upvote
A working solution can forestall a worse one. Because of the age verification law in California, which is very explicit that you only need a device-wide checkbox, nobody can use the argument that they need a passport scan to comply with the law.
reply
We’ve had the “compromise” solutions forever before the harder stance tech took on privacy in the last few years, and governments abused them into oblivion. Every time the tech allowed it, it was legally abused and applied much wider than initially promised. This isn’t just about age verification but also encryption.

Every time you step back, the opposing force advances one step and soon you’ll have the same discussion again except from an even weaker position. Do you really think that once the framework is in place everyone will forever be content and not push for the next step?

Like the author, you are advocating for the “small backdoor”. Or like another commenter put it, the prophylactic that only gets you a little pregnant. There’s no such thing.

reply
Non sequitur. I didn't say anything about backdoors or privacy.
reply
I also found the compromise bit of the article strange

The minimally compatible is what existed before. The Snowden leaks showed that the Government, and not just the US government, would abuse the shit out of that for mass surveillance.

So now privacy advocates no longer trust that such a compromise can exist

It’s strange that the author both recognizes that the Government broke the social contract and then says privacy advocates should just keep trusting them in the same article

reply
This. Author does talk about a lot of facts but seems very defeatist wrt whether an anonymous, encrypted internet can be preserved.

I do recognize their point that it's been made very hard to catch and prosecute cyber criminals. I think there are ways to improve that that don't destroy the privacy of everyone. But if that's the real goal, why isn't it the big pitch line of the Parent's Decide Act?

reply