> smarter than your average threat

Well, there's a good candidate for the dumbest assumption I'm going to see this month.

What assumption?

Well funded and planned security threats are overwhelmingly outliers. Most security threats in airports are drunk and pissed off idiots, and most terrorists are lone wolf crazies with zero experience or expertise in security.

There are parental control settings on most of the devices kids have right now. Most parents don't use them (https://fosi.org/parental-controls-for-online-safety-are-und...) . Where's your vast majority?

By the way, that does not imply that they're "underutilized". That part of the article is pure opinion.

Err... "Most" is doing some heavy lifting here. 51% of parents do use parental controls on their kid's tablets, and 47% on smartphones.

And there's no breakdown by age. Kids don't magically become able to handle the uncensored internet the day they turn 18.

Did it ever occur to you that parents who don't use restrictions maybe have kids that are almost 18? Or parents of kids who have shown themselves to be responsible? Or that the parents use other methods to restrict use (like only allowing supervised use with the parent for very young children)?

Do they work universally or are they easy to bypass by finding an app they don't cover?

> And some kids haven't got their head straight after puberty at 16, and still need (or would have needed) the training wheels.

But on average they don't.

> Society works on averages.

Right. So setting the rules around the outliers is wrong. Glad you're clear on that.

> Most people being ready little adults at 16 doesn't mean everyone is.

You don't have to be a completely self-sufficient adult to handle the freaking Internet.

I feel like I'm in a comedy show where I'm the only one who actually reads what others are writing.

There's no evidence in this response or others that you're reading what other people are writing.

Sometimes the kids basically run away to universities as soon as they're of age.

> You get to pick it, it isn't mandatory that it be checked, and it doesn't need to be a date, just the bucket. Is that still too onerous?

Yes, because (a) it wouldn't do anything, and (b) it would take about 5 seconds for the morons who push this stuff to start whining about that fact, and using the fact that "Society(TM) has mandated this and people are avoiding it" to demand effective verification, which would be a huge disaster.

They won't be placated by anything short of total victory, and if you give them anything, you're just enouraging them.

I don't know. There's a certain segment of "civil society" that's pretty much OK with anything as long as it doesn't threaten the Holy Free Market. Free only for appropriately holy values of "free", mind you...

The network's job is to move packets from A to B, based on the addresses in the headers. Full stop.

> the part that changes is passive fingerprinting from third parties - network middleboxes, ISPs, DPI systems

Right. Things that should never have been allowed to exist to begin with. Working as designed.

Like what? The AV maniacs apparently want to apply it to any and all "spaces" where you might actually communicate with anybody.

Of course not. You might try to write code to get around the jail everybody wants to put you into.