[cycomanic]

Ignoring the reality that some system of age (and ID verification, for certain tasks) system is desired by a significant portion of the population, and does have utility (despite the shouts for "just parent your children") is simply sticking your head in the sand. So by opposing any solution (even solutions that preserve privacy, like zero-knowledge), you make privacy concerns seem unreasonable and weaken stances opposing the more privacy invasive solutions.

[vouwfietsman]

> Ignoring the reality that some system of age ... system is desired by a significant portion of the population

How do you think this came to be?

[gzread]

I'm not sure. It dates back hundreds of years, since children weren't allowed in bars

[vouwfietsman]

Do you have a source for that? Does your source imply that this is desired by the population?

My question is mostly rhetorical: it is obvious that government & safety institutions are themselves fanning the flames of this ridiculous movement away from privacy and towards a surveillance state of over-protectionism. The world has not significantly changed in 50 years in terms of terrorist threats, (except for, ironically, threats to your identity online), yet suddenly now that we can track people online, we must to combat this non-changing threat factor? It's all security theater.

All intelligence agencies benefit from more data, and will happily use lack of data as a scapegoat for their own incompetence. They instill fear to justify their existence, unlawful behavior, and lack of results.