On top of the pretty bad article, HN finds the “can’t win” scenario again. There’s no age verification scheme that will survive “collusion”, that’s when the adult allows the minor to use validated credentials, devices, etc. And whatever more intrusive age verification schemes we come up with will also fail this but add the intrusiveness to ruffle even more HN feathers. We can have the constant face, fingerprint and DNA scan for as long as the sensitive apps is used. Everything gets stored on a central server for safety so your kid can’t hack the device and replace the reference sample. /s

> "Let’s say I downloaded the app, proved that I am over 18, then my nephew can take my phone, unlock my app and use it to prove he is over 18."

Love the magic step in the middle, unlock my app. Ask for passcode or faceid to “unlock your app”. That’s a lot of legwork the adult has to do so the child can “trick” the system.

Some people will forever be shocked that if they leave on the table an open booze or medicine bottle, loaded gun, etc. a child can just take them and misuse them. The blame is unmistakably with bottle and gun manufacturers, right?

Put a modicum of effort to protect the sensitive apps or supervise the child when you share your device. They can do a lot of damage even with age appropriate apps. Wanna see how quickly your kid will tell everyone on the net how much money you have (via proxies), where you live, and when you go on vacation? Or tell someone the credit card number they swiped from your pocket if the other person makes it sound like a game?

▲

thomastjeffery 2 days ago | parent [-]

The first premise you are avoiding is that a child can misuse a phone.

The second premise you are avoiding is that the government can define, for every child, what constitutes misuse.

You are advocating thought crime. You do not have my support.

My government cannot adequately manage responsibility for my cupboards. It therefore shall not have authority over them.

▲

Cthulhu_ 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Your government does have various authorities over what you put in your cupboards though. like, you can't just put a gun in there (actually I don't know where you live but that's true for most countries). You can't just get in a car.

Anyway, ultimately it's best effort. No security is flawless, but if it stops 99% or more of cases it's better than 0%.

	▲	thomastjeffery 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Cases of what? Beer in an unlocked cupboard? Porn on an unverified computer?

▲

notTooFarGone 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Do you also refuse to show id when buying alcohol because the gubbernment does not have authority over what you may buy?

That's how you sound.

	▲	thomastjeffery 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		No, because that's a public store. The government can go to the store. They can't go to my cupboards without a warrant. The same goes for my computer, and its connection to another computer.

▲

close04 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I replied to the content of the article and HN comments, not what you think I should have replied to. If anything you even failed to notice that I expect parents to do some of the parenting and not expect an app to magically do it all for them.

The government already defines what misuse is both for children and adults, defines responsibility for a lot of things even in your cupboard, and has been doing so for as governments have been a thing. And I don’t think you understand what “thought crime” is.

You won’t hear me say this too often but next time use an LLM to write your comments, any LLM will do, can only get better.

	▲	thomastjeffery 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Why would I want to write better? This is a comment on a website. You replied to a subset of the topic, and that's the point I was making. I felt the conversation needed relevant details from outside that subset, so I provided them. I was terse in my comment, because that's how I like comments: short and to the point. That makes them much easier to skim through. The government doesn't enforce its rules by going through my cupboards. It doesn't put a lock on them. Instead, it tells me what the rules and consequences are, placing both authority and responsibility for the cupboards themselves into my hands. This is the primary change we are taking about: allowing the government to introduce its own code (lock) into my private digital interactions. Why are you so intent on focusing the conversation on the mechanics of that lock? Is it really so unreasonable for me to ask you to think about the rest of the topic?