As New York Finalizes New Social Media Rules, US Senate Considers Nationwide 'SCREEN' Act (eff.org) 58
New York has finalized new rules that will govern social media apps in the state starting on January 25, 2027. The law prohibits social media platforms from sending notifications to minors between midnight and 6 a.m. without parental consent. And minors "will only be shown content from other accounts they follow or otherwise select in a set sequence, such as chronological order," rather than "the default algorithmically personalized feeds... unless they get parental consent for an addictive feed." (Social media companies "must offer at least one alternative method for age assurance besides providing a government-issued ID," the announcements points out, and any information used to determine age "must not be used for any other purpose and must be deleted or de-identified immediately after its intended use.")
But meanwhile, the EFF writes that a committee in the U.S. Senate is considering the SCREEN ACT, "a sweeping age-verification bill that would require online services to verify users' ages before they can access any sexually explicit content. If this bill passes, it will force millions of adult internet users to give up their anonymity, privacy, and security before they access lawful speech." Unlike many state-age verification laws — which have been harmful in their own right — the SCREEN Act has no requirement that a significant portion of the website consist of sexually explicit content that is harmful to minors. The bill requires nearly any service hosting even a single piece of sexually explicit content to verify the ages of its users. The result is that the bill would apply not only to adult content sites like PornHub or OnlyFans, but also streaming services like Netflix, and social media platforms like Reddit, Discord, or Bluesky, if they host any adult content...
Under the SCREEN Act, the "bouncer" will be a digital age-verification service that captures your personal information and saves it to a database for an unspecified amount of time. The consequences of the bill won't be limited to minors. If websites and apps are expected to reliably identify teenagers, adults will be asked to prove they are adults. Even worse, the SCREEN Act is a privacy and data security nightmare. One provision of the bill requires services to take reasonable steps to protect the data collected and to not maintain for longer than is necessary. But these are terribly weak protections that impose no meaningful collection, use, or retention limits on services collecting people's private information...
The SCREEN Act also targets virtual private network (VPN) users and providers. The bill requires covered websites to verify users' ages based on their IP addresses unless the service can determine that the user is outside the United States, and specifically requires age verification on traffic coming from known VPN addresses. In practice, this discourages the use of VPNs and proxy servers, which millions of people rely on for legitimate purposes such as protecting personal privacy, securing public Wi-Fi connections, safeguarding journalists and activists, and preventing data tracking...
The SCREEN Act creates onerous age-verification rules that will block adults from accessing lawful speech, curtail their ability to be anonymous, and jeopardize the data security and privacy of all internet users.
But meanwhile, the EFF writes that a committee in the U.S. Senate is considering the SCREEN ACT, "a sweeping age-verification bill that would require online services to verify users' ages before they can access any sexually explicit content. If this bill passes, it will force millions of adult internet users to give up their anonymity, privacy, and security before they access lawful speech." Unlike many state-age verification laws — which have been harmful in their own right — the SCREEN Act has no requirement that a significant portion of the website consist of sexually explicit content that is harmful to minors. The bill requires nearly any service hosting even a single piece of sexually explicit content to verify the ages of its users. The result is that the bill would apply not only to adult content sites like PornHub or OnlyFans, but also streaming services like Netflix, and social media platforms like Reddit, Discord, or Bluesky, if they host any adult content...
Under the SCREEN Act, the "bouncer" will be a digital age-verification service that captures your personal information and saves it to a database for an unspecified amount of time. The consequences of the bill won't be limited to minors. If websites and apps are expected to reliably identify teenagers, adults will be asked to prove they are adults. Even worse, the SCREEN Act is a privacy and data security nightmare. One provision of the bill requires services to take reasonable steps to protect the data collected and to not maintain for longer than is necessary. But these are terribly weak protections that impose no meaningful collection, use, or retention limits on services collecting people's private information...
The SCREEN Act also targets virtual private network (VPN) users and providers. The bill requires covered websites to verify users' ages based on their IP addresses unless the service can determine that the user is outside the United States, and specifically requires age verification on traffic coming from known VPN addresses. In practice, this discourages the use of VPNs and proxy servers, which millions of people rely on for legitimate purposes such as protecting personal privacy, securing public Wi-Fi connections, safeguarding journalists and activists, and preventing data tracking...
The SCREEN Act creates onerous age-verification rules that will block adults from accessing lawful speech, curtail their ability to be anonymous, and jeopardize the data security and privacy of all internet users.
This already exists (Score:5, Informative)
Under the SCREEN Act, the "bouncer" will be a digital age-verification service that captures your personal information and saves it to a database for an unspecified amount of time.
Some sites already require the use of ID.me [wikipedia.org] -- like the IRS, SSA and Medicare, the latter two also allow Login.gov [wikipedia.org]. Here are 77 Companies that use ID.me in United States [theirstack.com]
Not trying to give them ideas, just sayin' ...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Some sites already require the use of ID.me -- like the IRS, SSA and Medicare"
I wouldn't expect any sexually explicit material on those sites,
Re:This already exists (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
I think the IRS certainly qualifies as BDSM...
Paradoxically, and/or ironically, my safe word is "audit" -- though I'm thinking of changing it to Fluggaenkoecchicebolsen [urbandictionary.com]. :-)
You're assuming that's not the point. (Score:5, Interesting)
At this point, I've stopped giving politicians the benefit of the doubt. If they support regulations that look like they have the potential to drag the United States into becoming an authoritarian hellhole, I assume that they're actually trying to do just that. It makes it a lot easier to convince myself to vote for another candidate in every election afterwards, even if that candidate isn't as good in other areas, because at least the other candidate isn't trying to destroy our basic freedoms.
Look up the sponsors of the bill, and vote against them from now on, whether it's a primary or a general election. Repeat until ousted.
Re:You're assuming that's not the point. (Score:4, Informative)
At this point, I've stopped giving politicians the benefit of the doubt. If they support regulations that look like they have the potential to drag the United States into becoming an authoritarian hellhole, I assume that they're actually trying to do just that. It makes it a lot easier to convince myself to vote for another candidate in every election afterwards, even if that candidate isn't as good in other areas, because at least the other candidate isn't trying to destroy our basic freedoms.
Look up the sponsors of the bill, and vote against them from now on, whether it's a primary or a general election. Repeat until ousted.
Currently, all the cosponsors are Republicans - 26 on the House bill and 4 on the Senate bill.
(Links to bills noted here [slashdot.org].)
Re: (Score:2)
After the last election, I am uncertain why anyone would vote FOR a Republican. It doesn't matter though, both parties are part and parcel of the 'apparatus'. Voting Democrat will still take us to the same place, but by a slightly different route.
Re: (Score:1)
At this point, I've stopped giving politicians the benefit of the doubt.
Born yesterday, I presume?
Re:You're assuming that's not the point. (Score:5, Insightful)
Just so you understand who wants this data.
Re:You're assuming that's not the point. (Score:4, Insightful)
Simple playbook:
1) Introduce bill
2) Everyone upset over Id
3) Offer face scan
4) Everyone upset over face scan
5) Google and Meta offer to provide a "adult" flag to sites using OAuth after a one-time verification. That's so much easier and safer!
6) Everyone scans their face with Google/Meta
7) Everyone logs in using Google/Facebook telling Google/Meta which sites they visit
It's up to you to think about what Google and Meta may do with all that data.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude we already have a domestic surveillance machine that would make the Stasi jealous. Of course the thing that saves us is nobody running these organizations is nearly so ruthless. America is covered by a freedom spell of protection.
Re: (Score:2)
I like the "at this point" part, an open admission that this used to be OK with you. And which of "our basic freedoms" are being "destroyed" here?
Pretentious backronym (Score:5, Funny)
From the actual House/Senate bills:
This Act may be cited as the “Shielding Children's Retinas from Egregious Exposure on the Net Act” or the “SCREEN Act”.
[rolls eyes, *sigh*]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
that had to have been ai
I'll take Republicans for $100 Alex. (Score:2, Informative)
As of this posting, the SCREEN Act bills are cosponsored solely by how many of this political party.
What is 26 Republicans in the House and 4 Republicans in the Senate?
H.R.1623 - SCREEN Act [congress.gov]
S.737 - SCREEN Act [congress.gov]
Disney is not an option (Score:2)
Government-enforced monopoly (Score:2)
What are the responsibility of this service? Accurate verification: I doubt it? The "bouncer" is guessing if it doesn't have access to Passport/state DMV records. "Best practices" cyber security: Not likely? Without banking laws or HIPPA, it costs too much. Protecting the privacy of third-party customers: Obviously not?
This a third-party doing the government's job of 'protecting' other third-parties (children). It doesn't work for health insurance and student loans, it won't work for age-verifi
protecting children from sex (Score:4, Insightful)
If the Feds want to protect children from sex, why don't thy start by telling the DoJ to prosecute the Epstein bros instead of protecting them?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Personally, I think government jobs should have a 37 month limit. If you want to work at a government job, fine, but you get a month of training followed by 36 months of work and then you can never work for the government ever again. We should also insist that congress repeal all of the laws providing for any kind of retirement benefits for government jobs. No retiring from government jobs. Only the current jobholders (elected, appointed, or hired) can get any benefits. Eventually, they'll all pass away
Re: (Score:2)
Russians have a lot of opinions about what americans should be doing.
Re: (Score:1)
What makes you think they'll be inexperienced? There is no sacred government experience, it's a job just like any one other and that it should be.
Re: (Score:2)
There is an immense amount of government experience.
"...it's a job just like any one other and that it should be."
Yes, as though that supports your absurd point of view.
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think they'll be inexperienced?
That's literally the premise of this thread.
There is no sacred government experience, it's a job just like any one other and that it should be.
It's not that it's sacred, that's a dumb take. It's not just a job like any other, that's an ignorant take.
Perhaps it should be, but it's the private sector that should change, to provide more accountability.
Re:protecting children from sex (Score:4, Insightful)
Would be much better if each member of social media can only post once every 36 days.
Re: (Score:2)
DMV jobs are complicated because the law is complicated.
IRS jobs, potentially the same. It depends on the level of the person you're talking to.
I can imagine (Score:2)
"notifications to minors between midnight and 6 a.m. without parental consent. "
I hereby notify you of my consent that my daughter Myriam can receive notifications between midnight and 6 PM.
s) My mother
Online deanonymization and tracking act (Score:3)
Re:Online deanonymization and tracking act (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Your irony meter has been broken a long time... that's an expected action that is always repeated, it's not ironic at all.
Zero Knowledge Proofs (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Zero Knowledge Proofs (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Zero Knowledge Proofs (Score:4, Interesting)
The EFF wrote, "The Senate Commerce Committee is set to consider S. 737, the SCREEN Act, ... will force millions of adult internet users to give up their anonymity, privacy, and security before they access lawful speech." Verifying a person's age can be done without exposing their identity. It requires a trusted third party, such as the government, to issue age certificates. The internet company can then send the user a random challenge (just a random number), and the user can then prove that they possess a valid age certificate stating that they are over 21 without disclosing the certificate, their identity, or their actual age. This software technique is called a Zero-Knowledge Proof.
This is the wrong tool for the job. Zero knowledge proofs are simply a means for both parties to agree they possess the same secret information without divulging any secrets to an eavesdropper in the process. There always has to be some OOB means of both parties selecting which set of secrets they will be agreeing upon.
The technology that would be used looks more like an authorization token. The Internet site has a trust anchor comprised of public keys of age verification services. The user gets an authorization token from the verification service and hands it to the Internet site which uses the trust anchor to verify authenticity. The authorization token would simply be constructed in a way that does not divulge identity.
This would deny the Internet site access to the users identity while concurrently just as importantly never requiring any communication between the Internet site and age verification service itself.
The problem with this approach is the user would either keep having to get new tokens from the verification provider or such tokens themselves would end up effectively serving as tracking cookies. I think it could be largely solved by the provider belching out a bunch of different tokens at once the user could rotate between before getting more.
This leaves collusion with the age verification service which I can't think of a single reason anyone should ever trust. Even if they could the system would be completely worthless in practice given the effectively infinite pool of over age people identities could be lifted.
To say nothing of the obvious political issues with these schemes being fundamentally incompatible with a free society.
Huh (Score:1)
It’s an adult tracking bill. (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a adult tracking bill, full stop. The government only knows “adult content” when they see it.
The best solution, and it always has been the best solution, is for parents to actually parent their kids. And for kids: learning how to evade, not get caught, and learning where the line actually resides is a part of growing up. I’m not talking about truly nefarious things. Think speeding on the highway in a safe and reasonable fashion, this is also technically illegal. Yet if you went the speed limit you would actually be a danger to the majority of drivers on the road.
Kids shouldn’t be looking at porn. Kids will look at porn. This law wouldn’t change that. What it will do is track nearly every adult in the USA who gets online.
Re: (Score:1)
Bad news
You are not the most free country (by a LONG way)
You are not the safest country (by a LONG way)
And your kids are woeful ignorant about the rest of the world.
Re: (Score:3)
HAHA (Score:1)
ban kiddie unsafe content (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you removed everything from the internet that someone else might find offensive, you'd have to remove everything, including the 404 error indicating everything has been removed, for fear of offending people with numerophobia.
Doesn't go far enough (Score:3)
Another possibility (Score:2)
" If this bill passes, it will force millions of adult internet users to give up their anonymity, privacy, and security before they access lawful speech. "
If this thing passes, it will give just enough of a nudge to get millions of people to quit Social Media cold turkey.
As said Social Media sites would effectively implode due to this, I suspect their lobbyists will be working overtime to dismantle the bill.
Your Law should be Your Maintenance Cost (Score:2)
A state enacting such a law should be required to publish their official list of The Known VPN Addresses.
People running websites should not be required to make up that data, or have to pay to subscribe to someone else who makes it up. If the gummint wants to force something that ridiculous on us, the gummint should make the taxpayers, not the webmasters or their users, pay for it.
Addictive feed and toxic media (Score:2)
‘The Anxious Generation [wikipedia.org]: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness is a 2024 book by Jonathan Haidt. It argues that the spread of smartphones, social media, and overprotective parenting have led to a "rewiring" of childhood and a rise in mental illness.’
"Written by somebody's dog's AI" (Score:2)
The bill requires covered websites to verify users' ages based on their IP addresses
lol
This is not an actual attempt at lawmaking. They're not even going to try to actually pass this thing. It's just a performative introduction of a bill. "Look at me, I proposed to solve this problem!"
Parental responsibility..lol (Score:2)
https://arstechnica.com/tech-p... [arstechnica.com]
No matter how good the parents were for these girls, they still became VICTIMS....
Perhaps what you mean is the parents of these boys get to spend 1-2 years in prison ?
This is evil (Score:2)
If this bill passes ... (Score:2)
Hopefully doxing the morons that voted for it.