The internet wants to check your ID

Counterfeit what? This is about labeling and filtering: the device doesn't present an ID, the device prevents the user from accessing content with/without specific labels if so configured.

Specifically, governments mandate that:

1. Websites/apps/etc. MAY label content (via headers) indicating when their content/service is/isn't appropriate for some specific audience (e.g., children) according to X/Y/Z regulations. Websites/apps/etc. MUST NOT incorrectly label their content.

2. Devices that can access the internet must not be sold directly to miners without parental consent.

3. Devices that can access the internet must include parental control software can be configured to allow/forbid all apps/content that may contain content not deemed suitable for children (in the jurisdiction where the device is sold).

Importantly, this kind of solution solves the "borderless internet" problem:

1. Device sellers are regulated in the jurisdiction where they sell the device.

2. Service providers take no (additional) per-jusrisdiction responsibility until they start labeling their content. By labeling their content, they are claiming to abide by specific regulations.

An additional consequence is it’s going to be significantly harder to set up an alternative social media site, as you’ll have to play by these rules which might end up favoring a certain provider’s implementation, or delegating the government the ability to shut down your site on a whim (even if through a court). This, I think, is way more concerning than having to ID your account on Meta.

The internet was never intended for children. It was intended for everything you said above, but with the intention for adults to access that content and self-moderate.

For kids, we had services like Prodigy and Compuserve that distilled the internet into approved content suitable for minors. We can - and probably should - go back to that, rather than throwing youth onto the regular internet and letting them fend for themselves online.

I disagree with your agree. While the “buck stops (t)here” with a parent, we also live in a society with rules and expectations around what a youth can access and what there is expectation on all of us to play by those rules.

My child cannot walk into a gas station and buy beer or cigarettes, cannot buy liquor, cannot buy a machine gun, cannot walk into an adult book store or a strip club, cannot operate a motor vehicle.

If you, an adult, aid and abbet my child in any of these activities you’re likely going straight to jail.

You do not magically get a pass because “the internet.” We live in the real world, with laws, with rules, with social expectations. It’s time for the free pass to end.

> The internet was intended for children. It was intended for everyone.

ARPANET and the related early nets were intended for sharing research and sharing scarce computing resources for research purposes.

Everything else was an accident of the telecoms wanting to get their respective beaks wet.

The goal has nothing to do with children, this is control.

The UK has a long long history of over reach with all of theses initiatives.

The UK governments is desperate to keep a increasingly fragile society from boiling over and their natural inclination is to censor, it's what they have always done.

> What is so special about services delivered over the internet?

Metaphor time:

Consider a liquor store in a physical space, and a porn site on the internet.

The liquor store requires ID at point of sale because it has limited entry and exit into the building. It has physical restrictions making it harder for minors to enter, and harder to exploit their way into accessing age-restricted items. This is because the physical world is always shared by default, and we must make rules securing adults-only spaces in a world that’s intrinsically shared with children.

A digital porn site exists on a realm solely built by adults, that requires adults to access in the first place. A child cannot sign up for an ISP, a child cannot buy their own cellular phone[1], and a child cannot decide to share their coffee shop or library WiFi for free to everyone within range. At some point, a child requires the assistance of adults to enter the internet. That makes the internet a de facto space for adults first, not children, and that is why I vehemently disagree with vilifying the majority of users (adults) just to “protect” kids who will bypass those age checks like they’ve successfully done for decades.

There will always be youth finding a way to procure pornography, drugs, or alcohol underage. The difference with the internet is that it’s by adults, for adults, and that children are guests who should be supervised by adults in their circles - not by policing all the adults online through intrusive surveillance measures.

[1] Children can, of course, use cash or cards to buy prepaid phones and airtime in many countries. I do not think this should be allowed and would be a better venue to restrict access than a surveillance state.

If a bartender asks to see your driver's license, that's fine. Now imagine a bartender asks to see your driver's license, and then run it through a scanner to capture a digital image of it, which they then store in a folder for the owner to peruse at their leisure. It's not the same thing, at all.

>What is so special about services delivered over the internet?

The most dangerous people on earth who are not in prison are on the internet; It is an adult place. Making it look like a child friendly place will not change this. But it will lure more kids online unsupervised and unprotected.

In the real world, we have many businesses which will look at ones gov't issued ID, most bars for instance. We have other businesses which will record the information off ones ID, most dispensaries for instance. I will go into the first. I will not go into the second. Verifying my eligibility is one thing. Recording my data for later use is a very different thing. I can tell the difference in the real world because I can see the process. Online, it is impossible to tell. Providers can build a reputation for privacy, think Proton.

You say we are looking for solutions. There are better solutions, including privacy preserving solutions, which can work. We just don’t have any of those yet.

One of THE major selling points for the internet is the option of anonymity, is that true for your other examples? I'd add what exactly is the point in this context? For alcohol sales or tobacco sales you can see the rationale in public health, clearly stated data about reducing accidental deaths, road accidents, and violence.

Where is the equivalent here?

I’m aware, but I go right back to the substance of the original conceit instead of letting myself get dragged into the details; that’s how you get these ghouls accusing you of being a pedophile or claiming you want to show children pornography in the classroom.

You gotta attack the root argument: this space was never intended for children, and it is the sole responsibility of parents to protect their children in adults-only spaces like the internet.

> Case in point, the same UK politicians who try to burry the Muslim grooming gangs story where kids got harmed

Please don’t spread lies to make your point. The current Prime Minister was the DPP who oversaw the prosecution of the Rochdale scandal and worked on changing reporting and investigation. Listen to Andrew Norfolk’s interview with the News Agents if you’d like a citation.

Starlink itself is an ISP. so you're going to circumvent an ISP - with an ISP?

Starlink isn't above government laws the same way how Youtbe, Apple, Google, Facebook and your ISP aren't. If the EU/UK/Australian governments say 'jump', these companies will say 'how high' or face criminal charges. They aren't gonna die on a hill and go to jail to protect your anonymity and privacy when the armed law enforcement show up at their offices with subpoenas. Their business and freedom is more important than your privacy.

You need to talk to push for change in your democratic government, not try to find technical workarounds around government tyranny while going on with your day as if what your government is doing is normal.

If there is no provable link between the service and the identity, however, there isn't that much harm in the leak itself. It just becomes a list of names and ages which are a dime a dozen on the internet. Hell, if the identity service was the government itself then it would be entirely useless outside of getting a list of people who have a driver's license (is this public info already?)