4 ms·

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 incogni

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.
- hnthrowaway2768 7mo ago
  [dead]
- kbelder 7mo ago
  Keep in mind that as people age out of the 16-18 bracket, their age will be established fairly precisely. And that this information is spread by data brokers, and may follow them forever.
blacksmith_tb 7mo ago
But the "fact" that I told the OS I was 99yr old might be the data they're getting? To anyone who's setting up their own machine, it will be effectively optional: if you just want to make sure you fall in the "adult" bracket, you will tell the OS you're 25 (even if you're 13... or 99...). For kids whose parents are setting up devices, it could be an actual headache (assuming they're honest), but in that sense it's like a lot of other nannyware solutions, probably clunky, but possibly not all bad?
- heavyset_go 7mo ago
  Other nannyware solutions don't force apps, sites and platforms to spend money to censor themselves by law lest they be fined, or worse, which IMO, is all bad.

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.
hnthrowaway2768 7mo ago
[dead]
kbelder 7mo ago
Keep in mind that as people age out of the 16-18 bracket, their age will be established fairly precisely. And that this information is spread by data brokers, and may follow them forever.

blacksmith_tb 7mo ago

But the "fact" that I told the OS I was 99yr old might be the data they're getting? To anyone who's setting up their own machine, it will be effectively optional: if you just want to make sure you fall in the "adult" bracket, you will tell the OS you're 25 (even if you're 13... or 99...). For kids whose parents are setting up devices, it could be an actual headache (assuming they're honest), but in that sense it's like a lot of other nannyware solutions, probably clunky, but possibly not all bad?

heavyset_go 7mo ago
Other nannyware solutions don't force apps, sites and platforms to spend money to censor themselves by law lest they be fined, or worse, which IMO, is all bad.