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.

> distribute pornography to minors. which i think is something that a reasonable parent would have a problem with.

I'm sorry what?

This is not even close to consensus, as you present it.

Also, a thought exercise, just for you:

1. Should stabbing people be illegal?
2. Should we make it impossible to stab people?

Think about those things, and how they relate to eachother. What would the consequences be of #2?

> 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?