| ▲ | saghm 7 hours ago |
| This is a sacrifice we just have to be willing to make as a society if we want to project kids from the horror of using the internet |
|
| ▲ | Tangurena2 an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| The politicians really want to know who to prosecute if someone on the internet says bad things (about them). |
|
| ▲ | walrus01 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think there's a number of people reading this who clearly didn't detect the satirical nature of this single sentence. It's blunt and obvious, but even so... |
|
| ▲ | OroPla 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I still don't understand why the simplest approach isn't used: ban kids from using the Internet unsupervised. There's really no good reason why a six year old should have internet access. |
| |
| ▲ | padjo 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The argument is that there are parents who are too stupid/lazy to enable parental controls on kids devices and society has a duty to protect kids even if their parents are negligent. Also, kids interact with other kids, so even if you do everything right your kids wind up with access/peer pressure through the kids with bad parents. I dunno if I agree but I think that's the thrust of it. | |
| ▲ | john_strinlai 17 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | it's pretty easy to enforce that for 6 year olds. not as easy for 12 year olds. |
|
|
| ▲ | brokenmachine 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| All the kids will be safe now they're logging into porn sites as Pete Hegseth. |
| |
| ▲ | walrus01 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Only after they've had their mandatory scrotum inspection and testosterone check to join the military at age 18. | | |
| ▲ | lifestyleguru 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | You guy don't have to show cock and balls to the military commission? It's a standard practice in post-Communist countries, including NATO ones. | | |
| ▲ | Tangurena2 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | In the olden days, the doc would hold your nuts and tell you to turn your head and cough. This was to detect if you had a hernia (which was a medical exception). The bunghole inspection was to see if you were the receptive partner in anal intercourse because being a gay man was a criminal offense. Allegedly, lesbianism was never outlawed because Queen Victoria was so offended by the idea of it that she prohibited the legislation from even being heard in Parliament. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_assent | | |
| ▲ | lifestyleguru 41 minutes ago | parent [-] | | How do you even conclude from inspecting a butthole that it is "a receptive one"? Every man was one butthole inspection away from being a criminal? I mean if a poo can get out, something of its size can also go in, and quality toilet paper was not that available at all historically. |
| |
| ▲ | walrus01 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | There's a guy in the US military intake processing facility (MEPS) whose job is, among other things, to inspect your bunghole https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=MEPS+assh... But more serious and non joking answer, the new thing from the "department of war" is testosterone level lab exams for existing servicemembers. https://news.google.com/search?q=US%20military%20testosteron... | | |
| ▲ | lifestyleguru 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | so... for military grade identification systems instead of face photo with id document next to it, you make banghole photo with id document next to it? | | |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | vrganj 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This is precisely why the authority doing these checks needs to be the government that already issues the IDs. Using ZKP as the EU proposes is the only way to prevent this data being leaked to unreliable third parties and leaves the knowledge with the institution it derives from in the first place. I don't know why HN rails against it constantly, it is the obvious technical and organizational solution to this issue. |
| |
| ▲ | hunterpayne 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Government systems leak information all the time. The type of institution managing the data makes little difference. Its how the institution manages the data that matters. | | |
| ▲ | vrganj 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | But the government inherently has that data, as it comes from there. They're the ones issuing the IDs in the first place. Theres no avoiding this, structurally. So the best thing you can do is not to introduce any additional points of failure. | | |
| ▲ | pessimizer an hour ago | parent [-] | | All previous systems avoided this. The government issued me an ID in the past, yet had no record of when I used it, or for what. I am so much more afraid of monopolies invading my privacy than roving hackers, or my corner store. Governments are the ultimate monopoly. | | |
| ▲ | vrganj 25 minutes ago | parent [-] | | The government doesn't know what you use your ID for in a properly implemented ZKP system, either. And clearly, the alternative is not the corner store. It's private monopolies building databases of 153M IDs. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | Tangurena2 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | It is European which means that it is both anti-capitalist and communist and therefore must be spit upon. |
|
|
| ▲ | cynicalsecurity 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| That was sarcasm. |
| |
| ▲ | dgellow 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Are you sure? It’s really hard to differentiate nowadays | | |
| ▲ | tpoacher 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Are you sure? It’s really hard to differentiate nowadays Case in point; I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not! :D | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | LtWorf 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Except this helps no child. |
| |
