California's Attempt To Protect Kids Online Could End Adults' Internet Anonymity (theregister.com) 88
Thomas Claburn writes via The Register: California lawmakers met in Sacramento today to discuss, among other things, proposed legislation to protect children online. The bill, AB2273, known as The California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act, would require websites to verify the ages of visitors. Critics of the legislation contend this requirement threatens the privacy of adults and the ability to use the internet anonymously, in California and likely elsewhere, because of the role the Golden State's tech companies play on the internet.
"First, the bill pretextually claims to protect children, but it will change the Internet for everyone," said Eric Goldman, Santa Clara University School of Law professor, in a blog post. "In order to determine who is a child, websites and apps will have to authenticate the age of ALL consumers before they can use the service. No one wants this." The bill, Goldman argues, will put an end to casual web browsing, forcing companies to collect personal information they don't want to store and protect -- and that consumers don't want to provide -- in order to authenticate the age of visitors. And since age authentication generally requires identity details, that threatens the ability to use the internet anonymously.
Goldman also objects to this American state-level bill being modeled after the UK's Age-Appropriate Design Code (AADC) because European law makes compliance a matter of engagement and dialogue with regulators, in contrast to the US rules-based approach that allows more certainty about what is or not allowed. Furthermore, he contends that the scope of the bill reaches beyond children's privacy and implicates consumer protection and content moderation. He thus considers the bill "a trojan horse for comprehensive regulation of Internet services" and would turn the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) into a general internet regulation agency.
"First, the bill pretextually claims to protect children, but it will change the Internet for everyone," said Eric Goldman, Santa Clara University School of Law professor, in a blog post. "In order to determine who is a child, websites and apps will have to authenticate the age of ALL consumers before they can use the service. No one wants this." The bill, Goldman argues, will put an end to casual web browsing, forcing companies to collect personal information they don't want to store and protect -- and that consumers don't want to provide -- in order to authenticate the age of visitors. And since age authentication generally requires identity details, that threatens the ability to use the internet anonymously.
Goldman also objects to this American state-level bill being modeled after the UK's Age-Appropriate Design Code (AADC) because European law makes compliance a matter of engagement and dialogue with regulators, in contrast to the US rules-based approach that allows more certainty about what is or not allowed. Furthermore, he contends that the scope of the bill reaches beyond children's privacy and implicates consumer protection and content moderation. He thus considers the bill "a trojan horse for comprehensive regulation of Internet services" and would turn the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) into a general internet regulation agency.
yes, it's a disgusting overreach (Score:3, Insightful)
and it will be abused, as it always is eventually (just like COVID passports are being used to target protesters in China)
the less anonymity, the less truth can be said and the more control is established
but people prefer to sleep until they feel the boiling pot
they don't care about their rights or freedoms like people did in the 60s
Re: yes, it's a disgusting overreach (Score:3, Insightful)
That's why it's The People's Republic of California. The bastion of progressive thought (police.)
Re: yes, it's a disgusting overreach (Score:4, Informative)
This is just a proposed bill.
California is the only state that has real network neutrality and extremely strong online privacy laws.
Re: yes, it's a disgusting overreach (Score:5, Informative)
I guess that's why the Attorney General's office pretty much doxxed many if not most of California's gun owners the past couple days.
Way to go....names, addresses, birthdates, weapon types, etc.
Excellent fodder for criminals and whacko activists.
Re: yes, it's a disgusting overreach (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:1)
and it will be abused, as it always is eventually (just like COVID passports are being used to target protesters in China)
the less anonymity, the less truth can be said and the more control is established
but people prefer to sleep until they feel the boiling pot
they don't care about their rights or freedoms like people did in the 60s
How handy are those kids sometimes in order to justify fulfilling an agenda!
Re: (Score:2)
The economic boom of the 1950s divided people into the have's and have-not's: With the ignored people deciding they wanted their share and being recently empowered by the Civil Rights Act.
Look how well that worked with Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter: They were quickly hijacked by dozens of political groups with an agenda. The news coverage by multiple companies also demonstrated reporting bias.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, the example I always use here is when the UK government used anti terrorism legislation to watch parents to see if their kids really were ill when they kept them off school.
Also the famous example when they blocked wikipedia because they randomly decided an album cover was child porn.
First red flag: (Score:5, Insightful)
Claims to want to "protect the children".
Re: (Score:3)
indeed, but the hilarious part is that this is for california only. i mean, how many websites are served out of california and how many extra peanuts would it cost to move them elsewhere and simply ignore whatever laws these fucktards might devise?
i can only understand this as a local political move, probably around a campaign or election. this crap can't be serious, it can't even be enforced at this level. that said, in the long run i do expect access to the net will require at some point personal identifi
Re: First red flag: (Score:1, Troll)
The People's Republic of California could always protect its children by installing a Great Firewall.
Re: First red flag: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
With the current Supreme Court, I'm not entirely sure how this fight will go.
Re: (Score:2)
As I understand it a lot of porn is made in California because the laws are fairly permissive there. As such many porn companies and websites are based there too.
Re:First red flag: (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't assume the article is accurate. It has all the hallmarks of an astroturf piece by companies trying to block a bill they don't like. Until you can find a reputable analysis by a source you know and trust, take it all with a grain of salt.
Re: (Score:2)
GPDR isn't looking so bad now, is it?
Re:First red flag: (Score:5, Informative)
Does it? It is a summary of a blog post by a person with a long history of legal analysis posts which links to the actual bill which you can read yourself. Astroturfing doesn't usually provide real, verifiable information from primary sources with established histories. The blog post seems very detailed and legally precise which also don't seem like hallmarks of astroturfing.
Just reading the bill itself, parts of it seem obviously ridiculous and the blog post does a good job of articulating the many problems with it. The only part that seems overwrought to me is the predictions of doom based on the idea that people might actually comply with the bill. As a legal analysis this makes sense but in real life I expect what would really happen is people only comply with the rules to the extent California is willing to force them to and since some of the things it asks for are impossible that will involve legal negotiations until people figure out the minimum necessary to get around the law.
As a developer the idea that I'd have to submit an analysis to California every time I want to "add a feature" to anything I put on the Internet does seem disturbing!
Seems legit to me.
Re: (Score:2)
It has all the hallmarks of an astroturf piece by companies trying to block a bill they don't like.
Hence the "red flag".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Second red flag: It will break Slashdot's comment sections.
If any potential rule makes Slashdot not useful anymore, I would find it really suspect.
Parentss (Score:2)
Re: Parentss (Score:2, Troll)
seriously? (Score:1)
Social credit system at work (Score:5, Interesting)
This is intentional. California is the origin of the modern movement to censor people's speech and dox anyone who shares no-no thoughts, even retroactively. Your favorite author said something 10 years ago that was normal at the time but now is too crass to be whispered in public? You should be fired! You're trying to apologize? Deplatformed! Your family too!
We have a de-facto social credit system that's operating as a soft-reputation system, where you basically have positive social credit unless targeted by a mob, at which point all that matters is how vulnerable you are. The more information you reveal to third parties the more vulnerable you are. Doesn't matter if it's the government, either. Just this week they intentionally released the personal information of every CA CCW applicant and holder in the state, right after a SCOTUS ruling on the 2nd amendment they found unfavorable.
Re: Social credit system at work (Score:4, Informative)
Re: Social credit system at work (Score:4, Interesting)
Really? You have nothing else to offer besides an ad hominem and "boTh sIdEs Do iT"? Your entire post is nothing but projection.
This is not California's first attempt at doxxing and intimidation of gun owners. [trackbill.com], nor, I suspect, will it be the last. At least, not until the right decides to adopt lefty tactics, like showing up at officials' houses.
If that's being part of the cancer, then I shall sleep quite well at night.
Re: (Score:2)
If gun owners aren't people then they're not in possession of guns and you shouldn't have a problem
Re: (Score:2)
The insult was not made as a point in an argument, so it was not an ad hominem.
You ignorant fuckwads are going to be the death of us all.
Re: (Score:2)
>[argument you don't like]
>You: "SHUT THE FUCK UP. Only petulant children deal with things by telling people to shut up, so SHUT THE FUCK UP!"
Re: (Score:2)
I could take the low hanging fruit and say, "nazi righties always...", but I'm going to repeat myself.
Petulant fucking children are the problem here. Get back on that tech support phone, you waste of fucking flesh.
Re: (Score:2)
You're literally yelling at people to shut the fuck up as the substance of a counter-argument. Don't pretend you're on the high road for anything.
Re: (Score:2)
You're literally yelling at people to shut the fuck up as the substance of a counter-argument.
As a component of its verbiage, but not as a point in the argument, therefor there is no logical fallacy.
While you are aren't arguing at all, you're merely constructing an alternate truth as the basis for an attempt at being pithy. It's pathetic.
The insult is warranted, because both of you are doing the same thing.
You're so fucking unhinged that you have to misconstrue every affront that you see in order to make it seem vile enough to attack.
Snowflakes are annoying. Snowflakes that are too dishonest t
Re: (Score:2)
You're modded to troll and either are one, or have no idea how you're coming across. Both are pointless
Re: (Score:2)
What's your point? You think I'm bothered by sockpuppets or dumbfucks like you with some mod points? My excellent karma speaks for me.
Re: (Score:2)
The rational thing to do when someone posts misinformation is to refute it. Going "FUCK YOU, FUCKING CHILD" at anyone who even points out that you're behaving like a troll just affirms that you're a troll.
Re: (Score:2)
So no, it isn't rational to refute it. It's a waste of everyone's fucking time.
Like you where you said, and I quote, "you literally yelled".
I'll ignore the fact that yelling via a wall of text is a hell of an accomplishment in the literal fashion, so let's loosen up our definition of literally.
If I were to yell via said wall of text, I'd us
Re: (Score:2)
>The rational thing to do with someone who is arguing in a space that doesn't include a shared reality with you is to refute it?
I bet you're very used to meeting people who don't share your reality
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
As is the assumption the US has a mainsteam left rather than a "Centre right" and a "Bloody hell!".
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Yet California seems to be one of the most permissive states in the US. Many industries, including porn, moved there because they can operate freely.
In any case, with something like a bar or an adult theatre, there would be staff checking that patrons are over the legal age. Obviously it's more difficult to do online, and rather than one person seeing the ID and then forgetting about it, the data ends up in a database and associated with a user account, watch history, marketing preferences and the like.
So r
Re: (Score:2)
Is there a connection between two generations of people living in the most permissive and liberal states and the development of this new pseudo-religion where questioning the dogma gets you excommunicated, and people are born with original sin because of skin color? They even have kneeling to show fealty and public acts of contrition, daily devotionals, and Chosen vs. Unchosen
Both kids and adults need to be taught (Score:1)
Both kids and adults need to be taught how to use the Internet.
Like you learn how to look both ways before crossing the street or not to touch the hot stove or learning about electrical hazards. This is all modern knowledge because of technological advances. Previously people didn't have to worry about such things. The same with the Internet.
The problem is even adults of today don't know how to use the Internet properly so they can't teach their kids. It's a technological revolution that popped up pretty qu
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is even adults of today don't know how to use the Internet properly so they can't teach their kids. It's a technological revolution that popped up pretty quick.
natural selection will take care of it, just chill! :o)
Re: (Score:3)
It's been well over 25 years. The time for people to pretend that they don't know how the internet works is over. If these people need the equivalent of driver's ed to know how to protect themselves on the internet, fine, but just do it already. That's the sort of thing ostensibly I think the EFF would be good at: producing a guide for parents and kids on protecting their privacy online. Anybody want to poke them to see if they're interested?
Nice theory - doesn't work (Score:2)
1) Parents don't even try to prevent their kids from seeing bad stuff(tm). They certainly don't talk about it, but expect others (the schools, the state) to do the heavy lifting. Yes, this is absurd given the criticism of letting your kids play in the park on their own... Yes we need to stop expecting rational behaviour...
2) Children don't believe it's harmful / there are risks. For some reason children have this strange idea that adults lie. Apart from the overwhelming evidence from politicians, the wider
Re: (Score:2)
Screw age testing. The rest of us shouldn't have to suffer because idiots can't police their children. That's not our job. Also it won't really stop anything since people will literally just start running forums out of their fucking basement and keep the kidiots out. Honestly, I welcome that development. The final solution to the idiot problem truly is to bring Eternal September to an end.
Re: (Score:2)
For some reason children have this strange idea that adults lie.
Because adults do lie to children. The problem is that children can figure out that the adult might be lying (because they caught the adult lying at least once), but do not know enough how it really is or how to verify it.
Re: (Score:1)
It will never work. Kids would quickly find how to bypass whatever controls they put in place. But this was never about the children anyway. Governments are always trying this shit. It's been tried in UK, I believe they've tried this in Australia as well. And they always use the same two excuses, either child protection or terrorism. Each and every time.
Using IDs in cinemas and bars is not the same. If someone wanted to track the places where you've shown someone your ID they'd have to scan or photograph it
Re: (Score:2)
Children don't believe it's harmful / there are risks. For some reason children have this strange idea that adults lie. Apart from the overwhelming evidence from politicians, the wider issue is that the effects of porn are not obvious, so when parents tell horror stories that don't chime with kids' lived experience, they dismiss the ideas as lies.
"Overwhelming" evidence from politicians might as well be a fart in the wind. If anything, you should assume the opposite of what they say until a reputable source is found.
Unfortunately I'm not finding much in the way of reputable sources. There's a lot of surveys around the effects of pornography consumption, but a distinct lack of randomized controlled trials. Surveys are unfortunately not very reliable, not only because conflating factors can't be ruled out, but because sampling may be biased too, as is
Re: (Score:1)
All web sites? (Score:3)
If I want to read up on Queen Elizabeth and the Spanish Armada, who cares if I'm some old geezer or a 12 year old kid?
Re:All web sites? (Score:5, Insightful)
If there is an acceptable use policy on the website then you'll need to verify your age in order to agree to it.
Also there won't be any website that is just useful information like you'd find in an encyclopedia. They will all have comment systems, forums, reactions, and social media features. Once you allow one user to talk to another .. time for an age check. Because we have to protect the children.
Re: All web sites? (Score:1)
The good people of California will certainly be more interested if you're 12 years of age.
Re: All web sites? (Score:2, Funny)
Anonymity? I barely know her. (Score:4, Insightful)
could end adults' internet anonymity
False. That's already gone. Ask Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, your ISP, your cellphone carrier, . . . . . (long story short) Yeah, you aren't anonymous on the Internet, that's been dead some decade and half nearly now.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd love to see some evidence that this is true.
I've been using GDPR Data Subject Access Requests to get data relating to me from various companies, and what I've found is that actually my defences are pretty effective. The data they have tends to be ancient, from back when I was browsing on an Amiga 4000. Email accounts that have been dead for over 20 years.
Hitting advertising companies is particularly enlightening. They send back huge spreadsheets of data with thousands of interest categories listed, and
Re: Anonymity? I barely know her. (Score:2)
Basic defenses are pretty effective because so few people implement them that it is more cost effective to ignore you. By virtue of using basic defenses, you would probably make a poor target even if they could get to you. Also, since GDPR and the anti-tracking moves by Apple, marketing companies have gotten much worse at tracking and personalizing. They are doing everything they can to keep this a secret from their customers. On the one hand this is good as they cannot be so shady, but on the flip side it
Re: (Score:2)
Consider that while we describe anonymity as being unidentified, and typically define it as a direct identification, for the overwhelming majority of users advertising identity is the most prevalent, most specific, and most used.
So anonymity can be defeated by circling back from your advertising 'identity'. Deep data can point back to a useful individual identity today, and despite the GDPR you may well be identified sufficiently to be useful to someone.
And we can only guess at those purposes. Today we fear
Re: (Score:2)
A good idea probably (Score:2)
As someone who doesn't live in California, I (unpopular opinion, I know) think they should go ahead and implement this. Let them see for themselves how well it'll work for them. When the whole world starts denying Web access to Californians based on geolocation, they will wise up and repeal this.
Re: (Score:2)
cough.
Alternative solution (Score:4)
Make it illegal for children to use the internet unsupervised. Problem solved.
Re: (Score:3)
Nothing will change (Score:2)
All that will in the end is that nobody will host their server in California anymore and nobody else on the planet gives half a fuck what they want.
It's yet another case of politicians not understanding that their local laws mean jack in a global world. But let them have their illusion that they matter, as long as they do, they won't bother us out here in the real world.
How would I prove I am a minor? (Score:2)
There is no way to do that (Score:2)
Asolutely NO (Score:2)
Nope. Not. Overreach and unconstitutional
Anonymity online is a myth (Score:2)
Your phone, ISP, web browser, email account all know who you are and what you are doing. Sure there are little widgets here and there to make you feel anonymous, but if the US government can trace crypto transactions and recover ransomware payments then they can find out what websites you visited if they really want to.
think of the kids (Score:2)
Not that people actually have anonymity on the internet anyway, but Isn't this really just yet another outing of the "think of the kids" excuse to remove yet more privacy?
I'm not shocked at all (Score:1)
This won't even work in best case scenario (Score:1)