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.
The Califirnia law, at least, states the age flag should be set when the account is created, presumably by the controller of the computer, and holds that controller responsible for setting it correctly, and the developer responsible for ensuring it’s set and works correctly, at least, that’s my reading of it. If it’s your computer, that makes you resoonsible for setting your age and that of accounts you create for your children.
Right, so the law is pointless, since there is already a thousand different ways to control what children see on the Internet.
I’ve responded to your duplicated comnent elsewhere, could we take this thread there to avoid duplication?
and to prove its not actually about safety and instead about control: parents are already responsible for what kids do online and could be charged using existing laws. but… where is the overreach in that?!
Whilst parents absolutely should be guiding and helping the kids determine where they go online, and what they look at, I’m trying to envision where, or how, parents would be liable for them looking at something inappropriately “adult”, barring actual child neglect.
A system like this would actually help parents be more confident that little Johnny wasn’t going to stumble across something in appropriate, because, yes, in a way this is about control. It’s about controlling what kids are exposed to before they are intellectually ready for it. Yes, there are potentially serious issues around that, such as limiting access to LGBTQ+ or other helpful material for young adults, but that should be a discussion around what information is needed at each age, rather than how to indicate that age.
Age gating on the open internet will happen, I don’t see any way that it wont, what matters is how it is implemented. We know that submitting government issued ID to every site with potentially contentious content is a terrible idea; this neatly sidesteps the need for that, and actually forbids it.
for ex: if you let your kid look at porn, in the US, the parents are absolutely liable for various forms of “risk of injury to a child “ laws.
To bring charges under those sorts of laws there’s going to have to be some external evidence of harm. Either the kid is acting in a way that causes an agency sufficient concern that they investigate the family, or the government mandate much stricter monitoring of exactly who is doing what online. The former case is unlikely, but should probably be persued vigerously when it does hapoen, and the latter case is something I imagine we all very much want to avoid.
By providing a simple, privacy conscious, way of taking some of the burden of vigilence off of the parents (the child is less likely to stumble on inappropriate material) it makes it easier for them to provide actually beneficial guidance, and reduces the risk of law enforecement getting involved to investigate minor transgressions.
putting burden for safety on corps is not a healthy thing.
The burden is still on the parents, but this would actually provide a useful tool for them to address that burden.
have you seen any existing tools be so bulletproof that kids cant get around them?
No, and this wouldn’t be impossible to bypass either. I don’t think the aim is 100% perfection, so much as harm reduction, and I don’t think you’ll get more than that no matter how onerous the law becomes. Most kids, most of the time, are not going to be trying to circumvent it, and it would still be up to the parents to look out for cases where they were.
The current proposal requires storing and transmitting a flag that can take one of four values (under 13, 13-16, 16-18, 18+), and prohibits sites using other means of age verification. It’ll work adaquately to stop kids accidentally seeing pornography, and hopefully things like andrew tate, giving the parents some space to do their part to help their kids learn how to understand what they migjt be exposed to.
if they are claiming the new laws are for kid safety there must be existing already some external evidence of the need, no?
There’s fairly clear evidence at a societal level that access to, for instance, hardcore pornigraphic material is harmful to children, but that is very different to having evidence that a particular child is currently being exposed to it.
exactly. so why do we need more laws that also happen to provide massive leak able tracking to corporations and govs without warrants, etc?
I’m not sure what you mean by “massive leak able tracking” in this case. It’s literally a flag that indicates the user’s age bracket, and means sites don’t use the really invassive options.
Just because they are responsible doesn’t mean the have the means to exert their responsibility. Demanding birth-date upon (local) account creation would allow them to better exert that responsiblity.
no it wont. kids get around shit easier than ever especially with luddite parents.
if the gov actually cared they’d take to charging using existing laws.
Parents of current 8-18 year olds are gen X and millenials, who every survey shows are (on average) significantly more tech literate than gen Z and Alpha.
correct. i am a gen x software engineer and I know for a fact my kid who is now 25 would always find ways around firewalls when he was 14 and horned up.
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.
So that means that kids can’t buy computers?
Can’t buy a cheap used raspberry pi or old laptop/desktop in order to set up as a server?
I don’t think there would be any difficulty with a kid setting up a computer, as in most juristictions the parents are responsible for their childrens’ actions until they are adults themselves. So the oarents would still be responsible for what the kid did with the computer in the same way they often are now.
So then the law is pointless as implemented, since parents can already do this. Which leads to the conclusion that there must be some other motivation
Not really, please see my response to towerful’s sibling comment to save me duplicating it.
So these “os reporting age bands” laws are useless then.
Cause either the parents are being responsible, at which point there are many parental tools for network and device control.
Or they aren’t being responsible, and the kid can easily bypass it or just buy their own device.
These age band laws basically work in the opposite way to the usual parental controls. Rather than having to install and maintain the control software and having the filtering at the client end of the connection, parents need only set a flag and filtering will occur at the source end of the connection.
Will these laws provide perfect protection that eliminates the need for parental oversight of childrens’ internet access? No. Will they help stop kids accidentally stumbling into unsuitable content, reducing harm overall? Yes. As a parent, one of the things I worry about is my kids browsing sites such as youtube. Even if they’re using it for research for school projects, I can never be certain it wont prompt them to watch an unsuitable video. With a simple “this user is a child, don’t show them anything unsuitable” flag, I wouldn’t have to spend so much energy monitoring everything and could spend more energy talking to them about what they’re actually watching.
One of the key parts of the Californian law is that if the client machine sends the flag, the service must treat it as authoratative, and should not use other means of checking. That is good news, as it means there is no incentive for sites to integrate more intrusive measures such as third parties scanning givernment issued ID.