Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for privacy. But between setting up the birthdate when creating my children’s local account on their computers, and having to send a copy of their ID to every platform under the sun, I’d easily chose the former.
I’d even agree to a simple protocol (HTTP X-Over-18 / X-Over-21 headers?) to that.
There is a difference between providing the capability, and requiring that capability.
Under this law, something as simple as sharing a Google Drive could make you an “app store” under this law.
These laws are specifically designed to be broadly interpreted. We have no idea just how widely the nets will be cast, either tomorrow, or 10 years from now. It is prudent to assume the absolute worst case.
Tools should be provided if you want to do that but shouldn’t be standard. People should have freedom of choice on how to use their own property, in terms of computers, and how they manage/raise their children.
But between setting up the birthdate when creating my children’s local account on their computers, and having to send a copy of their ID to every platform under the sun, I’d easily chose the former.
That’s your decision. The rest of us shouldn’t be forced into it just because you’re to lazy to watch what your kids are doing online. If a website thinks they need to my my age they can ask me and I’ll decide if I want to provide it or not. I don’t want my OS just handing it out to anyone who asks.
Come on, it’s not about tending to a selected group of people, it’s about mandating more surveillance. OP has done nothing to deserve this anger
Genuine question, what if the only information it hands out is that you are over 18? Would it be different if all it was able to say is you aren’t a child?
You got the framing question wrong. You should have been asking if age limits should be implemented at all, and then whether the current proposals will work (which they won’t), and then whether they cause side damage (which they do).
And then you must understand the key point: once you build these surveillance tools, they will be expanded. You say “only 18” but once the framework is in place, why not add in “credit check” or “gender” or “nationality”.
And actually, we already know how the checks are implemented: they involve identifying people specifically. There is actually no way to do “only 18” checks; it is a physical impossibility. You always have to gather more data.
And finally, the basics of individual liberty as well as safe computing involve you choosing what software you want to run on your computer, and that you have control of your machine. For this type of age checking to work, it must take control away from you, the end user. And companies like Windows and OS X love it, because that would destroy the FOSS world.
Because you’re going down what they call a slippery slope.
This shouldn’t even be a thing. This shouldn’t even be a conversation.
We were doing just fine before the Epstein Republicans got their matching orders.
It’s a slippery slope and also regulatory capture as the only ones with the means to actually pull this off are the Big Tech companies.
Because I don’t give a shit what your kids do on the Internet, and there are already plenty of tools for you to curate the experience for them.
So
- Unenforceable
- Inaccurate
- Over-reaching
- PII not protected
What’s wrong with it then? By the numbers, it seems everything is wrong with it.
When you go order something from Amazon, you’re using about 15-20 computers in a row; probably more. PROVE you have the right. Yes, the server farm you’re using to make an order is included, and it’s a lot of machines.
Who pays to make sure Ticketmaster server farm is ‘used’ by age-appropriate customers and the code to check that is installed and maintained? Why, you, of course. The order panel at the burger joint? You, eventually. Toll ticket at Airport Parking? You’re gonna love this. Guess what’s in your cable box? Guess how often you’ll have to have your face scanned just to turn on the TV? TV too. Fancy thermostat? There’s a computer Nesting in there. Scan that face, bucko; on the new unit you have to buy because, dude, that and your microwave just became e-waste.
The list is unending. The implementation is shit. The data leak has already been shown with … discord, right?
Because I should not have to. Im fine with them selling specially child computers that are listed as under 18 you can buy for your kids but I don’t want that crap on mine.
Because it has little to do with protecting anyone and is another gross violation of privacy to serve corporate interests.
Show us your ID, then. Or even just your age. Now your children too.
Don’t want to? That’s why.
On the one hand, it is a privacy nightmare.
On the other hand, those laws are so badly written, they will apply to things you would never consider an issue. E.g. a security camera, a router, a NAS. For each of them, the law applies, because they have an OS, they are attached to a network, and they have logins. Think about it, and it basically applies to any network enabled device.
Lots of the criticisms will eventually start sounding like seatbelt law opponents. Lots of “it should be optional, if you want to do it that’s fine but don’t force me to, I feel safer without it, it’s each individual’s responsibility and shouldn’t be mandated, etc” types of arguments.
The problem with the current implementation is that it isn’t done privately. There are several ways to do secure and private age verifications, where your device never passes your browsing history off to the government, and the individual sites never get your personal info. But lawmakers have been lobbied by companies who want to insert themselves as the age verifiers to skim your data. So the current laws being passed are written in such a way that they’ll result in massive privacy violations.
If opponents truly wanted to prevent privacy violations, they would be devising ways to get lawmakers on board with secure age verification. That way the laws would actually reflect best practices, and wouldn’t just result in less privacy. But they’re still trapped in the knee jerk “but my privacy” reactions, which shuts down any further discussion and leaves the door wide open for lobbyists to write and pass whatever legislation they want.
Well written, but I disagree, because “get out of my backyard”. It is clear as day that the goal of this legislation is not taking care of children, helping parents or anything else worthwhile. So nah, in a well-functioning society this would be immediately put down with “get the fuck out with this hypocrisy” note
This is highjacking the narrative
Is it though? I’ve been saying for a while that direct device verification is the way to go. It would allow for systems that maintain privacy, while also allowing lawmakers to say they’re protecting kids (and enabling parental controls by default, which is important when many are basically tech illiterate). But that wouldn’t help the big tech companies harvest your data, which is why they haven’t lobbied for it. Instead, lawmakers have been pushing the worst form of age verification, which requires all kinds of privacy violations every time you want to jork it.
It’s not just a privacy issue. Regulatory capture is a problem too. It encumbers small services to the point where they can’t afford to exist, and the only winners are the walled gardens. And it’s also logistically an impossible thing to attempt to regulate at scale.
That isn’t a problem with proper implementation. Not that it will be done properly, just that it can be done properly
Trying to get every site that offers mixed content, or could do so to implement recognition of all of this is herding cats. It’s completely impossible without a walled internet. Moreover, there’s just no way a OS asking if you’re 18 is going to be accepted. It just isn’t. The expectation will be that they verify your age properly.
The goal isnt to herd every single cat. Just get the bulk of them. That’s how existing age regulation works. Alcohol age limit doesn’t stop underage drinking, but it does substantially reduce it. With that in mind, there are privacy respecting solutions that will do what needs to be done
I doubt you would even get “the bulk of them”. Again, people are saying “it’s just a yes/no tickbox bro”. For now. You cannot be naive enough to think it won’t change. And the absurdity of it too. Forcing something someone may program for fun to have a specific feature.
I do expect it to change. I expect it to be standardized with zero knowledge proofs. If I am avle to communicate with you on a random internet forum from anywhere in the world using standardized protocols, we can get private and secure “I am 18+” verification. It may initially start with proving it in some form or another, but if done correctly you would essentialy have a private key that certifies you are over X age. The company would know nothing about you, other than you are not a child. I have extremely simplified it, but it is possible.
Many OS here aren’t made by companies. They can all easily just be forked and edited to immediately wave people through any hypothetical age checks, moreover any website could just ignore it and wave everyone through.
Are we sure parental control methods were proven to be fundamentally inadequate for the situation? There’s no bulletproof security method to guard this data, so the discussion is about weighing privacy loss vs child safety, against existing methods (or improving other methods). Also the choice to set the age is in the hands of the parent, so I don’t see the benefit besides enabling the kid to choose app in a more self served manner (which you probably don’t want to allow).
Seatbelts are there because it’s obvious you’re not in control of other drivers, even if your car has all the safety controls. The downsides are minuscule in comparison to the privacy discussion, in my opinion.
The issue with “children” local accounts (assuming they ever remained 100% local anyway) is that for it to be effective, you would have to control who install the OS for it to be effective.
I have been managing my own OS install since I was a teen, so I could have just created an adult account for me. But, okay, you could say that you could just regularly check your child hasn’t reinstalled the machine.
Well, see, they could just install a Virtual Machine. There is plenty of Virtual Machine software out there, and then we’re back at whoever installs it being responsible for filling in that information. And Virtual Machines are very useful for a bunch of things: from running software not made for your hardware (see Android emulators, WSL), to being safer around dodgy software.
You could counter that by not letting them install things with your permissions… but there are portable versions of software that people make for a bunch of reasons which don’t recall an installation. And I am not talking about hypotheticals: back when I was in school people would carry portable versions of games in USB sticks to copy around school machines so they could play video games during IT class.
Never mind that it means that whenever they want to install something, they will poke you about it, and now you’re on the hook for reviewing that. Which you should already be doing because you care about what your child does and they don’t have the years of experience to not break their OS.
But if you are doing that, why not use proper parental control software that let’s you have much finer-grained control over what they can see or not online, along with other controls around how much time they can spend on the machine and a few nicer things?
Kids also get alcohol from their older siblings. It doesnt have to be 100% effective to still make a massive impact on children. Plus, kids these days could learn a thing or two about computers. Maybe byspassing restrictions will give them motivation to learn
But between setting up the birthdate when creating my children’s local account on their computers, and having to send a copy of their ID to every platform under the sun, I’d easily chose the former.
This is how they move the goalpost. They changed the argument.
You currently can just create a local account - period. It’s yours. No tracking. No personal info.
But now you’re accepting that you’re willing to give a third party information, even just a little.
The next argument is: “If giving your age is okay, why not your home address?”
This is what police do to fish information out of you.
I’d even agree to a simple protocol (HTTP X-Over-18 / X-Over-21 headers?) to that.
In a era where privacy conscious people don’t even connect their TV to the internet… This is okay to you?
You went from “Why do they want my information?”
To
“I’m not concerned with sharing my age. But how should we do it?”
And that itself is the root issue.
Also this goalpost will move almost immediately. What if the parent doesn’t understand why the OS is asking for a DOB and they type whatever? What if the parent doesn’t log out and the kids use the adult account? What if the kid is really smart and bypasses the check (I think this could actually get bypassed easily)?
Rather than rolling back this rule they’ll just go even further and say the OS must analyze every action and utilize every input (e.g. microphone, camera) to determine the age of the current user and that controls need to be at the hardware level and OSes need to get state certified, etc. Before long only Windows, Apple, Google, and maybe RedHat can comply. An entire community of Linux enthusiasts destroyed. And as some bills have stated, rather vaguely, this can apply to something as simple as a calculator!
Also this goalpost will move almost immediately. What if the parent doesn’t understand why the OS is asking for a DOB and they type whatever?
Which we have already seen with content ratings. Instead of using the rating to inform themselves on what content to allow their child, they basically relied on the retailers/theatres not selling access to people below the age.
Slightly off topic, but I used DansGuardian when my kids were young. Works great.
You aren’t setting up your childrens accounts. You’re setting up your accounts to show that you’re not a child. And suddenly, every single thing you use, from apps to websites, is gatekept behind an API that is controlled by the government. If checking age on social media is all it ever does, then sure, whatever. But that isn’t all it will ever do. It will creep further and further, and the details you need to provide will increase, one shitty government term at a time. And then one day, they’ll able able to decide that people in your country shouldn’t be able to see safe sex information, or abortion information, and the framework to deny the whole country access is already there, and just one small tweak away from locking you out of information that is deemed inappropriate.
If checking age on social media is all it ever does, then sure, whatever.
You’re forgetting an important detail: you submitted an official ID to prove your age. Which means your face, address, and legal name are also on record. So every time you get age-verified, you’re basically checking in with your full legal identity, leaving a breadcrumb path across the Internet of everything you do. That data can be used to track your online activities and build a database on who you are as a person, based on the things you access.
THIS is why age verification is a terrifying thing for computer access. It’s a form of government tracking that should be illegal. Cops can’t legally barge into your home anytime they want and go through your stuff. They can’t take your computer and scan it for data collection. Not without a court order.
With age verification embedded within your OS, it won’t matter if there’s a court order or not. If your computer is connected to the Internet, you’ve just publicly broadcast all your data to the world, and anyone - cops or not - can tap into that data and build a profile on you. You don’t even need to be browsing the Internet; if your OS is verifying your age, it could also be broadcasting that verification for every program you use locally on your computer. None of your data is safe; it’s all tied to your legal identity and trackable.
You’re forgetting an important detail
I wasn’t forgetting it. As it stands, at the OS level, you aren’t supplying anything to prove your age. It’s just a data field that software can read. And my point was that if that field, and social media was all it ever was, then, it’s not great, but I can understand why the OP isn’t too upset by it.
My point was more that it will never be just that.
Thats not what the current OS-level age gating is though. Its literally pick what age the account user is on account creation. You could set yourself to be 120 and that would be valid.
“current” is not what the lawmakers are thinking of though.
Nice to see lots of downvotes for stating factually correct statements while the parent post is literally all conjecture based on “well they would do that wouldnt they?” but is upvoted.
If they were planning on doing ID verification for this why would they take this half step? It doesnt make it easier for them down the road, if anything it makes it harder as there’s the ability to say “but we already have that”. If the plan was to mandate face ID why wouldnt they just go straight for that like the UK and Australia have for porn?
It seems obvious to me that, invasive as it is - an OS-level “are you 18 yes/no” check at installation would not satisfy the “protect the children” crowd at all, nevermind too that immediately when/if it goes into action - every single user would suddenly have their OS downgraded to the kiddy-level unless they declare their age.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog
And there are several states that do have the age thing for porn here in the US, the biggest of which is Texas.
So exactly the same argument, while referencing an experiment where the frogs did jump out of the boiling water unless they were lobotomised. Very convincing.
C’mon, don’t be that dense, it’s is a metaphor explaining that people are more likely to accept change if done gradually as opposed to all at once.
unless they were lobotomised.
Look around. Think of the average person, half of the people are below that person’s intelligence and a good number of them vote.
No, I don’t believe you’re actually this stupid, sealion
It doesnt make it easier for them down the road, if anything it makes it harder as there’s the ability to say “but we already have that”.
This is perfectly reasonable, but my feeling is that the real world isn’t reasonable in this way.
Consider all the infractions of liberty that have been approved in the name of combating “terrorism.” The no-fly lists. The universal warrant-less searches. All domestic communications recorded and archived for who-knows how long. The pervasive surveillance. The huge extension of CBP power to do things like raid Greyhound busses that aren’t even crossing borders.
None of these steps were prevented with the argument “But we’re already doing something about that issue.” That argument never even came up, to any noteworthy degree, in the public discourse.
Look at it this way: All sorts of websites that aren’t for kids already have banners requiring the visitor to affirm that they’re legal adults. So, we’re there: “We already have that.” But no one is seriously making that argument. Because, of course, those banners do next to nothing: Visitors can just lie. So it will probably be for OS level age verification. Thus, in creating a system that doesn’t work, the excuse for extending the system, to exert more control in the future, is built in from the start.
People who are interested in asserting more control over others are never content with the amount of control they have. They always want more. It is the gaining of more control that motivates them.
I actually used this same example further up. Yes the GWOT made some terrible legislation that has done real damage, but it wasnt a slippery slope. They didnt make laws a little bit invasive but generally ok before slowly nudging it further until it got to the point where it was able to be used for ill. They went in hard and fast with abusable legislation which could be criticised for what it actually was, not what it would lead to in further legislation down the line (and it was criticised at the time).
…it wasnt a slippery slope. They didnt make laws a little bit invasive … before slowly nudging it further
I disagree.
There was a certain (large) amount of government surveillance and eavesdropping going on before the GWOT, which was used as an excuse to massively expand it. There was already inspection and security and traveler record-keeping at airports before the GWOT, which was used as an excuse to expand those. CBP had long had the legislative authority to do all kinds of nastiness within 100 miles of a border before the GWOT, which was used as an excuse to step their activities up, to legal limits and beyond.
In every case, an initial claim of urgent, exceptional authority was used to create both the physical infrastructure and the cultural permission required to make later, expanded claims of urgent, exceptional authority much easier to implement when an excuse presented itself. That is the slippery slope, we really slid way down it, it’s a real phenomenon. It doesn’t have to be smooth or gradual, it can happen in jerks and waves. It doesn’t have to come as a result of a plot, a plan, a deliberate conspiracy, it can be an accretion of individually opportunistic acts.
mlem is not showing me votes. so dunno what you are talking abt.
my point is that we have laws already that are perfectly appropriate to the “concern” stated, “child safety.”
any new laws will only give more access to important data to corporations who are known to do bad things with it.
that does not make it worth it. my opinion would change if there was a legit large inrush of charges using exiting laws that then did nothing to help, then one could argue we need more law. but thats just not the case today.
You are a sealion. “Factually correct” but still acting like a shitbird
Funny huh
“You gave us that previous bit of private information what’s a little bit more. You can trust us”
Yep. This is pretty much it. Require having popular operating systems to have child accounts as an option would be reasonably ok. But regular accounts shouldn’t need any verification. ID checks wouldn’t need to be anywhere near this either. Its on the parents, they didn’t setup a child account? They are to blame.
, one shitty government term at a time
Just like your admining. One ban at a time without giving any chance to defend onself.
#HorseShoeTheory
Won’t someone think of the poor bigots! They’re getting banned without getting to defend their bigotry!
Ada is a fantastic admin and she does an incredible job keeping shitty people off of blahaj.zone. Sounds like you’re mad you got banned for being shitty.
And yeah don’t bother replying. I’m going to burn this account.
Oh fuck off. She never pointed to any comment or post of mine for the reason. And she kept being weasely as fuck about it. Probably because she knows I’m right.
Anyway, I’m not going to tell you what it was that I suspect got me banned. Go fucking suck her toes or whatever.
Oh fuck off. She never pointed to any comment or post of mine for the reason. And she kept being weasely as fuck about it. Probably because she knows I’m right.
Modlogs are public, and come with removal reasons
