25 ms·
Google will expand age checks on Android worldwide till the end of the year
- FloatArtifact 2mo agoI don't understand why apps need to know anything about a specific age. If we have to go down this road, which I really don't, why can't we just simply have verification whether or not an age fits within a range better yet a category. Yes, age can still be inferred, for example, under 21 or over 21.
- dmantis 2mo agoThe API behaves this way: > To request a user's age range and sharing status, you call the Play Age Signals API (beta) from your app at runtime. The default age ranges the API returns are 0-12, 13-15, 16-17, and 18+, but you can receive custom age ranges. https://developer.android.com/google/play/age-signals/use-age-signals-api https://developer.android.com/google/play/age-signals/use-ag... But I don't find it any better. I don't see any viable reason to provide identification to my phone's OS. If a parent buys a phone for their child, they can already set up parental controls before handing it over. I wish Motorola all the best with their GrapheneOS partnership.
- inigyou 2mo agoYou can also get GrapheneOS right now on Google-branded hardware, which is expensive but not enshittified.
- dmantis 2mo agoTrue. Though I have mixed feelings buying new pixel from Google after all these actions.
- theandrewbailey 2mo agoThen buy a used or open box one. There's plenty of people who try switching to Android and buy Pixels, but go back to their iPhones in a week.
- inigyou 2mo agoI don't. When they start making shit hardware, stop buying their hardware. As long as it's good, buy it. That's a free market price signal.
- gruez 2mo ago>which is expensive The rumored Motorola devices are even more expensive. It's the signature and some foldables, all in the 1000+ MSRP range. At least with pixels you can get the a series for as little as 400 on sale.
- superloika 2mo agoIf you buy one of the Motorola Grapheneos phones, you're gonna be marked. You will stand out in the crowd. It has happened before and will happen more frequently as the world becomes more authoritarian.
- inigyou 2mo agoYes, people can tell a phone is running Graphene. They just can't get in.
- dmantis 2mo agoOn the other hand, privacy becomes a luxury. People love signaling their status and standing out from the crowd. Entire car and clothing brands exist solely because of that. And if enough people stand out, it doesn't matter anymore.
- iamnothere 2mo agoOh but “the government already knows everything” as all the other privacy doomers like to say. “They” can probably already predict what phone you’re going to buy and what you’re going to eat for lunch, right? So why worry about this?
- goda90 2mo agoLineageOS is still a thing too.
- velocity3230 2mo agoBut not in the same league as GrapheneOS.
- jasonvorhe 2mo agoBecause it's not about age at all. That's just ruse to get a lever to lock people out of their devices if they don't behave.
- user43928 2mo agoHow would that make sense? If anything, I would imagine that Google's changes are motivated by driving traffic to their Google Play Store, where they make billions in commissions. Once this framework is in place for the Google Play Store, perhaps they can lobby for strict age verification laws, and then tell developers who publish outside of Google Play that they are responsible for compliance themselves.
- shevy-java 2mo agoIt makes total sense. You here assume that this is only driven by Google. Once you include state actors, suddenly it makes sense. They gather more data now. Only verified users will be able to use the internet in unrestricted ways - that is what is new.
- user43928 2mo agoWhen there is a clear motivation to protect a $50B/year revenue stream, that seems to be the more likely explanation. If it appeals to politicians who view "protect the children" and surveillance positively, that is a bonus.
- gnoll_of_gozag 2mo agopeople on discord get sniped semi regularly by fraudulent child exploitation reports
- warkdarrior 2mo agoAnd these Discord child exploitation reports are sent to Google? And Google enforces them by locking down the user's Android phone?
- soulofmischief 2mo agoThis isn't aimed at you specifically, but I think many technologists seem to innately misunderstand the slippery slope hypothesis which helps form the bedrock of American politics. Too many seem to fall into the familiar problem-solving mode, ready to provide compromises or solutions while forgetting that once the infrastructure is in place, it can easily be modified later to undo the compromises which facilitated its acceptance in the first place. There is an inherent power asymmetry and it's not generally in favor of those building and using the infrastructure.
- shevy-java 2mo agoIndeed - Flock cameras showed this. They also actively undermine the US constitution. Will be interesting to see whether the remaining judges have any power to change this or whether they were also integrated into the new dictatorship model.
- pbhjpbhj 2mo agoSurely it's not the camera per se, it iss the people who are installing them. One key driver is lack of efficient law enforcement. Do you force people not to give up their own liberties? In a democracy? Although better privacy laws would cut off the access of non-customers to the data of those customers devices.
- soulofmischief 2mo agoSo much of this discussion is moot because the point is there is a slippery slope. It doesn't matter if there's an unconstitutional war on drugs which creates distrust and massively diverts law enforcement away from serious crime and instead towards ruining the lives of poor families. It doesn't matter if we're in a new age of McCarthyism or not, or if we're in the middle of a hyperfascist political coup and I don't even feel comfortable protesting in public in my city now that people are getting 30-year felony sentences for moving boxes and the city's new cameras and police drones can track me from my home to anywhere downtown and back. These things could be true or not. It's the fact that they could be true which means that we cannot allow ourselves to slip into an unretractable surveillance capitalist hellscape. That means people must have avenues to stop things like this. Petitioning city hall doesn't seem to be working; in fact, it's waking many people up to the fact that their local governments are not working for their interests, as mayors openly discuss banning discussion about data centers. Laws exist because some people won't play nice otherwise. It is asymmetrical to put the burden of defense of liberty on the individual. The individual is the last line of defense against the government, and when it is the individual's turn to act, it's because law has already failed. We need to act, and fix the law, so that I don't have to act like a paranoid psycho around others in my life who are wholly unequipped to understand or even care about this problem.
- shevy-java 2mo agoBecause it has never been merely about age only. They want to track everyone now. Age sniffing is just one additional step for forcing verification. This will continue - see how suspiciously many countries adopt new legislation. It is quite fascinating to me to see how easy it is to kill off democracies.
- jeroenhd 2mo agoLaws have been written that mandate that applications and services treat various age ranges differently. You can't serve porn to kids, kids under 15/16 have very strict privacy regulations in some areas, and certain content age ratings are an industry standard only because that was the industry way of getting out of being regulated. For kids this is a privacy risk because there are so many thresholds. Once you're above 18, all you need to care about is "are you a pensioner". Kids have been lying about their age since the dawn of the internet and people have started catching on, so now we're getting actual restrictions rather than the assertion that nobody in their right mind would click "I am 18 or older" to access a website. Californian law mandates that operating systems keep track of their users' age, so of course Android must follow. In all of the cases listed on Google's blog, though, the option to not share information and download an app that doesn't ask for your age range is still an option.
- looksjjhg 2mo agoI don’t understand how are they even checking the age ??
- OtomotO 2mo agoIn some jurisdictions/countries they have to call some government service which then tells them whether a person is above or below a certain age. Theoretically you could make this double blind and that's the story they are telling. We have no way to (dis)prove it though. Alas, here goes the freedom, with thunderous applause.
- progval 2mo agoThey aren't. The device administrators (ie. the parents) set an age range in the OS' config and then the OS tells applications the value. That's it.
- EmbarrassedHelp 2mo agoThe problem is that you may wake up and find this system enabled by default unless you submit to age verification, like the authoritarian bullshit Apple pulled in the UK.
- EmbarrassedHelp 2mo agoGoogle's shitty API lets developers force you to verify your age with government ID and selfies, as part of the "ageRangeSource" field: https://developer.android.com/google/play/age-signals/understand-age-signals-responses https://developer.android.com/google/play/age-signals/unders... And the other problem is that you may wake up and find this system enabled by default for everything unless you submit to age verification, like the authoritarian bullshit Apple pulled in the UK.
- amazingamazing 2mo agoAge checks are inevitable sadly. No one would tolerate “adult” services and goods rendered directly to children without age check. The main argument is that there is an assumption this data is not stored in the real world, which is only sometimes true. Some places like airports and some concerts, shows, bars, etc. scan identification with digital readers whose data is presumably retained. One reason for this is because fake identification is a thing so defense against this converges to the same solution as digital verification. Imo best to spend energy thinking of the appropriate solution that minimizes privacy violation than conceptual fighting against the idea.
- neuroticnews25 2mo ago> No one would tolerate “adult” services and goods rendered directly to children without age check I don't think it's fair to say that parents who don't care to use parental control measures already available to them have no tolerance for that.
- amazingamazing 2mo agoParental controls don’t solve all of the issues. The same way telling your kids not to do drugs is not a solution to vaping use.
- neuroticnews25 2mo agoIf you don't even try to use simple available measures to prevent your own child from vaping then it's unfair to say you have zero tolerance for children vaping.
- amazingamazing 2mo agoStrange comment, plenty of parents try and fail to stop their kids to do certain things.
- neuroticnews25 2mo ago
- xinayder 2mo agoCan't we build a gateway in the internet that detects if someone is a influential CEO or something and just bar access to the internet?
- sschueller 2mo agoIf you have more than 100 million in the bank you should be barred from using the internet...
- throwa356262 2mo agoGood idea, you got my vote! ... unfortunately I don't have a vote according to Tobi https://fortune.com/2026/07/27/shopify-ceo-voting-rights-stripping-americans-19th-century/ https://fortune.com/2026/07/27/shopify-ceo-voting-rights-str...
- whatsupdog 2mo agoCool, so no change? Even even a multi-billionaire usually doesn't have a 100 million lying in the bank (unless they sold some asset and are going to buy another soon).
- dewey 2mo agoI think you know yourself that the parent poster didn't mean literally coins in a bank vault like Scrooge McDuck.
- whatsupdog 2mo agoHe/she literally said "more than 100 million in the bank". Care to explain what that means other than bank balance in a checking/saving account?
- dewey 2mo agoTranslate it to “they are very rich”.
- cynicalsecurity 2mo agoThis smells like Soviet Union. The next step will be a requirement to confirm your identity - trying to justify it with a wicked manipulation tactic "we need to know your are not lying when selecting your age". No one asked for it to begin with. Android is normalising totalitarianism and mass spying on citizens, one step at a time. This is a very bad feature and a very bad development.
- soupspaces 2mo agoNot just android
- sevenzero 2mo agoIts the same thing with Europe allowing scans of private chats now. Nobody would tolerate a person opening the letters from ur physical mail box and reading through each of them just to see if you do [insert illegal activity]. But once this stuff happens digitally, people seem to simply tolerate it. If I remember correctly, in 2019 there were huge protests against upload filters were people actually protested on the streets in Europe. Now there is almost NOTHING for chat scans, NOTHING for age verifications, NOTHING for making Android less open. Its really frightening what the general public tolerates nowadays.
- jeroenhd 2mo agoThe authorities open letters all the time. Try sending a letter to prison without it getting scanned. The problem with this comparison is that the authorities can open a letter if they need to for various well-intended reasons, but they cannot open an encrypted message. Either the authorities can scan all messages, or they can scan no messages, there's no inbetween. The mandate to verify age before selling alcohol has been around forever. This is not a new idea. The biggest restriction until now has been that there was no good way to do these kinds of age verification, but that problem has been solved. You can still debate whether or not age verification is a good idea for specific subjects, but selling 10 year olds alcohol or porn has been illegal for much longer than the internet has existed.
- 2mo ago
- shevy-java 2mo agoThey want your data. YOU have become their product. By the way, this also explains one reason why Google shut down third party access/applications recently on Android. Android (if one uses the Google software) becomes the ultimate spy tool on people. At the same time you see several countries force age sniffing on people - this is the beginning of the end of the free web. It will happen in various steps; the next one is Microsoft adding this to their software.
- BoxwoodSeed 2mo agoLinux is also ready to support age verification through systemd. Luckily, there are still distros without it, like Void Linux. I switched to it recently and now my media PC boots faster than my TV takes to turn on.
- unsungNovelty 2mo agoWhy was this downvoted? Lennart Poettering/Systemd project didn't even think for a minute before implementing this with nobody asking for this. I thought we were supposed to have good discussions here instead of ganging up.
- shit_game 2mo ago> YOU have become their product LOL behind the curve, and completely missing the point.
- iamflimflam1 2mo agoI find myself stuck on the fence with age checks. Companies have show that they are incapable or unwilling to address the problems they cause. And market forces are not working to correct things. It’s also pretty obvious that saying “parent should take responsibility” is also not working. Just observe the world around you to know it’s a non starter. This is where regulation is supposed to come in. At the same time, companies have shown that they will abuse any personal information that is shared with them and we are now giving them more details about ourselves…
- owbt 2mo agoI have a feeling that, in order to protect privacy, those regulations must fall on the parents too. It is their primary responsibility to take care of their children. Maintaining your kids digital hygiene should be important to the lawmakers and the child protections services.
- inigyou 2mo agoWhat should they do about it?
- owbt 2mo agoWho? The lawmakers? I believe banning children up to a certain age from having Internet-enabled mobile devices is a good starting point, and both child protection services and law enforcement services should fully cooperate with parents in enforcing that ban. If you see a kid smoking a cigarette or taking drugs, you know parents have failed somewhere along the road and it would be preferable if the government could step in to help.
- sevenzero 2mo agoThis is reasonable up to the point of lawmakers suddenly deeming rainbow flags just as bad as drugs (Russia as an example). Your example may work in well intended countries but completely ignores that a country can VERY easily shift into a regime that does not have good ethics abusing these kinda laws.
- shahidhelalkhan 2mo ago[flagged]
- BoxwoodSeed 2mo agoI'd be totally fine to solve this problem by banning children from the internet altogether. Not that I'd enforce this or anything. Just so no one other than the parents can be liable when things go wrong. There's more and more evidence that internet access isn't healthy to have for children anyway.
- inigyou 2mo agoYeah. And if a kid drinks beer only the parents should be liable. Why are we all so horny to transfer unlimited liability to parents?
- danparsonson 2mo agoBecause raising children is unequivocally the parents' responsibility. It's, like, their main job.
- inigyou 2mo agoBut we don't put barbed wire on random sidewalks and then blame parents if a kid walks over it and gets hurt. There is the attractive nuisance doctrine, among other things.
- account42 2mo agoWe don't leave the barbed wire on the side walk but require everyone that wants to walk on it to age verify first either. And the attractive nuisance doctrine some states have is absolutely bonkers.
- jodrellblank 2mo agoYes we do leave pubs on the sidewalk and require everyone that wants to drink there to age verify first, what are you talking about
- danparsonson 2mo ago
- sunaookami 2mo agoThis coordinated worldwide effort at the same time is very creepy.
- inigyou 2mo agoIt just means politicians read the news.
- oneeyedpigeon 2mo agoAnd aren't very imaginative.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- account42 2mo agoIf only they used that time to listen to their constituents instead.
- DANmode 2mo agoNot a requirement for (re)election in many jurisdictions anymore.
- DANmode 2mo agoWe’re still pretending the Bilderberg Meeting (and similar stuff) don’t exist, and don’t assist in orchestrating big, cross-border paradigm shifts like this?
- johnnyanmac 2mo agoIf it just takes a few hundred rich people meeting up a few times a year to manipulate the world economy of billions, that says a lot about the world to begin with.
- weberer 2mo ago
- wewewedxfgdf 2mo agoWhat's the difference between an age check and a total identification check?
- palata 2mo agoIf you can only check that the person is above age without checking who they are, then it's not the same, is it?
- owbt 2mo agoThe usual "but think of the children" tactic.
- Havoc 2mo agoGlobal surveillance incoming. Heard Google is also rolling out QR codes to get past captchas? Ie linked to a device that would now be identity linked too. All seems pretty dystopian or to quote googles slogan - being evil
- cluckindan 2mo agoIncoming? Have you been asleep for 30 years?
- creatacc 2mo agoI already saw it on youtube. However, ctrl + f5 fixed it. On the other hand, youtube became so unusable that I have spotify premium now. So, give it a few years and corpos will take it down because of missing profits.
- hexo 2mo ago"Providing a safe online experience and protecting users from harm is a top priority at Google Play." LOL NO. amount of malware says otherwise.
- deton3991 2mo ago[flagged]
- mythz 2mo agoSurveillance comes for us all.
- random_ind_dude 2mo agoI think it's the old that need to be protected more on the Internet since they disproportionately fall prey to online scams. So let's age-gate their access to online services too. If you are old and want to send money to someone, you get age-gating and second-factor authorization from a competent young person. If you want to watch porn online, believe it or not, age-gating and second-factor authorization.
- jeroenhd 2mo agoHonestly, I wouldn't be opposed to that either. If we're protecting kids, we should also protect the old and feeble. Old people, people with developmental handicaps, you name it: they're being exposed to a world that can and will abuse you if you have any faith in humanity left and don't have the technical skills to identify things like fake domains and scam sites. For some reason we're making sure no 12 year old can drive or run for any government positions, but a 90 year old can keep the driver's license that they've had since before the start of colour television, or make critical decisions affecting millions. We can't have it both ways.
- kova12 2mo agoIt would be hilarious when some services become unavailable to 55+. The whole age check scam will dissolve in a heartbeat
- lII1lIlI11ll 2mo agoNot necessary. People who still transfer their life savings to some "I'm with MicroSoft tech support" guy shouldn't be allowed to vote either TBH.
- ColdStream 2mo agoMaybe we should push that then, don't go around the problem but head face first into it. Force the bottom of the bucket to blow out.
- xg15 2mo ago
- avazhi 2mo agoI couldn’t care less about children or about what is ultimately a parenting issue (keep your fucking kids off the internet). A problem that affects a subset of the population is not something that should be solved by subjecting the entire population to inconvenience. Just make it illegal to use the internet for under 18s or under 16s or whatever and let it be assumed that all users are of the appropriate age. If I a child is on the internet without adult supervision, that’s a parenting problem, not an issue for the state or other people to solve.
- prartichoke 2mo agoWhat a pain reading this blog post. It's about them complying with recent regulations, but they never mention it once: they word it so it sounds like they are doing this out of the good of their hearts. The words "law," "regulation," or "compliance" do not appear once, despite being the entire reason the post exists. Also on the "privacy-preserving tool", technically apps get a bracket ("16–17") instead of a birthdate. But who holds the actual data? Google. The privacy improvement is against the developer only.
- charcircuit 2mo agoGoogle has always had your birthday.
- EmbarrassedHelp 2mo agoThe blog post lists regions where it is not mandatory
- corsendonk 2mo agoSafety!
- hnxp86ytwk 2mo ago[dead]
- Palmik 2mo agoWill these be compatible with the Digital Credentials API in Chrome (https://developer.chrome.com/blog/digital-credentials-api-origin-trial https://developer.chrome.com/blog/digital-credentials-api-or...) or will websites be essentially locked out of friction-less age verification?
- noirscape 2mo agoWhy is this part of Play Services? It should be something on-device as part of AOSP, not something that further entrenches Google. (In case it's not obvious: rethorical question, Google just wants to do platform lock-in with Android and sees this as a useful means to bludgeon it.)
- lII1lIlI11ll 2mo agoThis is actually a step in the right direction. I don't want to share my id and selfie with every stupid social media app/site. I would much rather allow parents to configure their children's devices to share their age.
- EmbarrassedHelp 2mo agoTheir shitty API lets developers force you to verify your age with government ID and selfies, as part of the "ageRangeSource" field. https://developer.android.com/google/play/age-signals/understand-age-signals-responses https://developer.android.com/google/play/age-signals/unders...
- Razengan 2mo agoWhat's hilarious is how Westerners still think they're much different from China or the former Soviet Union anymore.
- potato-peeler 2mo ago> in our ongoing partnership with parents and developers by announcing the expansion of the Google Play Age Signals API Which parents and which developers? How many of them? From where?
- effnorwood 2mo agoGoogle preps your surveillance device for CBDC without your consent.
- rawling 2mo ago> expand... worldwide till the end of the year So at the end of the year they contract again? Or should the headline read _by_ the end of the year?
- _davide_ 2mo agoSeriously ready to fully drop google emails and services, i'm using vivaldi + personal email for a while now, the migration was slow a bit painful but complete. Only the phone is still attached to play store and google, but i'm 100% ready to switch to the fully supported Chinese variant of ColorOS and flush Google into the toilet once and for all. But my next phone will 100% be a Sailfish again.
- creatacc 2mo agoI run on proton for decade and it's not exactly gmail high tech solution, but it's secure. I have mozilla, brave, waterfox, mullvad and a few others. It's amazing to see how google and others big companies are marking you as bot.
- reorder9695 2mo agoFor me to fully drop google someone needs to create something compatible with Android Auto in my car, it doesn't sound like a big deal but that's a big enough thing for me to need it now.
- ooterness 2mo agoBuy a separate tablet and a roll of duct tape. If you're careful, you can completely cover whatever obsolete nonsense is built into the car.
- warkdarrior 2mo agoIs there an open-source alternative to Android Auto? It cannot be a regular tablet app, its UI has to be adapted to car driving (bigger buttons and simplified UI, at a minimum) and it should make use of the car ECU data.
- hulitu 2mo ago> Is there an open-source alternative to Android Auto? You mean an app that doesn't work ? There are plenty of those.
- dageshi 2mo agoDoesn't seem like most of the people on this thread actually read what they're planning. It seems like a very good solution to me. It gives parents a simple solution to define the age of the phones user and a mechanism to allow apps to get an age range and tailor usage appropriately. It does all this while leaving everyone else undisturbed. Put the age range into http headers and you solve children accessing content via the web as well.
- duskdozer 2mo agoThrough a Google account. It's not some device check.
- dageshi 2mo agoWell it's google and google does everything through their accounts. But the principle of this can work on everything. Own an iphone, apple can do the same tied to the apple account. On a windows machine you can do the same tied the user account login for the child. People will no doubt pick holes in something like this, but it's the least intrusive, least effort solution to the problem that will actually work.
- bilkow 2mo ago> It does all this while leaving everyone else undisturbed. > it's the least intrusive, least effort solution to the problem that will actually work. Currently, I have no account tied to my phone or my computer(s), except for an older iPad. Also, I have never sent my ID to any FAANG company. This would force everyone (including adults) to tie an account to their devices and a government ID to their accounts. Bans (which Google does not justify, a lot of the time) would gate users from using apps and possibly sites. In other words, this helps solidify Google's control over Android users. The problem would be the same for Apple, Microsoft, etc, and in many cases it already is the same. I get that most people probably have a cloud account for their own devices, and I think that's OK. But currently there is the option not to use their services, and I think that's the fundamental issue, they're effectively removing that option by making apps block users who don't have an account, in the guise of age verification (together with Play Integrity, etc). That option is fundamentally linked to the right to privacy, as once you're required to use certain services to be basically integrated into society (making payments, communicating with others, watching turtle documentaries according to the post) you're not effectively able to exert that right anymore. There are also other related rights and freedoms here, like the rights to repair, tinker and innovate, that are affected by this action, which helps cement an ecosystem where every app requires Play Services, and as such, is hard to be ported or emulated into other ecosystems, and other actions from Google and Apple.
- ta8903 2mo agoJust like every new Android "feature", the first thing that comes to mind when reading this is how will it work if you aren't logged in to Google on your phone. Am I supposed to give up and pretend it's normal to have to log in to an online account to use a personal computer?
- RandomGerm4n 2mo agoI'm fundamentally opposed to age verification because it usually leads to mandatory account creation no matter how privacy friendly the age verification process itself may be. It's already extremely annoying that, for example, on YouTube, you can no longer watch many videos without an account. Furthermore, the whole thing also reinforces monopolies. Once you've verified your age on one platform, the barrier to switching to another is even higher than before. The only acceptable solution would be for apps and websites to simply include a recommended age. Allowing parents to configure their children’s devices to block services that require users to be older than the specified age or that do not provide an age rating. Once this were established, websites targeting all age groups would have a strong incentive to participate. Otherwise, they would suddenly become invisible to a large portion of their underage users.
- azernik 2mo agoYour second paragraph describes the approach in the blog post almost exactly.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- account42 2mo agoAnd instead of an age you could even make the indication about what is potentially objectionable so that parents can choose when to allow their kids to see what - and adults can also choose to avoid certain things.
- iamnothere 2mo agoExactly, without this you’re handing the power to decide what is “appropriate” to someone else.
- godelski 2mo ago> you’re handing the power to The user?
- economistbob 2mo ago[dead]
- htrp 2mo agothis just ends up with the movie rating system, gamed and easily ignored by most people
- idiotsecant 2mo ago'Google will build the walls on their garden two bricks higher by end of year'
- napolux 2mo agoAge check is only pushed because this way you can tell humans from bots. Prove me wrong
- worksonmine 2mo agoThere will be ways to circumvent and even use verified devices as botnets.
- polipputter 2mo ago[dead]
- strong-self 2mo ago[dead]
- goda90 2mo agoBesides the page header and footer, the post has 0 use of the word "Android", which feels telling of Google's approach these days.
- ReptileMan 2mo agoA question to the crypto nerds here - is there a way to prove that you are of age, but you can't be deanonymized even if the government, identity provider and the website itself collaborate to do it?
- Ajedi32 2mo agoWell, the API itself seems fairly well designed from a privacy perspective. It only shares age ranges, not specific ages, and only if you allow it. The data is also fuzzed to prevent an app from determining your exact birth date, and it's all tied in to the parental control system.[1] The problem remains though that, since the laws this feature was created to comply with put the onus on Google to verify the user's age and not on the device owner (e.g. the parents), the method they use to determine the user's age to feed into this API is terrible from both a privacy and freedom perspective: they force you to send them a copy of your government ID, and delete your account if you don't comply.[3] [1]: https://support.google.com/googleplay/answer/17232873 https://support.google.com/googleplay/answer/17232873 [2]: https://developer.android.com/google/play/age-signals/understand-age-signals-responses https://developer.android.com/google/play/age-signals/unders... [3]: https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/1333913 https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/1333913
- Aachen 2mo agoThe API is tied to a Google account though. You can't simply install an app on Android and have Android tell it what the user's age is, it has to first have google maps, youtube, play services, etc. installed and you need to make an account and log in globally on your device before it can tell the app an age. I don't know that I'd call that a good design for an Android API
- Ajedi32 2mo agoYes, and as I said that's a problem with the laws, which "put the onus on Google to verify the user's age". If it were legal for the device itself to somehow determine the user's age without involving Google at all, I agree that would be a much better design.
- egorfine 2mo agoLook, it's just a start. Up next: KYC via Persona to use your phone. This is kind of inevitable.
- xg15 2mo agoInteresting that Google offers a method "age verification by email address" that seems to come close to the popular "my account is already more than 18 years old" argument. Only that in this case, they check on which website the account is used, which comes over even more horrible from a privacy perspective. Also, the German translation is unintentionally hilarious. They seem to wildly switch between formal and informal pronouns depending on whether the paragraph is about the reader being above 18 years or below.
- kyriakos 2mo agopost refers to apps. how about browsers? will this allow browsers to block content based on the user's age ?
- ChrisArchitect 2mo agoTitle is: Delivering safer, age-appropriate experiences on Google Play
- yonaguska 2mo agoI'm surprised that there are so many still think that this is really about protecting kids. This is not an organic movement at all.
- techblueberry 2mo agoWhat’s it really about then? Every circle i’m a part of is concerned about this.
- mmis1000 2mo agoI doubt the purpose is even age verification. They already can know I have a visa card which is credit card that can be only applied by an adult by looking at the BIN. Why they need my id card if the purpose is actually age verification?
- kelvinjps10 2mo agoI think also something needs to be done to the companies that we know are targeting teens and children with tactics for addiction. Meta was found to have engaged in such tactics and nothing really happened to them
- ChoGGi 2mo agoIt's not like children can buy overpriced phones or tablets. You can force the stores to help setup up restrictions for their devices for parents that don't know how or want to. Then start doing massive fines and restrictions on websites or app stores that host unregulated apps. If they can afford to buy them on their own, good for them. You don't use age to decide what's appropriate; I don't mind if my kids see naked bodies. I do care if they see naked porn star bodies, and porn, although actual amateur porn with a range of body shapes is okay. Fighting is okay, but actual graphic bloody violence is less so (funkytown cartel video is no bueno). Put that in an age range Google.
- polipputter 2mo agoWho decides who's regulating these apps and what would classify an app as regulated? This sounds like what googles doing with their current monopolistic attempt to force users to only download apps from the play store and force any dev who wants to post their apps there register with Google, hand over ID, and pay Google a fee to be allowed the classification that they're regulated. Meanwhile the play store itself is full of malware riddled apps and even googles own apps are spyware used by them to aggregate as much data on each user as possible in order to sell that data to ad companies and governments
- throwaway49841 2mo ago> actual amateur porn with a range of body shapes is okay Please don't do this to your children. Exposing children to pornography is abuse, regardless of the body shape of the subjects. An teenage cousin showed me pornographic images when I was a boy, maybe 6 but I am not sure. I was confused by all the body hair the women had. I became physically aroused, something I didn't understand at all -- I assumed it meant that I suddenly needed to pee. The images were of "normal" women but the experience was abuse. My wife had a similar experience when an older family member was openly watching a pornographic video. She doesn't remember what it looked like as much as the feelings of confusion about her own body's response, which in her innocence she also interpreted as needing to pee. Both males and females are sensitive to this kind of sexual stimulation from a young age. In human development has well-known progressions for the development of digestive, musculoskeletal, sexual systems. We don't give weaning babies steak. We know not to make elementary schoolers do dead-lifts or run marathons. And we know better than to sexually stimulate children with pornography.
- soupspaces 2mo agoThis should be in front page
- jck86 2mo agoHalf the internet will be gated in the next two years. If you thought mfa for every silly little site was utterly annoying and social media was an invasion of your privacy then this next wave of digital surveilance will finally turn you into a tech luddite.
- neilv 2mo ago> The Play Age Signals API is a privacy-preserving tool that puts parents in the driver's seat allowing them to share their child's age range (e.g. 16-17) directly with apps. Sounds like an adtech targeting demographic, not protecting children.
- DANmode 2mo agoEverything Google makes is, or will end up supporting the usage of, adtech.
- kman_creates 2mo ago[flagged]
- mikewarot 2mo agoWho hasn't handed their phone to their kid at some point? This is a bad idea. It would be far better if the user could set the age dynamically, as part of a capabilities set, and the browser could forward that data. Then a person could hand over their phone to a child or a border agent in safety.
- egorfine 2mo agoI hate it so much it makes my blood boil. The internet as we knew it comes to an end and we are... complicit? Judging from comments here it seems like some of HN readers do actually unironically take this at face value. Which is weird. Of all people, we should be ones to see what is this going towards.
- timedude 2mo agoGrapheneOS has a very bright future ahead
- t3hTao 2mo ago[dead]
- cyberax 2mo ago> Providing a safe online experience and protecting users from harm is a top priority at Google Play. No, it's not. Your top priority is squeezing as much money as possible.
- codedokode 2mo agoIn my opinion, Google makes the UI too complicated and geeky which means parents are less likely to use it. Furthermore, they apply partial solution instead of complete architecture. In the article, the app must actively ask for age which means apps not asking the age, like Telegram still would allow access to inappropriate content. There should be a single checkbox, "parent mode", which applies government-approved configuration, and the minority who bother, can manually edit it further. Many people are too lazy or not good with computers so the UI should be simple and not what is shown in the screenshots. There is no need to ask the permission to get age information. The parent mode should work on "white list" principle: - only white-listed apps may be installed (list provided by government, parent may edit) - in those apps ("age-aware apps"), only age-appropriate content is available. In a messenger, only parent- or school-approved contacts may be added. - the browser refuses to open any web page not having a government-approved signature in HTTP headers (geek minority can add their signatures to the white list). Adult sites are not allowed to have such a signature. - there should not be multiple age gradations, 3 is enough (adult, teenager, tiny child). So all parents or store employee should do is to tick the checkbox and set a password or fingerprint for management. It wouldn't solve the problem completely because there are many irresponsible parents.
- aceazzameen 2mo agoHaven't video games solved this a long time ago with age ratings on the games themselves? Sony and Microsoft's parental controls are convoluted garbage with logins galore. But Nintendo's, at least on the Switch 1, was dead simple. You enable parental controls, set an age rating, and password. Done. There's an app to set time limits, whitelist/blacklist games, etc. That was the easiest UX I've seen. Games (apps) dont need to know the age of the user to access them. Even the parental control didn't know the child's real age. It just knew if the child had access to E, E10+, T, M, etc. Why are we trying to reinvent this? Oh yeah more data collection.
- codedokode 2mo agoThe problem that apps are not games. For example, a messaging app might not allow to add contacts or subscribe to channels (blogs) without parent permission in "child mode", and have no restrictions in "adult mode". And Youtube might hide some videos and topics in "child mode". Obviously, you could make several versions for the app, but that is code duplication and nobody likes it.
- KPGv2 2mo agoWhile we're at it, can we make our TVs verify age, our public libraries verify age, and bookstores verify age?
- mihaic 2mo agoI made a Gmail account in 2004. I'm still periodically asked for my birthday, just so Google knows I'm over 18. The stated purpose is almost always an excuse for more data.
- monksy 2mo agoYes google. You are the bad guy. Full stop. You took being evil very seriously.
- mlmonkey 2mo ago"Age verification"?? No! It's ID verification. Advertisers will pay a lot more if they have accurate demographic data associated with a cookie. In a previous job, our company licensed data from Experian, and in realtime, we could attached an Experian ID with every Ad request sent to the Ad exchange(s). It significantly boosted our revenues, enough that the millions we were paying Experian for the data was worth it. This was 15 years ago, so memory is fuzzy.
- jaimex2 2mo agoFake ids, fake ids everywhere...
- Khaine 2mo agoHow did we all just so quickly roll-over on this stuff? These laws just came from nowhere, suddenly all at once Most people don’t want it. Its creeping authoritarianism.
- TranquilMarmot 2mo agoAuthoritarianism has a funny way of not giving you a choice in the matter.
- neop1x 2mo agoWill this prevent children from using Whatsapp, Messenger, Telegram and similar because this is where "dangerous" content is being shared. How will children communicate and cooperate on school assignments if those are blocked? Will only plain/text SMS be allowed to be used by children? What if someone texts them and offers money if they meet with a stranger. Maybe it's time to age-block SMS app too. Or maybe children should not use any smartphones. Or maybe they should use a special "android for children" where only a school approved apps can be run. I don't think this age API and age verification is needed!
- Fire-Dragon-DoL 2mo agoI was reading an email today that pointed something obvious to me: Age checks are a way to ban kids from social media because of how...horrible social medias' practices are? Why not ban the practices social media adopted,rather than the kids from social media? It's like banning kids from school because they could find bullies in the school...
- unsungNovelty 2mo ago> Haven't video games solved this a long time ago with age ratings on the games themselves? Sony and Microsoft's parental controls are convoluted garbage with logins galore. But Nintendo's, at least on the Switch 1, was dead simple. You enable parental controls, set an age rating, and password. Done. There's an app to set time limits, whitelist/blacklist games, etc. That was the easiest UX I've seen. Repeating what @aceazzameen replied for better visibility. There is no need for age verification in this form that are being pushed at us.
- spl757 2mo agoI've been putting off switching to GrapheneOS but it seems like a prudent idea now.