You aren't setting up your childrens accounts. You're setting up your accounts to show that you're not a child. And suddenly, every single thing you use, from apps to websites, is gatekept behind an API that is controlled by the government. If checking age on social media is all it ever does, then sure, whatever. But that isn't all it will ever do. It will creep further and further, and the details you need to provide will increase, one shitty government term at a time. And then one day, they'll able able to decide that people in your country shouldn't be able to see safe sex information, or abortion information, and the framework to deny the whole country access is already there, and just one small tweak away from locking you out of information that is deemed inappropriate.
Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
If checking age on social media is all it ever does, then sure, whatever.
You're forgetting an important detail: you submitted an official ID to prove your age. Which means your face, address, and legal name are also on record. So every time you get age-verified, you're basically checking in with your full legal identity, leaving a breadcrumb path across the Internet of everything you do. That data can be used to track your online activities and build a database on who you are as a person, based on the things you access.
THIS is why age verification is a terrifying thing for computer access. It's a form of government tracking that should be illegal. Cops can't legally barge into your home anytime they want and go through your stuff. They can't take your computer and scan it for data collection. Not without a court order.
With age verification embedded within your OS, it won't matter if there's a court order or not. If your computer is connected to the Internet, you've just publicly broadcast all your data to the world, and anyone - cops or not - can tap into that data and build a profile on you. You don't even need to be browsing the Internet; if your OS is verifying your age, it could also be broadcasting that verification for every program you use locally on your computer. None of your data is safe; it's all tied to your legal identity and trackable.
because its designed to feed surveillance data to Palintir, which allows governments all over the west to monitor any dissident movements, or relatives of "dissidents" against right wing governments. dont know of any computer system requiring your ID/ or birthday, you can always fake a birthday.
right now the biggest threat to conservative governments is anyone "left" of them.
Because they don't care about your age. They want to tie you to your ID, so everything you say and do online can be tracked and tied to you as a person.
Meanwhile the leader of one of their countries has raped women and teenagers and even a couple of children, but they don't do anything about it. But you can be jailed for decades for seeing a picture or video of it. But the actual act? They don't care about that. (I'm saying you can be jailed for simply seeing CSAM online, but if you're a billionaire actually doing the things, you won't be tried for the actual CSA being recorded.)
So as you can see, it's not your age, but your identity.
Most people think the Nazis only locked up Jews. Some realise they also locked up minorities. Historians know it was also anyone who disagreed with them. Anyone who spoke out against them. Anyone who wouldn't wear the armband. And they're afraid history will repeat. And they're right to be afraid.
Most people think the Nazis only locked up Jews. Some realise they also locked up minorities.
They started with the impoverished, queer, and disabled.
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.
This is how they move the goalpost. They changed the argument.
You currently can just create a local account - period. It's yours. No tracking. No personal info.
But now you're accepting that you're willing to give a third party information, even just a little.
The next argument is: "If giving your age is okay, why not your home address?"
This is what police do to fish information out of you.
I'd even agree to a simple protocol (HTTP X-Over-18 / X-Over-21 headers?) to that.
In a era where privacy conscious people don't even connect their TV to the internet... This is okay to you?
You went from "Why do they want my information?"
To
"I'm not concerned with sharing my age. But how should we do it?"
And that itself is the root issue.
Also this goalpost will move almost immediately. What if the parent doesn't understand why the OS is asking for a DOB and they type whatever? What if the parent doesn't log out and the kids use the adult account? What if the kid is really smart and bypasses the check (I think this could actually get bypassed easily)?
Rather than rolling back this rule they'll just go even further and say the OS must analyze every action and utilize every input (e.g. microphone, camera) to determine the age of the current user and that controls need to be at the hardware level and OSes need to get state certified, etc. Before long only Windows, Apple, Google, and maybe RedHat can comply. An entire community of Linux enthusiasts destroyed. And as some bills have stated, rather vaguely, this can apply to something as simple as a calculator!
While an international cabal of rich white men participate in a pedophile club run by america/israeli rich white other men, we need to ensure that the youth of today don't prematurely access "racy" pictures. Make it make sense.
Because parents are responsible for stuff their off-spring does and the government should not be needed to do that.
At the very most, provide tools to help parents (e.g. on device filtering etc. or require companies to provide APIs to facilitate the same goal)
Other than that: Fuck off of my phone.
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.
That's your decision. The rest of us shouldn't be forced into it just because you're to lazy to watch what your kids are doing online. If a website thinks they need to my my age they can ask me and I'll decide if I want to provide it or not. I don't want my OS just handing it out to anyone who asks.
Come on, it's not about tending to a selected group of people, it's about mandating more surveillance. OP has done nothing to deserve this anger
Wrong technical solution to a made up problem.
Governments have commissioned enough studies to know that education, training, and parental controls filtering content at the receiving end are more effective & less infringing of civil rights than laws imposing restrictions & penalties on website operators to comply with online age verification. Laws could instead allocate resources to promote the former in a major way, setup independent evaluations reporting the effectiveness of child protection technologies to the public, promote standards & the development of better standards in the industry. Laws of the latter kind simply aren't needed & also suffer technical defects.
The most fatal technical defect is they lack enforceability on websites outside their jurisdiction. They're limited to HTTP (or successor). They practically rule out dynamic content (chat, fora) for minors unless that content is dynamically prescreened. Parental control filters lack all these defects, and they don't adversely impact privacy, fundamental rights, and law enforcement.
Governments know better & choose worse, because it's not about promoting the public good, it's about imposing control.
My calculator doesn't need to know how old anyone is. Nor does my refrigerator. I suppose a case could be made for a router if you are all onboard for age gating everything privacy and freedom be damned. An OS isn't just Mac or Windows... the CA law is just so so dumb as written that I have zero faith in anything from Silicon valley.
Will you be allowed to lie about the age? If yes, then it's a pointless law. If no, then whoever is checking needs to have more control over your device than you do, DRM style. That's gives them an entry point through which they can put whatever they want without you being able to control it.
Because I don't give a shit what your kids do on the Internet, and there are already plenty of tools for you to curate the experience for them.
Because it has little to do with protecting anyone and is another gross violation of privacy to serve corporate interests.
What is a computer? My microwave has a computer in it. My car. My printer. My smartwatch. My TV. My treadmill. My security cameras. Many many things have little embedded systems running linux. Some are Internet connected, some aren't. This feels terribly invasive for something that allegedly protects kids (doubtful). What if i don't have any kids in my household? Would this have stopped Trump and his friends? How about the government focus on real problems instead of requiring cameras be installed on my toaster and a credit card to be able to watch TV.
Because it will only be a simple birthdate until they decide to use those laws to go even further.
So
- Unenforceable
- Inaccurate
- Over-reaching
- PII not protected
What's wrong with it then? By the numbers, it seems everything is wrong with it.
When you go order something from Amazon, you're using about 15-20 computers in a row; probably more. PROVE you have the right. Yes, the server farm you're using to make an order is included, and it's a lot of machines.
Who pays to make sure Ticketmaster server farm is 'used' by age-appropriate customers and the code to check that is installed and maintained? Why, you, of course. The order panel at the burger joint? You, eventually. Toll ticket at Airport Parking? You're gonna love this. Guess what's in your cable box? Guess how often you'll have to have your face scanned just to turn on the TV? TV too. Fancy thermostat? There's a computer Nesting in there. Scan that face, bucko; on the new unit you have to buy because, dude, that and your microwave just became e-waste.
The list is unending. The implementation is shit. The data leak has already been shown with .. discord, right?
As others have said
It has nothing to do with age checking, protecting the children, or security. NOTHING.
There is a difference between providing the capability, and requiring that capability.
Under this law, something as simple as sharing a Google Drive could make you an "app store" and potentially liable for penalties.
These laws are specifically designed to be broadly interpreted. We have no idea just how widely the nets will be cast, either tomorrow, or 10 years from now. It is prudent to assume the absolute worst case.
How can you provide the capability for parents to keep their children off inappropriate websites if you don't require that sites adhere to a conduct?
(I'm simply asking why this makes it an inherently bad solution—not suggesting that there aren't better solutions.)
Parents, schools, employers, and governments, already use content controls to restrict users from accessing undesirable sites and services on the internet.
Searching the terms "content blocking" or "parental controls" will get you lists of apps and services doing just that.
Parents already have the capability. This law doesn't provide any additional capability for parents to parent their kids. This law seeks, instead, to remove the power and responsibility of parenting from the parents, and assign it to pornographers. They want the operators of adult websites around the world to be the ones determining whether or not to provide content to their kids.
What this law actually does is provide a means for a website to determine whether an adult or a child is trying to access their content, and to use that information to decide what content to provide. The thinking is that a respectable services like Netflix will be able to decide to provide only age-appropriate content, blocking kids from adult content.
However, that also means that services like "KidGroomer dot com" will be able to provide different content to adults than it does to children. To an adult, they can portray themselves as a site that provides information on how to protect kids from grooming. But when a kid visits, this law lets the site know it is a kid. The site can now show them kid-targeted content, like how to get in contact with the nearest candy-giving stranger.
Perhaps we don't actually want a website to be able to determine whether there is a kid on the other side of the screen.
Tools should be provided if you want to do that but shouldn't be standard. People should have freedom of choice on how to use their own property, in terms of computers, and how they manage/raise their children.
Having a gatekeeper behind what you can use on your own hardware is always bad.
On the one hand, it is a privacy nightmare.
On the other hand, those laws are so badly written, they will apply to things you would never consider an issue. E.g. a security camera, a router, a NAS. For each of them, the law applies, because they have an OS, they are attached to a network, and they have logins. Think about it, and it basically applies to any network enabled device.
Show us your ID, then. Or even just your age. Now your children too.
Don't want to? That's why.
the problem is that it's not going to stop there. kids will obviously still get porn, and fascists will say "seeeeee!!??! we need even more personal data to protect the kids!!! OS age verification isn't enough!!!"
steps in the wrong direction are exactly that, and exactly what this OS bullshit is. everyone having to pay the price for parents who can't be assed to raise their own kids
edit: i need to add--it's not actually about the kids. it never was. it's about collecting every 1 and every 0 that exists about you, for profit, but also for surveillance. every dissenting comment, post, photo, etc will be linked to a unique human being via dozens (or hundreds. thousands?) of data points. before you say "no way," remember the ridiculous percentage of 1/6 insurrectionists they rooted out, based on social media posts. and that was before AI blew up
It's a slippery slope and also regulatory capture as the only ones with the means to actually pull this off are the Big Tech companies.
Lots of people are about to be born on 01-01-1900. I guess 01-01-2000 works now though. Man, I'm old.
Because I should not have to. Im fine with them selling specially child computers that are listed as under 18 you can buy for your kids but I don't want that crap on mine.