Sweeping Children's Online Safety Bill Is Passed in California (nytimes.com) 79
Social media and game platforms often use recommendation algorithms, find-a-friend tools, smartphone notices and other enticements to keep people glued online. But the same techniques may pose risks to scores of children who have flocked to online services that were not specifically designed for them. Now California lawmakers have passed the first statute in the nation requiring apps and sites to install guardrails for users under 18. From a report: The new rules would compel many online services to curb the risks that certain popular features -- like allowing strangers to message one another -- may pose to child users. The bill, the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act, could herald a shift in the way lawmakers regulate the tech industry. Rather than wade into heated political battles over online content, the legislation takes a practical, product-safety approach. It aims to hold online services to the same kinds of basic safety standards as the automobile industry -- essentially requiring apps and sites to install the digital equivalent of seatbelts and airbags for younger users. "The digital ecosystem is not safe by default for children," said Buffy Wicks, a Democrat in the State Assembly who co-sponsored the bill with a Republican colleague, Jordan Cunningham. "We think the Kids' Code, as we call it, would make tech safer for children by essentially requiring these companies to better protect them."
Unconstitutional (Score:5, Interesting)
Every law of this kind that has been attempted in the US has been found unconstitutional. This one will be no different.
Re: (Score:2)
You really should read the article.
Re:Unconstitutional (Score:5, Insightful)
They are required to turn on the highest privacy settings for minors. So how will they identify minors? This is the crux that always fails these laws.
Re: (Score:1)
They are required to turn on the highest privacy settings for minors. So how will they identify minors? This is the crux that always fails these laws.
Dunno. How do adult-oriented websites verify adults again?
If we can figure it out in one direction, we should be able to figure it out in another direction.
Re: (Score:2)
Anonymous access to the internet is a very important part of protecting our freedoms. It's been a very important part of political speech from the dawning of America. The supreme court has for the most part upheld this including my comment below on COPA:
The court found that there was “no evidence” that age verification services or products then available on the market could actually establish or verify age reliably or ultimately prevent access to content by minors. For example, the court took no
Re: (Score:2)
We require all minors to be issued ID in the form of a QR code tattooed on their forehead at birth?
Re: (Score:2)
And on their right hands. Got to be Biblically correct. Rev 13:17
That should get all the right wing folks to support it.
Re: (Score:2)
We only have to look at how the supreme court ruled in regards to COPA.
The court found that there was “no evidence” that age verification services or products then available on the market could actually establish or verify age reliably or ultimately prevent access to content by minors. For example, the court took notice of the fact that the individual entering age verification information into a web browser isn’t necessarily the person whose information is being entered, and that while req
Re: (Score:2)
How do adult-oriented websites verify adults again?
Last time I looked (I'm not exactly a porn buyer, paying for porn is for noobs) they only verify that they have a credit card, and the credit card holder's PII. There's literally no way to reasonably determine whether someone is or isn't a minor over the internet. It's difficult enough to do in person. Even if you could trust the person on the other end to only give you their own PII, that would still require you to collect and verify some of it in order to find out whether they were a minor. But collecting
Re: (Score:2)
>"Requiring that web site operators bear this burden is insanity."
100% agree
>" If the state wants identity verified, then the state should provide a system for that, and pay for it. "
Nobody should provide such a service or requirements, because it would quickly destroy all anonymity on the Internet. You think tracking and chilling is bad now? That would be a panacea for abuse.
PARENTS are the ones that should take responsibility for what their children have access to- by limiting devices and/or acces
Vincent Adultman (Score:2)
Dunno. How do adult-oriented websites verify adults again?
As someone who has readily accessed online porn since he was 11, I'd say "poorly".
Re: (Score:2)
The catch is - how you verify. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The catch is - how you verify. (Score:4, Insightful)
The idea of "protecting the children" is a good one.
Actually, it is not. Or not in every case. If you overprotect your children, you raise them to be unfit adults.
Re: (Score:3)
The idea of "protecting the children" is a good one.
Actually, it is not. Or not in every case. If you overprotect your children, you raise them to be unfit adults.
You are correct.
The words in BOLD used to be called "helicopter parenting" in the past, say 1980s and 1990s.
US society is already seeing the results of that behaviour with the wretched spawn of those "helicopter parents".
Re:The catch is - how you verify. (Score:4)
Not to put a fine point on it, but 70's - 80's kids (me, and a lot of you I bet) were called Latchkey Kids -- the exact opposite of mollycoddled. We had our house keys around our necks, or in our pocket (mine were in a ZZ Top keychain)
We wandered. We explored. Skinned our knees and even broke bones. Experimented. Learned. Eat the pavement a few times, and you stop doing stupid shit.
Some latchkey kids were because both parents worked. Some were because the parent was mainly absent for reasons (mine.)
Helicopters are a 90's - 00's and now problem. Before that, Life taught our lessons. Now, the parents call the teachers.
Re: (Score:3)
I was a latchkey kid as well, but you're comparing apples and oranges here. While a few kids got up to remote trouble using BBSs and the early internet, they were few and far between.
What's available online far exceeds the skinned knees we got from playing around the neighborhood, for quite a few distinct reasons. But most importantly, we already see how adults get messed up by social media and the current information age, kids being immersed in that so early on simply causes that warping to happen earlier.
Re: (Score:2)
I hear ya.
Simply put, what I feared was gonna happen to the internet way back in the late mid 90's happened -- it turned into TV, and TV just kinda went away.
But this monster called "Social Media" is worse than TV, newspaper, radio and the pulpit all put together at once. It's worse than that.
I still have my keys to that house. I don't know why I keep them. It's a memento of a dead place, a dead era, people who no longer are alive. I should toss them.
Re: (Score:2)
What's available online far exceeds the skinned knees we got from playing around the neighborhood, for quite a few distinct reasons. But most importantly, we already see how adults get messed up by social media and the current information age, kids being immersed in that so early on simply causes that warping to happen earlier. And adding smartphones and handheld live cameras into the mix just makes it far worse.
Sure, but the basic mechanism this works has not changed: Do not prepare your kids for danger - have them fall to said danger as adults with high probability. The Internet situation simply means it is even more critical to not overprotect them.
Re: The catch is - how you verify. (Score:2)
The point is that supervision is an entirely different matter when a) microtargeted ads exist (as opposed to whatever was shown during Saturday Morning cartoons on broadcast), b) electronic communication is constantly happening throughout our waking lives, and c) your kid doesn't have to sneak over to the bad part of town at 11pm to be suddenly exposed to heavy kink material.
Re: (Score:3)
"Supervision"? You already have the wrong mind-set to do this. What you need to do is explain how things work, explain the dangers and make sure your kids know when to ask for help. If you "supervise" them, you are already losing because you obviously do not trust them and they will know that.
CC card $1-5 will be changed or SSN! (Score:2)
CC card $1-5 will be changed or SSN!
Re: (Score:2)
Change things so that only one parent needs to work again, and maybe you'll have a point. Or so that the parent can both work from home, and interrupt their activities when their kid needs supervision.
That's not going to happen. You *know* it's not going to happen. It would decrease the profits of major powers in society.
Saying that things should be the way they were back when communication was slow, and so was transportation, isn't going to work. The more interconnected society becomes, they less reas
Re: (Score:2)
Not all jurisdiction have 18 as the magical boundary between minor and adult.
What about minors that the court has approved their emancipation to be independent adults?
Re: (Score:2)
Nanny state (Score:2)
If your child isn't strapped down in the car, guess who's fault it is?
If your child has no "guard-rails" while using the internet, guess who's fault it is?
Regardless, a child that isn't supervised on the internet will find ways to defeat any kind of age check they run across if they are determined to access the content.
Re:Nanny state (Score:4, Interesting)
Parents are quite a large voting demographic, and they have clear incentives to pass laws that make parenting easier on them. Also, perhaps for instinctual reasons, they tend to believe that the world revolves around their children, so they have little regard for how such laws might negatively impact childless adults (or any adults, really).
SOME parents are more conscientious about impacts to adults, but it seems like the majority will prioritize their kid's safety over everything else. It's why "for the children" is such a popular phrase among politicians....it is effective at motivating this demographic to vote-in all kinds of tyranny.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
SOME parents are more conscientious about impacts to adults, but it seems like the majority will prioritize their kid's safety over everything else.
Often to an extent that can only be regarded as child abuse. Learning how to competently deal with danger requires some exposure to danger. Of course first with a safety-net. If you protect your children from all danger, they will become unfit adults and will not be capable of dealing with the problems they are facing after growing up. Also, quite a few children will resent you and will go into danger on their own (which parents _cannot_ prevent) and then will not have that safety net.
My take is the parents
Re:Nanny state (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly!
The police in Illinois go one step further and have told me on more than one occasion that the driver is responsible for the passengers, and their behavior, regardless of who actually commits the crime. If your passenger litters, the driver gets the ticket.
As an independent website operator, I have no control over who downloads my content. Maybe you don't think my content is safe for kids, but frankly, I'm not in California, so why should their laws apply to me? What this law will do is raise the barrier to entry for small and medium size websites and consolidate power in the large online platforms than can shoulder the burden of compliance.
When the "protect the children" law was passed, many youtubers just disabled comments, because it was the easiest way of complying with the law. They didn't want to risk some judge somewhere else in the country considering their content "children's content" and getting jail time for what their fans said.
Re: (Score:1)
The police are not your lawyer (and not your friends either). You should not get your legal advice from the police.
Jurisdiction is complicated. For example, if you intentionally target California with some service, then, I believe every part of the US, including Illinois and the federal government, will say that you've thereby brought California's laws on yourself. I am not sure that doe
Re: (Score:2)
The police in Illinois go one step further and have told me on more than one occasion that the driver is responsible for the passengers, and their behavior, regardless of who actually commits the crime. If your passenger litters, the driver gets the ticket.
The police are not your lawyer (and not your friends either). You should not get your legal advice from the police.
(415 ILCS 105/9) (from Ch. 38, par. 86-9)
Sec. 9. Whenever litter is thrown, deposited, dropped or dumped from any motor vehicle not carrying passengers for hire, the presumption is created that the operator of that motor vehicle has violated Section 5 [ilga.gov], but that presumption may be rebutted.
(Source: P.A. 78-837.)
Re: (Score:2)
Age verification is also actively undesirable for some of the things various legislation is demanding it for. The ability to communicate with people without your parents' knowing, for example, is really valuable if your parents are abusive, insane, or even just a bit over the top.
This is a really bad argument, and variants are often used by those who simply want their own privileged communicate route to kids who the adult feels some connection to.
If the parents are abusive or insane, those are already crimes or situations where CPS should be involved. A child in that situation should be going to real-world authorities, like a school counselor, doctor, or police officer. The solution for that is not that they should go onto Reddit, or God-forbid hop into some darker corner of the int
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Nanny state (Score:2)
If no auto manufacturers put seatbelts in the car, you can't strap down your kid.
Re: (Score:2)
We don't live in the 50's.
Re: Nanny state (Score:2)
When it comes to Internet security, we're in medieval times.
Do something about loot boxes (Score:4, Interesting)
And Activision/Blizzard just outright admitted that 90% of their Diablo revenue comes from a handful of players. They thought it made them sound good (i.e. saying you could pay the game without paying) ignoring the implication that people are spending thousands and thousands on it. There aren't that many super rich playing freaking online games. These are people who can't afford to spend the money being tricked into it.
Do something California.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope you are aware you are either arguing for a nanny-state (very, very bad) or for reduced rights for certain adults (very, very bad), right?
Sure, we could say you have to pass some real tests regarding the issues you list and regarding the ability to deal competently with actual reality before anybody becomes an adult. If failed, try again in a year. But the problems with that are very, very bad as well: We do not have such tests, most people would have trouble passing them (just think of the reality pe
Re: (Score:3)
I hope you are aware you are either arguing for a nanny-state (very, very bad) or ...
Are you implying that the states that have taken measures to control gambling (most non-microscopic states in the world) are nanny-states? IMHO, what the poster above you is saying is that the laws need not to be overreaching and overwatching, but to have some integrity. The fact that a legit, lawful, respected video game developer is using a hole in the law to run a gambling industry evading government controls is by itself quite awful, and calling for closing the hole is simply calling for honesty and int
Re: (Score:2)
Are you also calling for Magic the Gathering to be banned, along with Pokemon and Yu-Gi-Oh? What about baseball cards... or are they even still a thing? 'Cuz those are all the real-life equivalent to loot boxes. And no one is in a screaming bloody murder moral panic over those.
Re: (Score:2)
Do something California.
No, please don't. We don't need any more Californication of this country.
It's bad enough that Cali has exported all it's crazy to neighboring states, and is spreading like a cancer.
Paraphrased, another posted astutely observed that the root of the problem is overprotective parents. I'll expand on that to say, overprotected coddled kids with no life skills are now electing governance (USA), and in some cases are the governance. (Macron, Trudeau, and similar) based on their percieved feelings of "opression
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You keep trotting that mantra. Keep doing so. Everyone believes you.
Especially all the California plates I'm seeing down in florida lately.
Get this into your head: The Times, They Are A' Changing. What was, isn't anymore. It's all changing -- fast. There's a polar flip happening right now, and you can either ignore it, or figure out why it's happening and correct it.
Better yet, just keep your head in the sand. Stay in your little bubble, don't look at what's happening around you, and around the world
Re: (Score:2)
TechDirt has been covering this (Score:5, Informative)
They've got several articles showing what madness this bill is going to be. Here's one example:
https://www.techdirt.com/2022/... [techdirt.com]
Practical effect for you if you have a web site (Score:5, Informative)
I read the bill, as i typically do when new bills come up in the news.
The practical effect for most of us if this passes is as follows. If you have a web site, and you don't block visitors from California, you'll need to file an annual report with the state of California. In this report, you will need to estimate the ages of any visitors/users who may be under 18. So for example Slashdot would report they estimate 2,000 users between the ages of 15-17, 1,000 users between 12-14, etc.
In the next section of the report, you need to provide an analysis of how each of the features on your site could affect each age group. So for example Slashdot would do a paragraph on how sometimes contentious discussion about hot-button issues could affect 15-17 year old "children", how the stories could affect 12-14 year olds, etc.
Additionally, if your site contains anything that could in some circumstances be "harmful to children", ie anything not appropriate for Sesame Street, the following privacy-related changes are required:
1. You must get a facial scan of each visitor every three months, or check photo ID.
2. You must have a EU style cookie popup before you allow login or anything else that uses cookies.
and yes, of course porn needs ID (Score:5, Insightful)
For those following along at home, of course porn is not appropriate for children. So you'll need to prove your age by providing a facial scan or government ID to get on Pornhub.
Re: (Score:2)
Raunchy and cussy sites could simply have a top-level-domain something like ".adult" or ".not4minors". Devices could then have a standard to be adjusted to block those TLD when parents give devices to kids. If the parents forgot to set the device to kid-mode, it would be the fault of the parents, and thus not dump the problem on a million websites.
Re: (Score:2)
That's an idea that has been around for a very long time.
It was discussed a lot when I was in the porn industry in the 1990s and early 2000s. There are some pretty significant problems with it. It's a fundamentally difficult issue for which no simple solution is possible.
Rather than diving deep into the more complex matters, I'll give you a taste with one that's pretty clear. Laws laws COPPA.amd this California law refer to "harmful to children" or "inappropriate for children". Such proposals typically incl
Re: (Score:2)
Ps for a while the adult industry used a system that solves SOME of the problems. It was a meta tag modeled after the G, PG, PG-13, R, X rating system used for movies.
Like many things, it was abused more than it was used properly, so it died.
Re: (Score:1)
> Some parents take their kids to see drag queens pole dancing.
Is that somehow worse than seeing "regular" people pole-dancing? If not, why mention drag?
Re: (Score:2)
Parents generally don't take their kids to the regular strip club for pole dancing. Partly because that would be illegal. So yeah, most people seem to think there's a difference. If you don't think so, then that's a perfect example of my point - people disagree. They disagree on what's appropriate and what's not. So there will never be and can never be a law that simply solves for "not appropriate".
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry, I'm not following. There seems to be a communications gap. I'll try again.
Version A: "Then of course you have the whole thing of defining what's not appropriate for kids. Some parents take their kids to see drag queens pole dancing. Many parents think that's FAR beyond the "appropriate" line."
Version B: "Then of course you have the whole thing of defining what's not appropriate for kids. Some parents take their kids to see pole dancing. Many parents think that's FAR beyond the "appropriate" line."
Why
Re: (Score:2)
Because A is true and B is somewhere between false and misleading.
They take their kids to a drag show, not a strip club.
Why are you trying to lie and mislead?
Re: (Score:1)
YOU said pole dancing.
Re: (Score:2)
Good thing children are fully aware of what it means to accept cookies.
Re: (Score:2)
If you have a web site, and you don't block visitors from California, you'll need to file an annual report with the state of California
Nice summary, but I guess California never heard of VPNs /s
This could push some children to the free VPNs, and we all know ho bad they can be.
Will be interesting to see how this plays out.
CDA anyone? Same crap, different year (Score:1)
In the mid 1990s, the Dems passed the Communications Decency Act, which made it a felony for a curse word to even go through your network, with some safe harbor provisions for the deep pockets. It was struck down dead, and never went into effect. SCOTUS killed it for good.
Nice to see lawmakers doing the same shit as always. Don't the Cali Dems have major problems with border infiltration, businesses refusing to pay taxes because cities are defunding police. Maybe fix that stuff as opposed to another "as
Impact? (Score:2)
My natural inclination is to be skeptical of any legislation passed "for the children". In this case my skepticism is redoubled because lying about their age is one of the first thing kids learn to do on the internet.
Does anyone have a non-paywall link?
Simple solution (Score:2)
There is a simple solution. If you want to be protected, just prove you are under 18. Problem solved.
Kids online endangerment promotion bill (Score:4, Informative)
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child recognizes that children need special safeguards and care in all aspects of their lives.
FWIW this was not ratified.
As children spend more of their time interacting with the online world, the impact of the design of online products and services on childrenâ(TM)s well-being has become a focus of significant concern.
Online and offline products and services are designed in maximally predatory manner to exploit and psychologically addict children while emptying their absent parents wallets. This law does NOTHING to change that.
There is bipartisan agreement at the international level, in both the United States and in the State of California, that more needs to be done to create a safer online space for children to learn, explore, and play.
As unbelievable as it sounds there are content filtering solutions for children that actually work against content published outside of California's jurisdiction.
Lawmakers around the globe have taken steps to enhance privacy protections for children on the understanding that, in relation to data protection, greater privacy necessarily means greater security and well-being.
Lawmakers around the globe have taken steps to reduce both privacy and security in the name of the children to repay their financial supporters.
Businesses that develop and provide online services, products, or features that children are likely to access should consider the best interests of children when designing, developing, and providing that online service, product, or feature.
Never going to happen. Businesses exist to make money.
If a conflict arises between commercial interests and the best interests of children, companies should prioritize the privacy, safety, and well-being of children over commercial interests.
Should? Is this a recommendation? Like "Children should get to fly to school on the backs of magic unicorns"?
Before any new online services, products, or features are offered to the public, complete a Data Protection Impact Assessment for any online service, product, or feature likely to be accessed by children and maintain documentation of this assessment as long as the online service, product, or feature is likely to be accessed by children. A business shall biennially review all Data Protection Impact Assessments.
The Data Protection Impact Assessment required by this paragraph shall identify the purpose of the online service, product, or feature, how it uses childrenâ(TM)s personal information, and the risks of material detriment to children that arise from the data management practices of the business. The Data Protection Impact Assessment shall address, to the extent applicable, all of the following:
(i) Whether the design of the online product, service, or feature could harm children, including by exposing children to harmful, or potentially harmful, content on the online product, service, or feature.
(ii) Whether the design of the online product, service, or feature could lead to children experiencing or being targeted by harmful, or potentially harmful, contacts on the online product, service, or feature.
(iii) Whether the design of the online product, service, or feature could permit children to witness, participate in, or be subject to harmful, or potentially harmful, conduct on the online product, service, or feature. ...ad nausea...
Oh look more process and paperwork to drown small companies while concurrently achieving absolutely nothing. Review yourselves to determine whether you are doing something harmful to children so that you'll know...
Or just ask Zuckerburg if Facebook is harmful to children, I'm sure he'll provide a perfectly rational answer. No conflict of interest, no requirement to ac
Two problems (Score:2)
You must get a facial scan of each visitor every three months, or check photo ID.
There's 2 problems here: 1) California is demanding every other state follow their laws, a 'own the internet' attitude. The easy answer is to move the headquarters and server's to another country. But that means losing 'world police' protections provided by the USA. 2) Every web-site now has a copy of your photo-Id. or bio-metric data, ensuring a no-privacy nightmare.
There's also the fact that web-sites in other parts of the world don't have to obey California's spy-on-adults laws.
Re: (Score:2)
You must get a facial scan of each visitor every three months, or check photo ID.
The surest way to lose ALL your visitors.
How many are affected? (Score:2)
How many children are sweeping online? Is there a Sweeping Simulator? Does it have multiplayer?
Re: (Score:2)
Is there a Sweeping Simulator?
There's at least one I know of. [steampowered.com]