Those are the ulterior motives people I referred to. Asking on installation is robust enough because parents buy devices for their children and set them up. You could make it even more robust if you required a cellphone store employee to do it. Whatever way someone is authenticated as a cellphone store employee would surely leak, but again: robust enough. An example of something not robust is asking the child upon access to the site. Brits tolerate ID checks for cigarettes, even though parents can buy cigarettes for their children.

▲

mdp2021 19 hours ago | parent [-]

> You could make it even more robust if you required a cellphone store employee

And you would accept a device that would require a third party for setup?!?!?!

That is what I meant with "either proving identity or lunatic workarounds"...

That "robust enough" is full grounds to have a population rise, given that an expectable combination of stupidity as ineptitude and stupidity as radical psychosis from the state can shift the "robust enough" to substantial dystopia. Have they (the keir starmer bunch) or have they not issued a law without the crucial details - how to do it, the whole matter is absurd without full clarity on "how to do it"?

▲

inigyou 7 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes I accept that every device requires a third party for setup. That setup being namely putting the device in my hands and giving me legal ownership of the device.

	▲	mdp2021 a few seconds ago \| parent [-]
		> That setup being namely putting the device in my hands and giving me legal ownership of the device You implied in your parent post that «requir[ing] a cellphone store employee to [set the age of an owner on the device]» would be acceptable. We refuse radically to have devices that require third parties («cellphone store employee[s]» to finalize setup.