Hacker News Reader

Comment by dash2 | Hacker News Reader

I don't understand the force of that argument. Where is the "so" coming from?

I don't understand what's hard to understand. Regulation that affects people and devices that have no risk of being used for the purported thing that's supposed to be protected against is not well-scoped.

Obviously if the government knew that you had no kids, they wouldn't need to check it. How do you propose they find out, without asking you to prove it?

> How do you propose they find out, without asking you to prove it?

How do I propose the government know if I have kids? I'm pretty sure they already know that I don't?

I don't think the government knows if a given random IP connection has kids, or is you.

My entire point is that there's absolutely no need to know if a "random IP connection" is a kid when there are so many mundane reasons to use the internet that aren't objectionable for the hypothetical child who the connection might have behind it. It's the equivalent of making anyone walking into a grocery store show their ID in case they happen to buy alcohol later. I don't drink alcohol either and have no need to buy it, and I'd be similarly incensed if I got carded every time I walked into a store to buy eggs or milk.

Backwards. The government knows who has kids because they do things like issue birth certificates and operate state schools. In a lot of places it's legally very difficult not to be listed as a parent on government records.

So why should I have to prove I don't have kids when the government can know I'm not on any of those lists?

The government departments know those things because the parents registered on those lists. It doesn’t automatically just “know”, and that info is historically not usually shared between government departments

That doesn't make the burden of proof magically mine.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com