4 ms·

I appreciate the principled stand, but on the other hand the CA law only requires users to self-identify when setting up accounts (and then the OS will expose a

I appreciate the principled stand, but on the other hand the CA law only requires users to self-identify when setting up accounts (and then the OS will expose age to apps), that seems fairly toothless (though wrongheaded) compared to TX and UT wanting to scan photo IDs[1] 1: https://www.tomshardware.com/software/operating-systems/california-introduces-age-verification-law https://www.tomshardware.com/software/operating-systems/cali...

nullpoint420 7mo ago
Until CA matches the TX and UT laws. Boiling the frog
- lazide 7mo ago
  But somehow in the opposite (yet same?) way.
- tzs 7mo ago
  If that's what they wanted there is no reason not to start with laws like the TX and UT laws. You need the boiling the frog when you are trying to push the evelope.
  - nullpoint420 7mo ago
    Wdym? The reason is that people would oppose the TX and UT laws harder in California. Everyone is calm now in CA because "oh it's just an age dropdown guys!!" But once the infrastructure is built give it a few years it's not going to be a dropdown. And it will not be able to be bypassed in the same way you can't bypass permissions on iOS and Android today.
BobbyJo 7mo ago
Why should we be ok with laws just because they won't accomplish anything?
- lazide 7mo ago
  Oh boy, California will love you.
  - BobbyJo 7mo ago
    I left California 5 years ago :)
phendrenad2 7mo ago
Except for the fact that my age is now a piece of information that any tracking pixel or web malware can access at all times to de-anonymize me, even in incognito mode. But maybe that can be solved by collapsing all ages above 18 to just 18. Not sure if that violates the wording of the law though.
- bee_rider 7mo ago
  That is the wording of the California law, IIRC. The age brackets are under 13, 13-16, 16-18, and over 18. It also requires the OS to provide only the minimum information necessary to comply with the law, and only when necessary to comply with the law.
  - themafia 7mo ago
    What can I show to 16-18 year olds that I can't show to 13-16 year olds? The real meat of the law is requiring websites and applications to comply with this signal. Which would be one good reason why there are so many categories of seeming little difference. This then gives them the opportunity to fine and harass developers out of business for the most minor of infractions or instances of mislabeling.
    - warkdarrior 7mo ago
      Under CCPA, users over 16yo only need to be given an opt-out for data sharing, while users under 16yo have to provide affirmative opt-in.
      - hsbauauvhabzb 7mo ago
        Which if you think about it, is completely bonkers. Recognising the harm that data tracking causes, but ignoring the harm for the majority of people.
    - bee_rider 7mo ago
      I don’t really see the need for the line at 16, it seems like they ought to be able to push that line up or down and simplify the brackets. But, the state doesn’t actually have an incentive to fine and harass their tax base out of business. I don’t think they made it over-complicated on purpose, I think lawmakers just over-estimate our capacity to understand laws.
jibe 7mo ago
To be clear, the Texas law only applies to mobile app stores, not the operating system, and there is no requirement to scan photo ID, just the vague,” commercially reasonable method of verification.”
- incompatible 7mo ago
  "Commercially reasonable" would be something cheap, like ask a chatbot for an opinion.
  - heavyset_go 7mo ago
    I don't want to feed my biometrics and identity into AI companies' models so they can train on them for free and then sell facial recognition systems to the government.
heavyset_go 7mo ago
"Toothless" unless you're an app, website or platform developer, then you're given an enormous liability burden even if you strictly adhere to age signals and censor everything accordingly: > (3) (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a developer shall treat a signal received pursuant to this title as the primary indicator of a user’s age range for purposes of determining the user’s age. > (B) If a developer has internal clear and convincing information that a user’s age is different than the age indicated by a signal received pursuant to this title, the developer shall use that information as the primary indicator of the user’s age. Turns out the age signal is not enough. Liability-wise, you'll probably be doing face and/or ID scans, too, even if the law doesn't explicitly call for it. Developers will just implement the strictest state's censorship and age verification schemes for everyone, which has already happened. My state has no age verification laws, yet platforms, and even Android itself, are trying to get me to scan my face and dox myself to use them. I can't even look at spicy tweets online without verifying my age with the X app, they're censored for my own protection.
tzs 7mo ago
> I appreciate the principled stand, but on the other hand the CA law only requires users to self-identify when setting up accounts (and then the OS will expose age to apps). It is narrower than that. It only applies to accounts whose user is a child and is the primary user of the device. See section 1798.500 (i) which says [1]: (i) “User” means a child that is the primary user of the device. [1] https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-civ/division-3/part-4/title-1-81-9/section-1798-500/ https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-civ/division-3/...

nullpoint420 7mo ago

Until CA matches the TX and UT laws. Boiling the frog

lazide 7mo ago
But somehow in the opposite (yet same?) way.
tzs 7mo ago
If that's what they wanted there is no reason not to start with laws like the TX and UT laws. You need the boiling the frog when you are trying to push the evelope.
- nullpoint420 7mo ago
  Wdym? The reason is that people would oppose the TX and UT laws harder in California. Everyone is calm now in CA because "oh it's just an age dropdown guys!!" But once the infrastructure is built give it a few years it's not going to be a dropdown. And it will not be able to be bypassed in the same way you can't bypass permissions on iOS and Android today.

BobbyJo 7mo ago

Why should we be ok with laws just because they won't accomplish anything?

lazide 7mo ago
Oh boy, California will love you.
- BobbyJo 7mo ago
  I left California 5 years ago :)

phendrenad2 7mo ago

Except for the fact that my age is now a piece of information that any tracking pixel or web malware can access at all times to de-anonymize me, even in incognito mode. But maybe that can be solved by collapsing all ages above 18 to just 18. Not sure if that violates the wording of the law though.

bee_rider 7mo ago
That is the wording of the California law, IIRC. The age brackets are under 13, 13-16, 16-18, and over 18. It also requires the OS to provide only the minimum information necessary to comply with the law, and only when necessary to comply with the law.
- themafia 7mo ago
  What can I show to 16-18 year olds that I can't show to 13-16 year olds? The real meat of the law is requiring websites and applications to comply with this signal. Which would be one good reason why there are so many categories of seeming little difference. This then gives them the opportunity to fine and harass developers out of business for the most minor of infractions or instances of mislabeling.
  - warkdarrior 7mo ago
    Under CCPA, users over 16yo only need to be given an opt-out for data sharing, while users under 16yo have to provide affirmative opt-in.
    - hsbauauvhabzb 7mo ago
      Which if you think about it, is completely bonkers. Recognising the harm that data tracking causes, but ignoring the harm for the majority of people.
  - bee_rider 7mo ago
    I don’t really see the need for the line at 16, it seems like they ought to be able to push that line up or down and simplify the brackets. But, the state doesn’t actually have an incentive to fine and harass their tax base out of business. I don’t think they made it over-complicated on purpose, I think lawmakers just over-estimate our capacity to understand laws.

jibe 7mo ago

To be clear, the Texas law only applies to mobile app stores, not the operating system, and there is no requirement to scan photo ID, just the vague,” commercially reasonable method of verification.”

incompatible 7mo ago
"Commercially reasonable" would be something cheap, like ask a chatbot for an opinion.
- heavyset_go 7mo ago
  I don't want to feed my biometrics and identity into AI companies' models so they can train on them for free and then sell facial recognition systems to the government.

heavyset_go 7mo ago

"Toothless" unless you're an app, website or platform developer, then you're given an enormous liability burden even if you strictly adhere to age signals and censor everything accordingly: > (3) (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a developer shall treat a signal received pursuant to this title as the primary indicator of a user’s age range for purposes of determining the user’s age. > (B) If a developer has internal clear and convincing information that a user’s age is different than the age indicated by a signal received pursuant to this title, the developer shall use that information as the primary indicator of the user’s age. Turns out the age signal is not enough. Liability-wise, you'll probably be doing face and/or ID scans, too, even if the law doesn't explicitly call for it. Developers will just implement the strictest state's censorship and age verification schemes for everyone, which has already happened. My state has no age verification laws, yet platforms, and even Android itself, are trying to get me to scan my face and dox myself to use them. I can't even look at spicy tweets online without verifying my age with the X app, they're censored for my own protection.

tzs 7mo ago

> I appreciate the principled stand, but on the other hand the CA law only requires users to self-identify when setting up accounts (and then the OS will expose age to apps). It is narrower than that. It only applies to accounts whose user is a child and is the primary user of the device. See section 1798.500 (i) which says [1]: (i) “User” means a child that is the primary user of the device. [1] https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-civ/division-3/part-4/title-1-81-9/section-1798-500/ https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-civ/division-3/...