Theoretically we don't actually need proof of age. Websites need to know when the user is attempting to create an account or log in from a child-locked device. Parents need to make sure their kids only have child-locked devices. Vendors need to make sure they don't sell unlocked devices to kids.

▲

LorenPechtel an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Exactly.

Trying to approach it from the direction of websites determining if you are an adult is a privacy nightmare and provides a huge attack surface. (Which is what the government wants--the ability to monitor.) Flipping it over is much, much safer--but fails the real mission of exposing dissent.

(On-device security, the credential of the adult is loaded onto the device but not transmitted anywhere, it can only be obtained locally. The device simply responds as to whether it has a credential loaded. Bad guys are unlikely to want to sell such devices as the phone could be traced back to them.)

And the parents can select a strict child lock, or permitted but copies forwarded to the parent.)

▲

seanmcdirmid 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Theoretically we don't actually need proof of age. Websites need to know when the user is attempting to create an account or log in from a child-locked device. Parents need to make sure their kids only have child-locked devices. Vendors need to make sure they don't sell unlocked devices to kids.

Given how current parental controls work, kids are not getting access if their device is under parental control (the default for open web access is off). So Facebook still won't see any child-locked devices, even before this ruling. My guess is that this ruling applies to parents who aren't making sure their kids get access only via child locked devices.

▲

itissid 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Theoretically only

> Surveys by Britain’s tech regulator, Ofcom, find that among children aged 10-12, over half use Snapchat, more than 60% TikTok and more than 70% WhatsApp. All three apps have a notional minimum age of 13.

https://archive.ph/y3pQO

▲

polyomino a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Children do not want child locked devices and they will find alternatives

▲

itissid 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The issue is not just age verification but also device pinning.

I think the framework here is to have community driven age verifiers( i recall there is an EU effort for digital wallets which besides it's bad parts has some of these good parts) which can verify ages for people and link them to( local biometrically encrypted) devices for pinning. This would be privacy preserving. The only downside is a mandate for all devices have a built-in hardware biometric encryption like a finger/face print so phones can't be just(used) with these apps installed.

The verification part is a job that could be done by all the teachers and coaches and ofc parents. Any one verifying identities would be cryptographically nominated/revoked by a number of more senior members of the community. A prent always get the right to say ok for their kid ofc but so could teachers or legal guardians..

We(legally) need a mandate for smart devices to have local device only biometric verification. The law should be to have these apps follow device app store protocols.

▲

sixsevenrot 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

As with smoking, alcohol, sex, drugs etc

Children who are smart enough to get access to a given vice without getting caught are more likely to be mature enough to be able to cope with that vice.

	▲	cr125rider 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I think we’re going to see how that plays out with gambling. It seems a bit silly to think security abstinence is the solution.

▲

skybrian a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

True, it's never going to be 100%, but at least it's a tractable problem for parents. Enough to change what the culture considers "normal," anyway.

▲

IAmBroom 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Imperfect solutions are still called "solutions".

▲

kakacik 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Well then don't give them money to do so, its not like phones grow on trees. If you make selling phone/internet device to a minor under certain threshold an illegal act severely punished by law in same way alcohol and cigarettes are, many cases of access are solved. Also, paid internet subscription doesn't grow on the trees even though there are free wifi networks.

All imperfect solutions, but they slice original huge problem into much smaller chunks which are easier to tackle with next approach.