[flagged]
The podcast makes a unsubstantiated and unexamined assumption: kids must be online. A cursory glance reveals that they in fact do not.
You haven't listened to a single word of it have you?
https://soundcloud.com/chrismorrisbits/peter-ohanraha-hanrah...
It says precisely the opposite.
If the podcast wants to say the thing, they should say the thing rather than its opposite.
Perhaps listen to end of the podcast to get closure.
Road to hell paved with good intentions - always has been.
To be honest, I don't think it could have gone any differently. It's an eminently hard thing to achieve: we want everyone to be free on the internet, but we also want "bad guys" not to be, and you can't really disjoint the two sets of people.
I'd like to think so.
How could it have gone differently?
Sincerity and honesty from the get-go. Using science and mathematics?
It is the deceit and self-deceit, the avoidance of difficult questions that has marred this bill from the start.
Ambitious social aims need backing up with outstanding technical competence, in computing, law, social sciences....
That didn't happen. Ignoring the advice of experts has been business as usual for our government, at least since Covid.
If you say, "well yes but only for legal purposes", then the jig is up. End-to-end encryption must die. You can fiddle here and there with what getting the warrants and the wiretaps and all that looks like but you have decided the fundamental question. From then on, between civil libertarians and law enforcement the issue becomes a skrimage. The courts will hash it out and subsequent legislation will ebb and flow the limits on both sides. But you have decided the fundamental question. Humans are not allowed to actually have secrets. Period. That is what happens the second you make this conditioned in any way.
Of course there are better and worse versions of this that can exist but ultimately I think it should be opposed as a state violation of human rights.