No, they are not. Because the rules are being put in place by people you would definitely not want to babysit your kids, for example. They are politicians whose ambition is to have power over you. Something that should always be limited.
After thirty five year of drafting legislation for politicians, I have seen it all. They aren’t doing it out of particular concern for the kiddies. They are doing it for pretty much two reasons: to convince the Helen Lovejoys in the community to vote for them (and note that is a completely different group than parents who don’t look after their kids’ internet access, I doubt there is much venn diagram overlap); and in order to eventually make it easier for The State to access your information.
Some of you people have really disturbing opinions. I was involved in assisting a PTA group that held internet and device safety training courses for parents. There are a LOT of confused and clueless parents out there...
That argues FOR more new laws by basically saying: "I have an excellent reason why we need a new law. You see, we need to better protect the ignorant/clueless." The end result of that argument being that, not one, but multiple new laws eventually get spawned. Then decades and many new laws later, society is not much safer, and perhaps even less safe because you and I end up breaking any number of laws out of the very ignorance/cluelessness that was used to enact them. Now THAT is truly disturbing.
Again, I am NOT an anarchist by any stretch of the imagination. A tad bit libertarian, perhaps, but not anti-law or pro-chaos. I'm just a realist who understands when we have too much of something "good" that ultimately causes more harm than the good it set out to produce. That's been true for a long while though. It's just far worse today. And it's sad that the only "cure" people come up with is to add more cruft and complexity to the legal system. Just one more new law... Just one more hit... It's all an addiction cycle we need to break, and you can't break it by doing what you've been doing.
Sounds like a great book which parallels what I said in my earlier post. That's why it's funny when I ponder all the controversy surrounding monuments in the US with the "Ten commandments" etched onto them. Only "Ten" divine laws and we have all that controversy? Human beings have create Ten Thousand+ and almost no one lodges complaints, except to complain that we need even more laws!
We need press a Rest Button to blast most laws into oblivions and start over, every x-number of decades. Extreme? Yes. But sadly, that's pretty much the only way to control out-of-control "law makers" (which We The People are fully responsible for having elected) whose job it is to do nothing other than create another new way to put someone in jail, at tax-payer expense. This is why I am not happy when I read news stories about CSAM or any new "safety bill" because it only adds more complexity to a list of laws so long no one can possibly comply with perfectly, thereby further making everyone into law-breakers.
I told you so…
The recent “child protection” measures implemented by Apple only serve as a entry to more and more draconian government snooping, and data harvesting.
The article claiming the government cant force Apple to violate its privacy policies is so misguided.
They will never stop, especially creeps like newsom.
They will always shout “it’s to protect the children”
It’s their favorite excuse to execute control over every aspect of your life, and to take your freedoms away. This data collected will be used against you in politically motivated ways, and to keep the elites rich and pampered while the rest are oppressed. It will also be used to push in the new world order, tracking your so called carbon footprint and punishing you if you accidentally cross some arbitrary line. It’s so obvious.
If you want to protect your children don’t let them use devices unsupervised. Simple.
However they are clever and you should monitor your network for extra devices they may have hidden.
Really? Like a device with a cellular connection? How is that going to show up on your network?
This type of legislation is designed for the majority of parents that do not regularly comment on tech forums, and at most have a Facebook account. I haven't read the legislation, but rules that force websites, apps, and devices to respect and augment the experience for younger age groups would only be a boon overall for society.
And hammers are designed for driving nails into building materials, yet are (very occasionally!) used to kill people.
The big problem with legislation like this is that it works for the intended use case and completely ignores the unintended use cases - worse, it's trying to camouflage an obvious intention of the government.
I absolutely support working to improve designs so that no person is negatively affected, child or adult. I also support freedom of expression regardless of whether I agree or approve of the ideas being expressed or the form of that expression. There is a conflict there; some people seem to think that conflict can be bypassed by making rules and forcing everyone to follow them. My experience shows otherwise.
I think it's a fallacy to expect you can force people to respect other people. Especially when the mechanism chosen is intrinsically disrespectful to the people it is being applied against.
Some of you people have really disturbing opinions.
That aside, in the past I was involved in assisting a PTA group that held internet and device safety training courses for parents. There are a LOT of confused and clueless parents out there. Many of the parents involved in those sessions spent little time on the internet and were unaware of the type of information their kids could find on a completely unsecured device. We didn't give them a doom and gloom worst case scenario, but practical tips for how to talk to their kids about device usage, social media, but also how to find a device's browsing history and where parental controls can be applied.
Just by commenting on this article, everyone here is more technologically aware, by a significant margin, than the majority of school aged kids' parents are. We know about the risks and are aware of how to mitigate them. Kids don't need to be completely locked down, but they are kids and biologically aren't yet equipped to make mature decisions. Parents need to provide guidance and enforce some rules from time to time.
This type of legislation is designed for the majority of parents that do not regularly comment on tech forums, and at most have a Facebook account. I haven't read the legislation, but rules that force websites, apps, and devices to respect and augment the experience for younger age groups would only be a boon overall for society.
No! We must extol the virtues of the techno-libertarian! That imaginary visage of society where all members act in the best interests of others rather than themselves and the sleazy exploitation we’ve already seen every level of private industry succumb to, such as ISPs selling your browser history to third-party data harvesters, because that’s how committed techno-libertarians are to FREE COMMERCE! /s
Yeah 99% of these comments are foolishness of those unwilling to admit how things actually go sans regulation. Hint: commercially-motivated parties rarely ever do the right thing when there’s a profit motive to do something else. Human nature I suppose. Which is why humanity also devised laws and the rule of law to enforce good behaviors.
The collary is not all regulation is created for the good of the people, but increasingly as government has grown bigger, in the interests of the state, and those that control it.
Comments
Again, I am NOT an anarchist by any stretch of the imagination. A tad bit libertarian, perhaps, but not anti-law or pro-chaos. I'm just a realist who understands when we have too much of something "good" that ultimately causes more harm than the good it set out to produce. That's been true for a long while though. It's just far worse today. And it's sad that the only "cure" people come up with is to add more cruft and complexity to the legal system. Just one more new law... Just one more hit... It's all an addiction cycle we need to break, and you can't break it by doing what you've been doing.
Sounds like a great book which parallels what I said in my earlier post. That's why it's funny when I ponder all the controversy surrounding monuments in the US with the "Ten commandments" etched onto them. Only "Ten" divine laws and we have all that controversy?
We need press a Rest Button to blast most laws into oblivions and start over, every x-number of decades. Extreme? Yes. But sadly, that's pretty much the only way to control out-of-control "law makers" (which We The People are fully responsible for having elected) whose job it is to do nothing other than create another new way to put someone in jail, at tax-payer expense. This is why I am not happy when I read news stories about CSAM or any new "safety bill" because it only adds more complexity to a list of laws so long no one can possibly comply with perfectly, thereby further making everyone into law-breakers.
The road to HELL is paved with GOOD INTENTIONS.
And hammers are designed for driving nails into building materials, yet are (very occasionally!) used to kill people.
The big problem with legislation like this is that it works for the intended use case and completely ignores the unintended use cases - worse, it's trying to camouflage an obvious intention of the government.
I absolutely support working to improve designs so that no person is negatively affected, child or adult. I also support freedom of expression regardless of whether I agree or approve of the ideas being expressed or the form of that expression. There is a conflict there; some people seem to think that conflict can be bypassed by making rules and forcing everyone to follow them. My experience shows otherwise.
I think it's a fallacy to expect you can force people to respect other people. Especially when the mechanism chosen is intrinsically disrespectful to the people it is being applied against.
Yeah 99% of these comments are foolishness of those unwilling to admit how things actually go sans regulation. Hint: commercially-motivated parties rarely ever do the right thing when there’s a profit motive to do something else. Human nature I suppose. Which is why humanity also devised laws and the rule of law to enforce good behaviors.