Big Tech Sues Texas, Says Age-Verification Law Is 'Broad Censorship Regime' (arstechnica.com) 49
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Texas is being sued by a Big Tech lobby group over the state's new law that will require app stores to verify users' ages and impose restrictions on users under 18. "The Texas App Store Accountability Act imposes a broad censorship regime on the entire universe of mobile apps," the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) said yesterday in a lawsuit (PDF). "In a misguided attempt to protect minors, Texas has decided to require proof of age before anyone with a smartphone or tablet can download an app. Anyone under 18 must obtain parental consent for every app and in-app purchase they try to download -- from ebooks to email to entertainment."
The CCIA said in a press release that the law violates the First Amendment by imposing "a sweeping age-verification, parental consent, and compelled speech regime on both app stores and app developers." When app stores determine that a user is under 18, "the law prohibits them from downloading virtually all apps and software programs and from making any in-app purchases unless their parent consents and is given control over the minor's account," the CCIA said. "Minors who are unable to link their accounts with a parent's or guardian's, or who do not receive permission, would be prohibited from accessing app store content."
The law requires app developers "to 'age-rate' their content into several subcategories and explain their decision in detail," and "notify app stores in writing every time they improve or modify the functions, features, or user experience of their apps," the group said. The lawsuit says the age-rating system relies on a "vague and unworkable set of age categories." "Our Constitution forbids this," the lawsuit said. "None of our laws require businesses to 'card' people before they can enter bookstores and shopping malls. The First Amendment prohibits such oppressive laws as much in cyberspace as it does in the physical world." The lawsuit was filed in US District Court for the Western District of Texas. CCIA members include Apple and Google, which have both said the law would reduce privacy for app users. The companies recently described their plans to comply, saying they would take steps to minimize the privacy risks.
The CCIA said in a press release that the law violates the First Amendment by imposing "a sweeping age-verification, parental consent, and compelled speech regime on both app stores and app developers." When app stores determine that a user is under 18, "the law prohibits them from downloading virtually all apps and software programs and from making any in-app purchases unless their parent consents and is given control over the minor's account," the CCIA said. "Minors who are unable to link their accounts with a parent's or guardian's, or who do not receive permission, would be prohibited from accessing app store content."
The law requires app developers "to 'age-rate' their content into several subcategories and explain their decision in detail," and "notify app stores in writing every time they improve or modify the functions, features, or user experience of their apps," the group said. The lawsuit says the age-rating system relies on a "vague and unworkable set of age categories." "Our Constitution forbids this," the lawsuit said. "None of our laws require businesses to 'card' people before they can enter bookstores and shopping malls. The First Amendment prohibits such oppressive laws as much in cyberspace as it does in the physical world." The lawsuit was filed in US District Court for the Western District of Texas. CCIA members include Apple and Google, which have both said the law would reduce privacy for app users. The companies recently described their plans to comply, saying they would take steps to minimize the privacy risks.
First post! (Score:5, Informative)
Apologies, it's been about 25 years since I did this.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome back! Would you like some hot grits?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It has gotten rather easy. Congratulations anyways.
Re: (Score:2)
and here I was feeling old...Thanks !!!
Re: (Score:2)
Supreme Court (Score:2, Troll)
I hope I have misinterpreted the Supreme Court/U.S. Taliban, but didn't they already say the Texas law was constitutional? I hope I'm wrong, because these age verification laws are blatantly unconstitutional.
They're going to come for vpn's next (Score:5, Insightful)
The bottom line is they don't want us to have any other media choices besides what they want to put in front of us. In particular they want us back in church tithing.
And not your nice small Church where everybody's nice but those weird creepy mega churches where the pastors get caught diddling kids every couple of months.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
There must be a ways to satisfy all parties.
There is and it's called a Lightspeed Rocket [shi.com]. Put that on the kids' internet connection at the ISP, and problem solved. No need for random sites to perform "age verification" or ask for your long form birth certificate, SSN, drivers license, passport, and CC#. Even better, no need for certain countries to intrude on the sovereignty of other nations. You can do it entirely from a domestic stand point, and block the problem at the source: The unsupervised kid making network requests they shouldn't.
Of cour
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A large part of the problem, is that the kids are often better at this kind of shit than the parents.
I work for an organization that, among other things, providers internet connectivity. We provider rented routers with service to help customers set this kind of shit up.
The requests are close to zero.
Everyone would rather legislate their morality.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You're not getting it.
Can't speak for Texas but I caught an interview with the sponsor of the porn bill in Kentucky, and he made clear one of the effects he was after was to drive such content from the state.
PornHub has proposed methods to verify age that are less onerous (tying age to a device, verified at point of sell), but they have been shot down as not being stringent enough (as if sending a copy of an ID isn't easy enough to spoof).
This isn't about "for the children" inasmuch as soft banning certain
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Fucking Christofascists.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't remember the last time I was very stimulated at all by porn, so I sincerely doubt it's true; however even if it were, it's frankly none of your fucking business.
Lots of things are a "hyperstimulus".
You seem to think it's ok to legislate which are ok, and which are not. Legislating your morality is some christofascist bullshit, christofascist.
Re: They're going to come for vpn's next (Score:1)
If you want to destroy yourself as an adult, that is certainly your own business, but it is also the business of society to protect children from things which are extremely harmful to them. If you donâ(TM)t see this, I think you are the fasci
Re: (Score:2)
If all you have are tired ad hominem attacks
1) That's not all that is there at all.
2) Use the phrase "personal attack". "Ad hominem attack" is a pretentious phrased used by people trying to sound smart- but it isn't. If someone is committing an argumentum ad hominem- then call them out for that, but that isn't what happened here. I just insulted you.
I have already won this argument.
Incorrect.
A personal insult is entirely irrelevant to the argument.
Argumentum ad hominem has nothing to do with personal insults. It's fallacious arguing against the person rather than the topic. There
Re: (Score:2)
Banning pornography is a key part of Project 2025, mind you. How that comes about is a bit up in the area, but it's coming. It's one of the bigger unfulfilled parts that Trump hasn't touched yet.
And the way individual states are doing things to make abortion illegal in all states, even in states without such laws.
It's all laid out in the book, everything that's happening, how it's happening is right there
Re: (Score:2)
By the way, what happened to the shout collective after they went for erotica games? Did they still win or did the publishers got their games back into the stores?
Re: (Score:2)
Your category error is to assume good faith on the part of those doing this. There’s absolutely no reason to think they’re acting in good faith. Nothing htey’ve said or done gives that impression
Re: (Score:2)
It's about banning porn- a fight they lost long ago.
The error is always assuming good faith. They have none.
Because Big Tech has principles, yessiree (Score:3)
Censorship is a big no-no for tech companies. Particularly when it doesn't make then any money.
It isn't "carding" (Score:3)
>"None of our laws require businesses to 'card' people before they can enter bookstores and shopping malls."
This misses the point ENTIRELY.
They aren't "carding" people who go to their site, they are demanding POSITIVE ID of every person. They have no other method to simply confirm "18 or older" without knowing and recording and saving WHO THAT IS. Carding someone is looking ONLY at the birthdate or photo orientation to determine yes/no, without regard of the name, address, ID number, sex, or any other information.
>"Anyone under 18 must obtain parental consent for every app and in-app purchase they try to download -- from ebooks to email to entertainment."
That is EXACTLY what should happen, but not because the platforms do it, and force all adults to ID themselves, but because minors should not have unsupervised access to unrestricted, internet-connected devices. And that job is the parents'.
Re: (Score:3)
In theory, an age-only verification without identity disclosure is possible. But it requires a trusted third party and the prevalent spying on all citizens in the US will make it impossible to implement securely.
Re: (Score:2)
>"In theory, an age-only verification without identity disclosure is possible."
In theory, yes. But that isn't what will happen
>"But it requires a trusted third party"
Right. But there is no such thing. And we shouldn't have to be carded at all, anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
But there is no such thing.
There can be such a thing. And there are examples of that approach working. But it requires a strong political will to make it work.
Re: (Score:2)
Missing the point still. Store age verification doesn't require disclosing WHO YOU ARE, only to check that you are at least 18/21. They don't have the right to record your personal information (if you are allowing them to do so, that is your own fault).
These online law schemes are disclosing WHO YOU ARE, making being anonymous impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
How about alcohol shops? Tobacconists? Bars? Gun shops? Cosmetic surgeons? No laws requiring carding there?
Re: (Score:2)
Again, those laws do not require they ID people, they require only an age check. They don't have the right to know WHO you are, only that you are at least 18/21. It cannot be used for tracking, unless you are dumb enough to allow them to scan/photo/capture other information, which you should never allow.
These online schemes are disclosing EXACTLY WHO YOU ARE. Your private info is disclosed and you can be tracked. That is the main problem.
Re: (Score:3)
It is completely mad to say that there should be a legal obligation requiring all under 18s to obtain parental consent before downloading any app or in-app purchase. Parents can work these things out with their children, and the state does not need to be playing a role here.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. I would only want the government involved if it came to taking action against parents for child abuse. And that might include allowing children unsupervised access to unrestricted internet-connected devices.
Evil vs. Evil (Score:2, Interesting)
I hope these two groups annihilate each other and we can go ahead with a world that is a bit more sane. Sadly, that is unlikely to happen.
No-one wants the answer (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Governments are working to move the internet from "no-one knows you're a dog" to identifying every 'owner' and spying on every conversation. It is an Orwellian plan, which also explains why it is dangerous.
Seems to me it's Facebook, Google et al, not "governments" who are doing the tracking. Though governments are still complicit, by not cracking down on the likes of Facebook and Google.