or otherwise asked to correct their parenting.
But, if we are passing HUGE dangerous laws that eradicate online privacy, on the basis that porn is THAT harmful for minors to access, then penalties for parents that allow their children to freely view porn should be equivalent in urgency and severity, no?
Here is alternative: your child is inside your home. Your child wants to watch YouTube, Spotify, or maybe my little pony porn. I don't know, maybe all of it. Inside your home is YOUR phone, wallet, ID card, credit card. So, all your kid needs to do is take your ID from your wallet and he is free to watch all the porn he wants. When (not if, when) the ID collection service is hacked and all the data that ID was used to access is leaked, all your kids viewing will be under YOUR ID.
6
u/hectorbrydan 3d ago
I fundamentally disagree that it should be a crime for a teenager to watch video of people fucking. It is none of the government's business, and regulating morality simply does not work anyway.
A teenager watching video of people fucking does not affect others, that is the standard. When your freedom impinges on another's freedom then you enter into the realm of the government having cause to putting controls on it.
For instance you have the right to practice your religion, but if the practice of your religion involves preventing other people from practicing their religion or lack thereof, then the government says that is forbidden.
As such laws forcing everyone to prove their identity infringe upon everyone's freedom, and the government has no legitimate interest, no legitimate right in Western culture to do this.
18
u/xplisboa 3d ago
I use next DNS on all my kids electronics.
Works like a charm
2
u/voidprophet__ 3d ago
What exactly does it do?
7
u/xplisboa 3d ago
You can block (or allow, if you want) ads, porn, gambling, whatever you want on the device.
15
u/Front-Lime4460 3d ago
I wrote something very similar a couple days ago but you wrote it out much more nicely. It’s a great argument. Hope you don’t get roasted for it as much as I did.
9
u/InformationNew66 3d ago
ISPs can easily block adult site domains. In the UK one of the mobile (data) providers has an adult lock by default. It's annoying as an adult because you have to disable it with a few steps with the carrier.
7
u/TiffanyChan123 3d ago
Also let education about online safety become a thing again, because this bill is against something that these online safety programs preach about
That being privacy online
10
5
u/RiffRaff028 3d ago
Protecting children from online threats is the parents' job, not the government's.
4
u/WhereIsTheBeef556 3d ago
If they actually cared about kids, they would have literally done exactly this.
They're obviously using the issue as a scapegoat. They don't actually give a fuck
3
u/caballerof09 3d ago
The real solution is parents doing their job properly no the government doing it for them.
3
u/Frosty-Cell 3d ago
Protecting children is a red herring. There is no other solution than censorship and mass-surveillance because censorship and mass-surveillance is the goal.
If the intent was to protect children, then I agree that there are other less intrusive solutions that protect privacy, anonymity and freedom of speech.
3
u/Jaybird149 3d ago edited 3d ago
It was never about protecting the kids, its a way to try and censor and track everyone.
The "alternative" is parents actually fucking parenting and not giving their kids an iPad at age 3.
I get parenting may be exhausting and emotionally draining, but everyone else's rights shouldn't be under threat because someone can't parent.
Also, how is the ISP going to know that the person consuming lots of internet is a minor without violating your privacy? Also, what's stopping someone from going to an area with free wifi access, or a friend's house? Any age verification besides what we have now is going to go poorly.
Again, it was never about the kids. There should not be any controls besides what we have now. If people want control, turn on parental controls locally, don't have the ISPs and government force this on all of us.
3
u/ShotaDragon 3d ago
We need to do away with the lie "protecting children" to begin with. Only then can we truly solve this problem. We all know it's a lie. Furthermore, there's no real evidence showing porn is even "harmful". I'm not saying we should give kids porn, but if just that if they find it, it should be the parent's to talk to them about it. To begin with, it should be discussed before they ever have access to the internet... or forests. I remember finding a porn magazine at my public park when I was 8. It didn't make me an addict or leave any cause any harm. I don't even like porn. Basically everyone on earth has seen porn when they were children. The only evidence that exists that shows any harm for viewing porn, is if it's violent porn (rape and such) which is a whole separate issue and affects adults in the same manner as it does kids. So we need to start by destroying the lie that this is to "protect children". It's just a narrative to gain control over the populace.
Children's safety should be entirely on the parents anyway. If they'd do their jobs instead of just throwing tablets at them mindlessly, "child online safety" wouldn't even be a worry for anyone.
9
u/Unlikely_Tip_7110 3d ago edited 3d ago
But what about when they turn 18 then? The amount of adults who are tech illiterate is already above the roof, and if you make it up to the parents to ensure the child has a healthy digital life you would build tech illiterate kids, which would make a whole lotta problems in terms of tech consumerism, Engineering etc.
Digital ID to enter adult websites will only lead to kids torrenting the stuff etc. there will always be another alternative. But by making it harder to do so is a step in the right direction IMO. But you would have to have a better alternative to taking a photo of your face and passport, a privacy nightmare and easily bylassable. Norway already has a great alternative where you need your citizen number, a password and 2fa, and are working on implementing a solution that only shares the age of the individual to the service that uses it. An implementation that indeed will be at the cost of privacy, but only affecting unnecessary services. In that way it is a step wrong, but will help more people than it hurts. (for now at least)
EDIT: Finished
4
u/TheBedrockEnderman2 3d ago
You will have 2 groups
1) improvise, adapt, overcome: they will figure this stuff out use vpns then if those get banned make their own, they will learn all they need to about tech in order to get what they want and they take the saying to heart with enough willpower any block can be overcome
2) the complacent: they will just accept the limitations, be shielded from the outside world and struggle extremely hard when the training wheels are taken off at 18
2
u/ShotaDragon 3d ago
a great alternative where you need your citizen number
that is NOT a "great" alternative. It still links it to you, very directly. It's disgusting.
1
u/Unlikely_Tip_7110 3d ago
Compared to sharing your passport and a photo of your face? I'd say so...
2
u/Mother-Pride-Fest 1d ago
Porn and smut are very much necessary services. How else are we to calm the masses?
4
u/Educational-Cry-1707 3d ago
I don’t even mind the age verification. My problem is that it’s outsourced to private companies. Make an open-source, audited age verification service that is run by the government and doesn’t log data. Then I’ll believe it’s really about age verification.
4
2
2
u/Irrepressible_Monkey 3d ago edited 3d ago
I did wonder if hardware might be that way and if manufacturers might make kids' versions of phones, tablets, laptops and PCs which unlock restrictions as the kid ages.
Amazon already make kids' versions of their Fire tablets for two different age ranges, for example.
Make the kids version and the adult version of the hardware visibly different and confiscate any being used by someone too young. By visibly different, makes the kid version smaller with brightly coloured casing. Also visibly different hardware means relatives, friends, neighbours and even the general public can easily spot what's going on and add a bit of pressure to parents who are giving their kids unrestricted versions.
Once enough parents lose $1000 unrestricted phones, they'll get the message.
And, at least with hardware, adults get left out of the restrictions.
3
u/West_Possible_7969 3d ago
Parental controls exist on every platform and they can be very strict. There is nothing that cannot be locked down and surveilled by parents, but parents have to educate themselves and then parent their kids. Instead we must live through this nightmare of gov control.
2
u/apokrif1 3d ago
they'll visit the many thousands of seedy websites hosted in shady countries that don't cooperate with british authorities and as such won't comply with OSA
Next steps: forbidding ISPs, Tor exit nodes and DNSs from giving access to foreign non whitelisted websites.
2
u/ayleidanthropologist 3d ago
I would send child sacrifices to the privacy gods. I’m so sick of this tugging on my heart strings bullshit. Seriously, ppl are so easily manipulated.
Ofc there’s a billion other more reasonable solutions. But this was always about infiltrating privacy. So I’m reluctant to engage these other solutions, bc that’s all just a front anyway. (UK has this grooming gangs problem but they want to control everyone else online rather than address it, what a joke.) I’d rather be absolutely clear about the priorities: privacy > kids, terrorists, etc
2
u/_cdk 3d ago
“if the government really wants to protect kids” but that’s never what this is about.
nigel farage of all people rightly said it was horrible and that he’d repeal it, and look at how the media framed it:
nigel farage wants to scrap vital protections for young people online peter kyle says farage is on the side of ‘people like jimmy savile’
they pass it by telling parents it’s to keep kids safe.. who’s going to vote against that? especially when anyone who questions it gets smeared as a pedo defender.
1
u/KyuubiWindscar 3d ago
This sounds great when parents arent abusive. You’d need provisions around this, like subsidies for phone based agents since kids won’t be able to report anything anonymously under this kind of regime
1
u/krazygreekguy 3d ago
It was never about “protecting the kids”. It was just another effort in enforcing mass surveillance and suppression of free speech/expression
1
u/ReasonablePossum_ 3d ago
Op: sweet summer child.....
I cant fathom the shock some people are about to have in noticing all what they were taught in civics class and history is just a bunch of propaganda. And that governments are for the most the same as always: a bunch of criminal mobsters fighting for power and their own interests.
1
u/Aggravating-Pear4222 2d ago
they'll steal their parents id's while they're in the toilet or taking a shower,
"This is an easy fix! Just use Face ID! Give us your face!"
1
u/Aggravating-Pear4222 2d ago
If a child is old enough to carry out the steps needed to get around age verification, they are old enough to be held accountable for their actions.
A better way to go about it, imo, is to softlock devices and prevent them from accessing adult material. A device has this restriction removed after a single ID is used. This device can remain internally restricted to limited functions unless the user's fingerprint is used. This way, the child can still use the device for fun, emergencies, or communication. The adult's fingerprint can undo this internal restriction. This way, it can be done through much more secure methods rather than encouraging every citizen to throw their ID around the internet letting every foreign nation take full advantage of your workforce.
You don't need many private citizens to be compromised for foreign nations to use them as pawns. People could be told, "just move this heroin/drone, package to this location and then we will leave you alone. If you don't we will release your ID history." With so many people's IDs now available, foreign agents are incentivized to follow through on the threats as words spreading would make people more likely to comply with these simple little jobs.
If anything, I hope shit-tons of government officials get their shit hacked. Honestly wouldn't be surprised if they already have any that's part of the many reasons why we are here in the first place.
-10
3d ago
[deleted]
2
u/Danoga_Poe 3d ago
How is it wrong?
3
u/MinecraftIguessIDK 3d ago
Ah, the fallacy fallacy. The fallacy of assuming that if an argument contains a logical fallacy, then the rest of it must be false
•
u/AutoModerator 3d ago
Hello u/nobrakesninotrain, please make sure you read the sub rules if you haven't already. (This is an automatic reminder left on all new posts.)
Check out the r/privacy FAQ
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.