4 ms·

Oh, it sounds great when it's phrased that way. What happens when an American-operated chat platform that provides E2EE claims they can't stop kids from seeing

Oh, it sounds great when it's phrased that way. What happens when an American-operated chat platform that provides E2EE claims they can't stop kids from seeing illegal content because of E2EE? All this legislation restricting free flow of information being pushed because "Think Of The Children" is concerning.

ke88y 3y ago
I encourage you to read the proposed statute. It's not very long. KOSA requires that social media companies cannot target children with certain types of ads or provide algorithmic recommendations, when they "reasonably know" that the user is a minor. A company implementing E2EE can simply make the choice to either not serve minors or to not provide certain features (algorithmic content targeting, targeted ads) to users who are minors. No new age verification is required. Tech has had a knee-jerk reaction against doing anything to protect children online since the Slashdot days, because proponents of draconian laws often say "think of the children". But that doesn't mean that EVERY law intended to protect children is bad. And Meta et al need to be held to account.
- thefurdrake 3y ago
  I should set aside some time to look deeper, yeah. But: I fundamentally agree with the concept of restricting children from accessing social media up to a certain age. Shit's radioactive. Making the choice to not serve minors won't stop minors from lying about their age (no new age verification is required?), and it won't stop subpoenas from piling up from individual cases involving children when that company providing E2EE is compelled to provide data it specifically designed its platform not to be able to provide. It just worries me.
  - ke88y 3y ago
    > Making the choice to not serve minors won't stop minors from lying about their age This is true. But I believe anonymous speech is important, and once you require age verification you necessarily sacrifice anonymity. > and it won't stop subpoenas from piling up from individual cases involving children when that company providing E2EE is compelled to provide data it specifically designed its platform not to be able to provide. There are certainly easier ways for law enforcement to do dragnet surveillance. Also, KOSA does not introduce criminal penalties.
    - thefurdrake 3y ago
      > But I believe anonymous speech is important, and once you require age verification you necessarily sacrifice anonymity. I agree with you here. It's not a problem that I think can be solved through legislation. American law enforcement has proven that it'll collect data in a multitude of ways when needed contextually. They shouldn't be handed additional tools to do so. And I'm not talking about dragnet surveillance, I'm talking about the law creating tons of instances of E2EE getting in the way of "justice", which seems to be an increasingly-common problem, and that in turn being used to rationalize making E2EE illegal like it is in some other places already.
      - ke88y 3y ago
        I agree with your concerns. I'm just a techie with no legal background, but as far as I understand it, KOSA enforcement would be done by the FTC and state AGs via civil suits against companies. It's not a criminal matter, so law enforcement agencies wouldn't be involved, except in the normal ways law enforcement can become involved in civil cases.
- red-iron-pine 3y ago
  > I encourage you to read the proposed statute. It's not very long. That is not a feature. Simple can be VERY dangerous when it comes to laws, since they do not provide nuance. "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." -H. L. Mencken
  - ke88y 3y ago
    I guess that's one way to justify having strong opinions about bills without having to actually read the text.

ke88y 3y ago

I encourage you to read the proposed statute. It's not very long. KOSA requires that social media companies cannot target children with certain types of ads or provide algorithmic recommendations, when they "reasonably know" that the user is a minor. A company implementing E2EE can simply make the choice to either not serve minors or to not provide certain features (algorithmic content targeting, targeted ads) to users who are minors. No new age verification is required. Tech has had a knee-jerk reaction against doing anything to protect children online since the Slashdot days, because proponents of draconian laws often say "think of the children". But that doesn't mean that EVERY law intended to protect children is bad. And Meta et al need to be held to account.

thefurdrake 3y ago
I should set aside some time to look deeper, yeah. But: I fundamentally agree with the concept of restricting children from accessing social media up to a certain age. Shit's radioactive. Making the choice to not serve minors won't stop minors from lying about their age (no new age verification is required?), and it won't stop subpoenas from piling up from individual cases involving children when that company providing E2EE is compelled to provide data it specifically designed its platform not to be able to provide. It just worries me.
- ke88y 3y ago
  > Making the choice to not serve minors won't stop minors from lying about their age This is true. But I believe anonymous speech is important, and once you require age verification you necessarily sacrifice anonymity. > and it won't stop subpoenas from piling up from individual cases involving children when that company providing E2EE is compelled to provide data it specifically designed its platform not to be able to provide. There are certainly easier ways for law enforcement to do dragnet surveillance. Also, KOSA does not introduce criminal penalties.
  - thefurdrake 3y ago
    > But I believe anonymous speech is important, and once you require age verification you necessarily sacrifice anonymity. I agree with you here. It's not a problem that I think can be solved through legislation. American law enforcement has proven that it'll collect data in a multitude of ways when needed contextually. They shouldn't be handed additional tools to do so. And I'm not talking about dragnet surveillance, I'm talking about the law creating tons of instances of E2EE getting in the way of "justice", which seems to be an increasingly-common problem, and that in turn being used to rationalize making E2EE illegal like it is in some other places already.
    - ke88y 3y ago
      I agree with your concerns. I'm just a techie with no legal background, but as far as I understand it, KOSA enforcement would be done by the FTC and state AGs via civil suits against companies. It's not a criminal matter, so law enforcement agencies wouldn't be involved, except in the normal ways law enforcement can become involved in civil cases.
red-iron-pine 3y ago
> I encourage you to read the proposed statute. It's not very long. That is not a feature. Simple can be VERY dangerous when it comes to laws, since they do not provide nuance. "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." -H. L. Mencken
- ke88y 3y ago
  I guess that's one way to justify having strong opinions about bills without having to actually read the text.