[RamAMM]

The missed opportunity was to provide privacy protection before everyone stepped into the spotlight. The limitations on RSA key sizes etc (symmetric key lengths, 3DES limits) did not materially affect the outcomes as we can see today. What did happen is that regulation was passed to allow 13 year olds to participate online much to the detriment of our society. What did happen was that business including credit agencies leaked ludicrous amounts of PII with no real harm to the bottom lines of these entities. The GOP themselves leaked the name, SSN, sex, and religion of over a hundred million US voters again with no harm to the leaking entity.

We didn't go wrong in limiting export encryption strength to the evil 7, and we didn't go wrong in loosening encryption export restrictions. We entirely missed the boat on what matters by failing to define and protect the privacy rights of individuals until nearly all that mattered was publicly available to bad actors through negligence. This is part of the human propensity to prioritize today over tomorrow.

[elric]

> What did happen is that regulation was passed to allow 13 year olds to participate online much to the detriment of our society.

That's a very hot take. Citation needed.

I remember when the US forced COP(P?)A into being. I helped run a site aimed at kids back in those days. Suddenly we had to tell half of those kids to fuck off because of a weird and arbitrary age limit. Those kids were part of a great community, had a sense of belonging which they often didn't have in their meatspace lives, they had a safe space to explore ideas and engage with people from all over the world.

But I'm sure that was all to the detriment of our society :eyeroll:.

Ad peddling, stealing and selling personal information, that has been detrimental. Having kids engage with other kids on the interwebs? I doubt it.

[ryandrake]

Kids are not stupid, though. They know about the arbitrary age limit, and they know that if they are under that limit, their service is nerfed and/or not allowed. So, the end effect of COPPA is that everyone under 13 simply knows to use a fake birthdate online that shows them to be over the limit.

[elric]

Sure, it's one of the many rules that's bent and broken on a daily basis. Doesn't make it any less stupid. And it falls on the community owner to enforce, which is doubly stupid, as the only way to prove age is to provide ID, which requires a lot of administration, and that data then becomes a liability.

[RamAMM]

If you care about something (say a child from the guardians perspective or perhaps a business from the owner's perspective) you find solutions.

[RamAMM]

I was one of those kids at one point. In meatspace we have ways to deal with it and online we do as well. Of course if there is no risk to a business then they will put no resources into managing that risk.

[1oooqooq]

ah to be 13 and having to lie about being 30 to not be banned from some game. so later you can be 30 and lie about being 13 to be able to play without too much ads.

[dfxm12]

COP(P?)A

COPA [0] is a different law which never took effect. COPPA [1] is what you're referring to.

Ad peddling, stealing and selling personal information, that has been detrimental.

I agree and what's good for the gander is good for the goose. Why did we only recognize the need for privacy for people under an arbitrary age? We all deserve it!

0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Online_Protection_Act

1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Online_Privacy_Pr...

[RamAMM]

>Ad peddling, stealing and selling personal information, that has been detrimental.

So we agree on this part.

> What did happen is that regulation was passed to allow 13 year olds to participate online much to the detriment of our society.

My claim is that if "we" hadn't allowed 13 year olds to sign away liabilities when they registered on a website there would be fewer minors using social media in environments that are mixed with adults; more specifically guardians of minors would be required to decide if their kids should have access and in doing so would provide the correct market feedback to ensure that sites of great value to minors (education resources being top of mind for me) would receive more market demand and at the same time social platforms would have less impact on children as there would be fewer kids participating in anti-nurturing environments.

[burningChrome]

>> Having kids engage with other kids on the interwebs? I doubt it.

Unless those kids aren't interacting with kids at all, but instead pedo's masquerading as kids for nefarious reasons. Which yes, has been VERY detrimental to our society.

[elric]

Nah. I'm not buying it. What's the rate of kids interacting with pedos instead of other kids?

Knee-jerk responses like yours, and "what about the children"-isms in general are likely more detrimental than actual online child abuse. Something about babies and bathwater.

[umanwizard]

I remember routinely clicking on some checkbox to say I was over 13 well before I was actually over 13. I'm sure most of the kids who actually cared about being on your site were still on it after the ban.

[bippihippi1]

the issue with online kids isn't just the availability of the internet to kids but the availability of the kids to the internet