Computer Scientists Caution Against Internet Age-Verification Mandates (reason.com) 79
fjo3 shares a report from Reason Magazine: Effective January 1, 2027, providers of computer operating systems in California will be required to implement age verification. That's just part of a wave of state and national laws attempting to limit children's access to potentially risky content without considering the perils such laws themselves pose. Now, not a moment too soon, over 400 computer scientists have signed an open letter warning that the rush to protect children from online dangers threatens to introduce new risks including censorship, centralized power, and loss of privacy. They caution that age-verification requirements "might cause more harm than good." The group of computer scientists from around the world cautions that "those deciding which age-based controls need to exist, and those enforcing them gain a tremendous influence on what content is accessible to whom on the internet." They add that "this influence could be used to censor information and prevent users from accessing services."
"Regulating the use of VPNs, or subjecting their use to age assurance controls, will decrease the capability of users to defend their privacy online. This will not only force regular users to leave a larger footprint on the network, but will leave a number of at-risk populations unprotected, such as journalists, activists, or domestic abuse victims." It continues: "We note that we do not believe that trying to regulate VPN use for non-compliant users would be any more effective than trying to forbid the use of end-to-end encrypted communication for criminals. Secure cryptography is widely available and can no longer be put back into a box."
"If minors or adults are deplatformed via age-related bans, they are likely to migrate to find similar services," warn the scientists. "Since the main platforms would all be regulated, it is likely that they would migrate to fringe sites that escape regulation." With data on everyone collected in order to restrict the activites of minors, data abuses and privacy risks increase. "This in itself increases privacy risks, with data being potentially abused by the provider itself or its subcontractors, or third parties that get access to it, e.g., after a data breach, like the 70K users that had their government ID photos leaked after appealing age assessment errors on Discord."
Instead of mandated age restrictions, the letter urges lawmakers to consider the dangers and suggest regulating social media algorithms instead. They also recommend "support for parents to locally prevent access to non-age-appropriate content or apps, without age-based control needing to be implemented by service providers."
"Regulating the use of VPNs, or subjecting their use to age assurance controls, will decrease the capability of users to defend their privacy online. This will not only force regular users to leave a larger footprint on the network, but will leave a number of at-risk populations unprotected, such as journalists, activists, or domestic abuse victims." It continues: "We note that we do not believe that trying to regulate VPN use for non-compliant users would be any more effective than trying to forbid the use of end-to-end encrypted communication for criminals. Secure cryptography is widely available and can no longer be put back into a box."
"If minors or adults are deplatformed via age-related bans, they are likely to migrate to find similar services," warn the scientists. "Since the main platforms would all be regulated, it is likely that they would migrate to fringe sites that escape regulation." With data on everyone collected in order to restrict the activites of minors, data abuses and privacy risks increase. "This in itself increases privacy risks, with data being potentially abused by the provider itself or its subcontractors, or third parties that get access to it, e.g., after a data breach, like the 70K users that had their government ID photos leaked after appealing age assessment errors on Discord."
Instead of mandated age restrictions, the letter urges lawmakers to consider the dangers and suggest regulating social media algorithms instead. They also recommend "support for parents to locally prevent access to non-age-appropriate content or apps, without age-based control needing to be implemented by service providers."
Re:Only adults (Score:5, Informative)
There is no age limit for amateur radio licenses. Kids can get them.
Re: (Score:3)
Depends of the country. Some have age conditions.
Re: (Score:2)
This a quite parochial comment. Do you think only the united States exist on the planet and that what happens in other countries is irrelevant ? In most places you have an age condition to have an amateur radio license. Even for a short range VHF permit.
Re: (Score:2)
In most places you have an age condition to have an amateur radio license.
Most places? Can you cite a reliable source for that? I did some searching, and it seems that most countries don't have a minimum age requirement. Italy appears to have one (16); In Greece, it's 12. France and Netherlands used to have minimum age requirements but eliminated them. It looks like in most places, the only requirements are being able to read and being able to pass the technical exam.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't change the soul of what I am saying if 12 year olds are the limit. So while I'm not going to say what happens in other countries is irrelevant, I'm going to say your replies are.
Well, that's the point (Score:5, Insightful)
"[T]hose deciding which age-based controls need to exist, and those enforcing them gain a tremendous influence on what content is accessible to whom on the internet."
Never has the phrase, "it's not a bug, it's a feature" been more appropriate.
Re:Well, that's the point (Score:5, Insightful)
It's hard to keep one's kids safe on the internet. The little brats find ways of getting where they aren't supposed to be whenever you aren't around.
So, all parents have a natural incentive to make the Internet safer for kids. It makes things so much easier on them! And it aligns with their sense of decency too (you have so many other ways to get your hands on smut and violence and dangerous toys, you don't need all that on the internet too).
This does not mean that all parents push for legislation that winds up stifling freedom for adults. Some parents are very conscientious critical-thinkers who recognize that the word doesn't revolve around their kids. But a whole bunch aren't. The incentives to use the law to "clean up" the internet are just too strong. By and large, people respond to their incentives, so the result here is easily predicted.
They find political allies with governments that want greater ways of surveilling and controlling people, religious zealots who want to impose their religion on everyone, and even some large businesses that would like to shield themselves from potential liability risks.
So they will never stop pushing. Freedom requires "eternal vigilance", and etc.
Re:Well, that's the point (Score:5, Interesting)
This argument is so tired and so silly.
Look yes there are lazy parents that don't have a clue what their kids are doing, and are always seeking ways to dump the problem of raising their kids off on others. I am not going to dispute that.
There are lot more parents that want to be responsible, but lack any effective tools to do. Right now parental controls availible on inconsistently applied at best, snake oil at worst, and not aligned to their partents actual goals/views in a lot of cases. Sure their is YouTube-kids, who decides what content is appropriate hint someone at corporate not parents. Then there is the technology gap, don't like Alphabet's opinions about what is right for your kid good luck filtering it on your own unless your IT professional. Then it all goes out the window the moment they use a device at school or a friends house etc...
In every other aspect of society we place guardrails on dangerous things to allow children to explore the world safely in age appropriate ways. As someone once said "It takes a village."
The cigarette machines went away and the cartons moved behind the counter. The gas station only accepts credit cards at the pump and if little Patti-the-pyro walks in and asks for a gallon they will send her away. We expect business to not let them gamble or sell them liquor too. Even the movie theater will enforce age limits on films, for unaccompanied minors.
American society has long been built around the assumption, pre-teens and teenagers should have little freedom to explore without being exposed to every possible vice the marketplace has to offer.
There is no reason for a naive parent to expect the internet should be different, there is no reasons the rest of us should WANT it to be different. Mostly its nobody knows how to solve the problem without creating other ones, which is fine but I would argue we owe our children something better. If we are not prepared to solve the privacy problems, integrity, etc problems that come with age verification online maybe we should out right ban things like Internet Porn, online gambling, entirely. You want your smutt get in the car drive out into the sticks until you see a billboard for Adult World.
Re: Well, that's the point (Score:1)
Re:Well, that's the point (Score:5, Insightful)
> There are lot more parents that want to be
> responsible, but lack any effective tools to do.
Well, gee whizz... If only someone had thought of this problem already and created toolsets that can remotely manage devices. In fact, it'd REALLY be nice if *multiple* companies had already thought of this and rolled out multiple competing products. Of course... that's last-century thinking. Now that laptops and smartphones are ubiquitous, someone should ALSO have thought of a way to manage these mobile devices.
Too bad that no one ever thought of a need for these tools and they do not exist, amirite?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Well, that's the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Or maybe, if you are not responsible, able, and prepared enough to be a competent parent, just wait to have kids until you are. There is no rush. Half the population has forty years. The other half has their entire lives.
Re: (Score:2)
So people who don't have children or who can parent them responsibly (Device tracking on a smartphone is more than enough for any competent parent) - should be punished because some feckless parents can't parent properly? Oh Nos we all must be logged in and tracked, China style, incase some teenagers might see some boob?
This is all about tracking and censorship, nothing more. Our rulers have wanted to censor the Internet for a long time, but realized they haven't been able to do so without pushback. But
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you don't think a 14 year old should be able to use the youtube app on a smart tv, and don't connect it to the internet, don't give them them wifi password, etc - device tracking on your smart phone is near useless. Same thing at the school library, or kid next doors house.
The notion because parents can install net nanny on the family pc, or turn on some kid mode on smart-thing-X and that is all anyone needs to do about this issue, boils down to the belief that either:
Competent parents stand over the
Re: (Score:2)
American society has long been built around the assumption, pre-teens and teenagers should have little freedom to explore without being exposed to every possible vice the marketplace has to offer.
Yeah, and the little shits you raised in that way had to be taught by my own children about moderation since your children had zero concept of moderation as you had removed all personal choice from them. So my children had to tell your children that it was time to go back to the barracks for morning formation after a night of partying since your children were never exposed to the idea of Freedom until they found themselves right in the middle of it.
Do a better job of raising your children next time. You wer
Re: (Score:1)
I say put it on the ISP because they supply most consumer gateways. Parents who have their own firewalls will have to figu
Re: (Score:2)
So 50% of parents are below average at being a parent. Then there are those working so many jobs to keep their heads above water that they do not have the time nor energy.
I do some IT work for people who have PhDs, they are brilliant in their area.... but outside of that, not so great
The other important thing is, no child ever chose their parents, yet that child is the one who gets punished.
Real world stores for porn, alcohol , gambling, w
Re:Well, that's the point (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe parent your own children instead of allowing a device and the state to do it?
Novel idea, but I'm sure if it were ever tried, it'd be worth investigating further, right?
What is this, Soviet Russia?
Re: Well, that's the point (Score:3)
And guess what they're going to do if you put an ID wall in front of them? They're going to steal your ID or credit card at night and get access anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
That won't really work at least in the EU where MFA is needed for online credit card transactions.
The whole "upload an ID" idea is extremely dubious. It would be a lot better if there would be a standard system for providing age category verification online without exposing any other personal information. So you get redirected to the verification site, do strong authentication there, and the verification service just sends back something like "this person can view R-rated content" to the site and nothing el
Re: Well, that's the point (Score:2)
Most of all, any age verification system should be owned and managed by the government. Definitely not 3rd parties.
I was very sad to see Digital ID voted down in the UK recently. It had a chance to be the world first, to show how it could be done, but the idea got shut down in the Commons.
A paper/plastic ID should only ever be valid if presented right next to the face matching its description.
Whoever thought that sending a scan of your ID online to someone was a good aay to prove your identity, was a comple
Re: (Score:1)
I mean, what's the actual goal here, verifying ages or preventing kids from accessing things they shouldn't? The latter doesn't require the former.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So, all parents have a natural incentive to make the Internet safer for kids. It makes things so much easier on them! And it aligns with their sense of decency too (you have so many other ways to get your hands on smut and violence and dangerous toys, you don't need all that on the internet too).
Yes, because burying an identification that essentially broadcasts to every site that a computer connects to that the user signed into the computer is underage couldn't possibly be used to target underage users for nefarious purposes. This sounds like an upcoming entry for another in the ReasonTV YouTube channel's "Great Moments in Unintended Consequences" [youtube.com] videos ("Sounds like a great idea! With the best of intentions! What could possibly go wrong?").
Re: (Score:2)
Keeping kids away from the real world doesn't work - either the kids find a way around, or they go crazy once they become adults like a dog that spent all its life on a leash and is suddenly freed, then doesn't know what to do with that freedom. I have personally known kids like that who ended up going wild the first year away from home in college - partying, drinking, failing out, being taken a
Not about kids. It's about identity. (Score:5, Insightful)
it's identity control, not age verification.
Re: (Score:2)
You only have the illusion on anonymity. Addiction is a far better tool to control, that's why they want kids developing brains to get Domaine hits, it's really addictive at that stage.
These are the same years where kids dont understand , nor have they beed educated about these harms, so until they have been able to be taught critical thinking etc etc etc lets keep them safe. Just remember those kids will be the ones in charge when you
Re: (Score:2)
> "[T]hose deciding which age-based controls need to exist, and those enforcing them gain a tremendous influence on what content is accessible to whom on the internet."
Would that be avoided if there ways to make something like an adult setting at the OS level?
Are there ways to make that work reasonably well or at least better or with less problems that what's currently being used?
Re: (Score:2)
If I'm following the debate, it could work pretty well for Android and Apple phones, but on PCs a teenager could declare themselves an adult by reinstalling the OS or by installing a VM.
In other words, most minors probably couldn't impersonate an adult and the number of those that could would approach zero the younger they are.
And in Brazil... (Score:2)
And in Brazil its March 17. You have 12 days and a few hours to comply with the law of your Brazilian overlords. And the penalities are insane.
Stupid idea (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
What a brain-dead idea to put the age-verification into the operating system. It's gonna have to rely on some external service for the verification anyway, so is this mandate to just require that the OS has a secure local cache for this information it obtains from an external source? At times the device will not have Internet access, so that's the only way to make it work.
To be fair, as long as the only purpose is to gate access to Internet sites, not having Internet access would mean that it doesn't need to work.
It has to be either in the OS or in the browser. Porn sites and browsers A. have perverse incentives to sell your privacy rights to the highest bidder and B. know what sites you are visiting. However, the browser at least has the technical ability to prevent the actual identity from ending up in the hands of the porn site. The porn site itself likely doesn't, and
Re: (Score:1)
...With your approach, the website knows who you are, knows what kind of porn you watch, because your identity is tied to your web browsing, and can take advantage of that to show very specific targeted porn ads for you when you visit other websites, can use it to extort you, etc.
Mandating an approach like that would violate California's constitutional right to privacy, and any OS vendor or website that tried to do it that way could be held civilly or criminally liable.
No, with my approach the user would get bounced over to their chosen age verification provider (their bank), they'd authenticate, then the bank would give them an auth token signed by the bank with a claim that says they are '18 or over' and that's it. No name, no address, no nothing EXCEPT that they are indeed a legal adult. The browser would present that token to the over-18 only website which could verify the digital signature on it and trust the claim in it and let them in.
Re: (Score:2)
...With your approach, the website knows who you are, knows what kind of porn you watch, because your identity is tied to your web browsing, and can take advantage of that to show very specific targeted porn ads for you when you visit other websites, can use it to extort you, etc.
Mandating an approach like that would violate California's constitutional right to privacy, and any OS vendor or website that tried to do it that way could be held civilly or criminally liable.
No, with my approach the user would get bounced over to their chosen age verification provider (their bank), they'd authenticate, then the bank would give them an auth token signed by the bank with a claim that says they are '18 or over' and that's it. No name, no address, no nothing EXCEPT that they are indeed a legal adult. The browser would present that token to the over-18 only website which could verify the digital signature on it and trust the claim in it and let them in.
Here's a list of open questions:
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And even if you have all of that working I guarantee some older kid will let the little ones use their account how do you tie the account to the person using it and verify that on demand, dna test?
Correct. The entire idea is fundamentally infeasible.
That said, chances are the kid did not buy the device, so if you have it at the operating system level, simply asking the user's birthday at setup time is likely adequate, because presumably if the parents care whether their kids have access to adult material, they will configure the device when they get it before giving it to their kids.
Sometimes, the simplest solutions work as well as the most insanely complex ones.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
None of whic
Re: (Score:2)
The big issue is HOW to get the age verification. This isn't a cellphone where verification can be done by biometrics like reading a fingerprint or Apple's Face ID. Relatively few laptops out there can do biometric verification unless it's newer Apple MacBook models with Touch ID fingerprint verification.
Computer Scientists Caution Against... (Score:2)
Ya, but ... (Score:5, Interesting)
From TFA
The California law requires, in part, that any "operating system provider" must "provide an accessible interface at account setup that requires an account holder to indicate the birth date, age, or both, of the user of that device ...
Writing for PC Gamer, Andy Edser noted, "that's likely no big deal for Windows, which already requires you to enter your date of birth during the Microsoft Account setup procedure."
And the birth date / age you entered is verified how? This will be the sticking point on any OS. Verification for older teens and adults will require an official ID, which younger people won't have and elderly people may not have -- and it will have to authenticated somehow. Is everyone suppose to get a "ID.me" account just to use their home PC?
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Ya, but ... (Score:5, Insightful)
They are not verified. They throw a penalty for lying in ($2,500 per "accidental" violation and $7,500 per intentional), and there is a provision for allowing vendors to ignore the token if someone is obviously lying about age, but the actual token is never verified and there are no provisions to do so.
The primary goal of CA's bill isn't to stop underage kids from accessing content for adults. That's what it looks like on the surface, but the *actual* goals are:
1. Eliminate liability and complexity from marketplaces so storefronts don't have to worry about age verification, and
2. Prevent data scrapers from using "age verification" as a backdoor into making giant databases of real identities and mapping them to digital ones.
The former is covered expressly by a liability limitation to stores and other users that make a good faith effort to validate and use the tokens, and the latter is covered by a clause that says "no other form of age verification may be required by application developers beyond the checking of this token," which shoots companies like Persona directly in the face.
Re: (Score:2)
The primary goal of CA's bill isn't to stop underage kids from accessing content for adults.
AKA: Nanny State. It would be one thing if adult (type) content was being forced on those underage, but it's not. So much for people taking responsibility for their own actions - and responsibility for their children.
Re: (Score:1)
https://californiaglobe.com/fr... [californiaglobe.com]
What are the deepest floors of hell ? (Score:2)
I will tell you: These are floors full of Helen Lovejoys who think of the children. They have their special place there.
People want to be unfettered (Score:3)
You get to choose, but keep in mind that if you don't have any way to control the communication medium it will inevitably turn to shit as a kids trying to be edgy, corporations trying to profit, and governments trying to topple each other get involved without restraint.
In the end you won't really have the freedom you wanted, because the medium you wanted it in will be rendered useless.
Re: (Score:2)
You get to choose, but keep in mind that if you don't have any way to control the communication medium it will inevitably turn to shit as a kids trying to be edgy, corporations trying to profit, and governments trying to topple each other get involved without restraint.
In the end you won't really have the freedom you wanted, because the medium you wanted it in will be rendered useless.
Then all that will be left is a small cabal of social media platforms, a couple to a few media streaming networks and an OS to intravenously feed it all to you because "you don't know what's good for you anyway" while some other "network" hosts all the meaningful work?
Tech Laws (Score:5, Insightful)
Universal ? (Score:2)
Also whatever system will not work out because it will not be compatible with more or less exotic people, or people whose ID happen not to be from the USA (around 8 billion people...). The people making those laws are retarded. And voted by retards too.
The "think of the children" excuse (Score:2)
Not Enough (Score:2)
It's Not Enough to "Caution Against".
That language is TOO PASSIVE.
The correct and appropriate phrase is "HELL NO" and start tossing out 1st, 4th, 5th amendment claims IN COURT.
Functional Age-Verification for minors (Score:2)
sumnub (Score:1)
somebody should point out to Noobsome that the liberals are supposed to stand for inclusivity and this is just stupidity
also who the fuck do you think you are, telling linux what to do.
Security vuln (Score:5, Insightful)
Nevermind there are massive security implications and there's no clean way to properly implement this without it being a problem.
Situation: site asks user agent (however it's implemented) the age on the last day of their 17th birthday. The next day, the site asks again. Congratulations, you now have their birthday.
I'm sure you can extrapolate a half dozen other ways this could be problematic, such as to target children with propaganda, gain additional demographic data on their users, or track children specifically for exploit in another way.
All by design. (Score:3)
The "think of the children" excuse is almost always used in bad faith by the originators of these bills and their corporate and deep-state sponsors. Linux was an escape hatch from constant surveillance, and now they're trying to close that hatch for good.
The lives of average people are about to get a lot worse (in part because of AI), and they know this, so they feel they need better tracking of any dissidents or movements that could be a threat to their power. It also helps them when they tighten the screws on other fundamental liberties if disgruntled citizens start bringing attention to it. The persecution of journalists, activists, and dissidents is the POINT. This is just the beginning. Soon it will require face scans for California, then other states, then finally nationwide.
This is all deliberate. Stop acting like these people are innocent. Sure, many senators will vote for it because the "think of the children" optics look bad for them to uninformed soccer moms and grandmas.
They will control everything, and they will crush any dissent before it starts with AI spying, emotion recognition, and behavioral prediction algorithms. Expect AI drones in the sky.
Welcome to Half-Life 2. The combine congratulates you on your new citizenship.
Re: (Score:1)
It's unworkable, unenforceable, and unnecessarily burdens interstate commerce.
I don't think there's anything malicious in the intent though. Just another case of "so stupid that it looks malicious".
Build the world for adults by default (Score:2)
Instead of locking everything down because of children, we should be building the world for adults by default. After all, that's the ultimate goal of being human - adult life.
At the same time we should be teaching PARENTS how to be a responsible parent and prepare their children for adult life, and this should be done by education and conversation, not by prohibition. It should be done by teaching parents how to talk about difficult, often uncomfortable subjects. Not by avoiding discomfort of being a parent
Surveillance creep by the state (Score:3)
Gatekeeping using children as moral shielding (Score:1)
Some sweaty looking computer nerds ... (Score:2)
.. are rattled by having to age verify on porn sites.
In other news..
Tor downloads are up. Kleenex sales are down.
What is an "operating system provider"? (Score:2)
You can take my AmigaOS from my cold, dead hands!
Think of the children! (Score:2)
Remember when "Think of the children" was a phrase which was rightly mocked as manipulative and only fooled the smoothest of the smooth brains who couldn't think beyond their emotional reaction?
Now it's a battle cry that suckers in millions.
Premature (Score:2)
Looks like a premature law. There are many cases where you don't want your OS go online.