4 ms·

Then you'd think it would be easy for Google to have said that instead of giving him no reason beyond "yep it's legit"

by rstupek 8y ago

dekhn 8y ago
Google typically won't give reasons because people use that information to get around blocks.
- 8ytecoder 8y ago
  They don't have to disclose how they inferred the age but they can absolutely say that they'll ban anyone under 13 from streaming. The rule must be made transparent and clear - how they measure it and its boundaries can be somewhat opaque to aid enforcement and prevent reverse engineering
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > The rule must be made transparent and clear The rule itself is transparent and clear. Whether the rule in as the basis for the action here is not. It clearly would generally be required (as due process) to make that clear, too, if Google was the government of the US or one of it's states, but they aren't. Absent a contractual obligation I have seen no evidence for, I don't see why they would be obligated to explain this, even if I might find it prerable if they would.
    - 8ytecoder 8y ago
      Aren't we all talking about how we would like it to be and not what is legal or contractual? I thought so at least. If we are talking about contract, it's all stacked against us. We have no bargaining power. We have no rights whatsoever. Google absolutely has the right to do what they want within legal boundaries. These discussions and the noise we generate is how we are flexing our muscle and accomplishing what we want from Google.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > Aren't we all talking about how we would like it to be “Must”, in the post I was responding to, seems to clearly indicate otherwise. It is possible that word was poorly chosen.
- mancerayder 8y ago
  That seems ethically like a slippery slope explanation. Good thing the legal system doesn't behave this way when one is arrested (in most places).
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
    It does, at times. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/fbi-would-rather-prosecutors-drop-cases-than-disclose-stingray-details/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/fbi-would-rather... > In order to ensure that such wireless collection equipment/technology continues to be available for use by the law enforcement community, the equipment/technology and any information related to its functions, operation and use shall be protected from potential compromise by precluding disclosure of this information to the public in any manner including but not limited to: press releases, in court documents, during judicial hearings, or during other public forums or proceedings.
  - puzzle 8y ago
    In the case of COPPA, the slippery slope guidelines of being deliberately opaque come straight from the FTC: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/complying-coppa-frequently-asked-questions#General%20Audience https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/com... "If you choose to block children under 13 on your general audience site or service, you should take care to design your age screen in a manner that does not encourage children to falsify their ages to gain access to your site or service. Ask age information in a neutral manner at the point at which you invite visitors to provide personal information or to create a user ID."
    - mancerayder 8y ago
      I see your point, but I don't read it the same way you do. This is referring to the age screen test (similar to Steam's on PG 13 or R games). But the poster above was spurned by Google support. I think the real reason he was spurned is that Google support isn't that effective or responsive in a lot of cases, full stop.
      - 8y ago

Then you'd think it would be easy for Google to have said that instead of giving him no reason beyond "yep it's legit"

dekhn 8y ago

Google typically won't give reasons because people use that information to get around blocks.

8ytecoder 8y ago
They don't have to disclose how they inferred the age but they can absolutely say that they'll ban anyone under 13 from streaming. The rule must be made transparent and clear - how they measure it and its boundaries can be somewhat opaque to aid enforcement and prevent reverse engineering
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > The rule must be made transparent and clear The rule itself is transparent and clear. Whether the rule in as the basis for the action here is not. It clearly would generally be required (as due process) to make that clear, too, if Google was the government of the US or one of it's states, but they aren't. Absent a contractual obligation I have seen no evidence for, I don't see why they would be obligated to explain this, even if I might find it prerable if they would.
  - 8ytecoder 8y ago
    Aren't we all talking about how we would like it to be and not what is legal or contractual? I thought so at least. If we are talking about contract, it's all stacked against us. We have no bargaining power. We have no rights whatsoever. Google absolutely has the right to do what they want within legal boundaries. These discussions and the noise we generate is how we are flexing our muscle and accomplishing what we want from Google.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > Aren't we all talking about how we would like it to be “Must”, in the post I was responding to, seems to clearly indicate otherwise. It is possible that word was poorly chosen.
mancerayder 8y ago
That seems ethically like a slippery slope explanation. Good thing the legal system doesn't behave this way when one is arrested (in most places).
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  It does, at times. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/fbi-would-rather-prosecutors-drop-cases-than-disclose-stingray-details/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/fbi-would-rather... > In order to ensure that such wireless collection equipment/technology continues to be available for use by the law enforcement community, the equipment/technology and any information related to its functions, operation and use shall be protected from potential compromise by precluding disclosure of this information to the public in any manner including but not limited to: press releases, in court documents, during judicial hearings, or during other public forums or proceedings.
- puzzle 8y ago
  In the case of COPPA, the slippery slope guidelines of being deliberately opaque come straight from the FTC: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/complying-coppa-frequently-asked-questions#General%20Audience https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/com... "If you choose to block children under 13 on your general audience site or service, you should take care to design your age screen in a manner that does not encourage children to falsify their ages to gain access to your site or service. Ask age information in a neutral manner at the point at which you invite visitors to provide personal information or to create a user ID."
  - mancerayder 8y ago
    I see your point, but I don't read it the same way you do. This is referring to the age screen test (similar to Steam's on PG 13 or R games). But the poster above was spurned by Google support. I think the real reason he was spurned is that Google support isn't that effective or responsive in a lot of cases, full stop.
    - 8y ago