That is where this become more than just gate keeping and becomes full on tracking.
> The right people to protect children are those responsible for them - their parents and guardians.
My position is that there is a social responsibility to protect children which extends to the community at large, not just their immediate guardians.
Those are extreme positions.
There are things where you want the government to intervene.
There are things where you don’t want the government to intervene.
What I do in my bedroom should not be monitored by the government.
Me speeding on the road should be monitored by the government.
Conversations I am having online should not be monitored by the government.
It’s my job to teach my kid how to behave when he is bullied at school. The government does not help with that. It is my job to make sure my kid does not become the bully. The government does not help with that.
It is also my job to teach my kid what the internet is, that there are wackos out there, and how to recognize dangerous patterns. That’s life.
If you think this is to save the children…
> Those are extreme positions.
It's a very extreme position, and yet on every HN thread about digital ID there are multiple, upvoted, top-level comments suggesting that responsibility for children's safety lies solely with parents.
Well, if that's the case, why do these commenters accept ID checks at bars and the other things I mentioned?
Move the goalposts all you want, but I replied directly to a comment which said:
> The right people to protect children are those responsible for them - their parents and guardians.
> If there is a problem with children not being sufficiently protected, that is the level at which to solve it. Give families tools and information to do so.
That is the context with which my comments should be read. I'm trying to point out how absurd that position is when you extend it to anything in the physical world.
It's really on us to figure out how we can have things like the internet without harming children. Now, this is quite annoying, because I have never, and would never, give a child access to the internet in the first place. The internet was never driving around on public streets. I never wanted to force it on anyone.
We all dropped the ball here. We've all accepted and even celebrated more and more of our lives being online. But, more importantly, nobody noticed when children started to get smartphones with internet access. In my mind this is no different than giving children cigarettes or other adult materials. But nobody batted an eye. I'm also not surprised, though. Loads of people here have made tons of money from children having access to the internet.
Unfortunately it's so hard to go back from something like this. So we end up in this stupid situation where people will accept more surveillance because we can't just take phones away from children.
100% agree with this. Community responsibility is the literal opposite of what is being proposed.
For details of what is stored on that barcode:
https://www.aamva.org/getmedia/99ac7057-0f4d-4461-b0a2-3a553...
What's on passports and some identity docs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine-readable_passport
There have been many cases where clubs stored the documents scanned which were then hacked. Or where club/bar staff used the scanned/stored documents to stalk attractive women.
Sample:
https://www.theverge.com/tech/947157/passports-data-breach-c...