even a simple requirement to accurately report browser version would be quietly horrifying
Maybe this is where the confusion comes from. The reason I think this is an acceptable idea, is specifically because there is no requirement for it to be accurate, and technically, it doesn’t seem possible to tack on a more intrusive system after the fact (owing to the fact that everything is stored locally). In effect, it seems to just be a, “filtering level” flag - something a user can chose to use (or not) to filter different types of content. This seems like its happening in parallel of government/corporate survailance, rather than in service to it.
Robbing software developers of the ability to say ‘that was a bad security decision, let’s just not do it,’ is intrinsically fucked.
Actually, this is the part I have the biggest issue with - esspecially because I don’t agree with some of the implementation details, like the requirement that the original input be a numerical/date input field, labeled as age rather than a bracket selection, or something else more clear and granular. At the same time, I think there is something to be said for government intervention in areas where private companies have failed to innovate/standardize, USB-C being the prime example.
That said, honestly, thinking about how suboptimal this is, even as a content filtering system… I think you’re right that this is the wrong approach. Something like flags marked for “hide sexual content”, “hide gore”, and “hude potentially disturbing content” would make far more sense than a set of unified age brackets. So, at least as a technical standard, consider me convinced that it shouldn’t be implemented.
Edit: I reread it and despite using the term “age bracket data” almost exclusively, the data is also not actually required to be abstracted. Given that the user is required to enter a numerical value or date, this means lazy and immoral developer will store it unabstracted, which is obviously unnecessary and makes it far less anonymous. That is completely unacceptable, esspecially for something being written into law, while far better solutions exist.
Maybe this is where the confusion comes from. The reason I think this is an acceptable idea, is specifically because there is no requirement for it to be accurate, and technically, it doesn’t seem possible to tack on a more intrusive system after the fact (owing to the fact that everything is stored locally). In effect, it seems to just be a, “filtering level” flag - something a user can chose to use (or not) to filter different types of content. This seems like its happening in parallel of government/corporate survailance, rather than in service to it.
Actually, this is the part I have the biggest issue with - esspecially because I don’t agree with some of the implementation details, like the requirement that the original input be a numerical/date input field, labeled as age rather than a bracket selection, or something else more clear and granular. At the same time, I think there is something to be said for government intervention in areas where private companies have failed to innovate/standardize, USB-C being the prime example.
That said, honestly, thinking about how suboptimal this is, even as a content filtering system… I think you’re right that this is the wrong approach. Something like flags marked for “hide sexual content”, “hide gore”, and “hude potentially disturbing content” would make far more sense than a set of unified age brackets. So, at least as a technical standard, consider me convinced that it shouldn’t be implemented.
Edit: I reread it and despite using the term “age bracket data” almost exclusively, the data is also not actually required to be abstracted. Given that the user is required to enter a numerical value or date, this means lazy and immoral developer will store it unabstracted, which is obviously unnecessary and makes it far less anonymous. That is completely unacceptable, esspecially for something being written into law, while far better solutions exist.