>But how do you do it in a way that it isn’t a burden on the parents
Why should we aim to do that ? Who give internet-enables device to their children? In most cases, who give pay for their internet access?
> So how to solve it. And „I don’t like the current approach“ without having a better idea is not a solution.
Defining the problem, and if it exist altogether should be a good start. I'm not even sure the problem is defined, even less it need a solution so badly that we should kill everyone privacy for it.
> Moreover, what I observed is that urban professional class populations are usually way more in favor of wolves reintroduction than rural working class population.
Perhaps their reasons is an economic one (wolf attacks on livestock) and not an human safety one ?
Well, they could trade identifying ones too or even stollen ID cards if you want to go this way.
They could also trade porn-filled thumb drive or old-school glossy paper magazine. There no way to prevent kid's exposure to stuff at a 100% success rate.
Better to wiretap everyone just in case.
Why stop there ? After all there a chance any privacy could be used to conceal some terrorist plot, better to record every meat-space conversations too, let's not take any risk.
You don't have to donate to all of them, or even donate at all as long as enough people donate.
They tend to feature a call to donation instead of advertising, with prominent progress bar about how much they need this month/semester/year instead of advertising.
Still visual crust, but much more palatable.
> Generally speaking, that's incorrect. That's like saying "I don't like cars, and don't see the value in cars, therefore the market for cars is fraudulent".
It's arguable that the car market is indeed fraudulent and the result of years of lobbying, destroying public transportation and car-centric architectures.
Having the game wishlisted is a signal of players waiting for a sale, or future patches/correction, or simply not bothering to cleanup wishlist, not a signal of someone is eager to pirate the game.
> Are in tension with one another. Clause 1 opens up for the idea that there exists valid "non-surveillance" record keeping, and that the distinction of such record keeping from surveillance requires determination of consent and purpose. Clause 2 then foregoes that determination and just presupposes the argument.
"Forcing" highlights the lack of consent, the distinction is still present.
> In the current legal framework, government derives it's unilateral consent from the vote. If the law passes in a democratic system, then it is, by that very process, a consensual and valid purpose.
Absolutely not. Being voted in a parliament doesn't mean citizens consented to it.
Simple example: compulsory military enrollment vs voluntary military enrollment. Only one of them derive from consent, even if both derive from a law discussed in parliament.
Are you equaling mass surveillance to a doctor keeping track of your health for diagnostic accuracy purpose ?
Concerning the railway example, they only need to store how much I owe them, not my travels. Storing travel history on their end is already surveillance.
Data keeping purpose and consents are what make something surveillance or not.
Forcing every citizen to use ID to access the web is surveillance plain and simple.