| ▲ | ProjectArcturis 3 days ago | |
I'm not sure that making parents legally culpable for their kids being smart enough to download a new browser is LESS government intrusion. | ||
| ▲ | BobaFloutist 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | |
I think the idea is that the manufacturers are culpable for making a parental restriction mode that's set-and-forget and not easily thwarted from inside the mode and parents are culpable for declining to set it. Which I still don't love, but is at least more fair. | ||
| ▲ | e40 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |
It could be added at the router? The child's computer could be identified and this header added, in a MITM situation... but, maybe that would be easy to defeat, by replacing the cert on the client? Not my area of expertise... really just asking... | ||
| ▲ | rlpb 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | |
There's no reason to hold the parents culpable. It would be up to the device manufacturer to ensure that this isn't possible on a system that has parental controls enabled. This is already a solved problem - see how MDM solutions do it, and see Apple's ban on alternative browsers. It's not even necessary to block parents from giving their children Linux desktops or whatever. It'll largely solve the problem if parents are merely expected to enable parental controls on devices that have the capability. | ||