California Governor Signs Sweeping Children's Online Safety Bill (nytimes.com) 112
California will adopt a broad new approach to protecting children online after Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill on Thursday that could transform how many social networks, games and other services treat minors. From a report: Despite opposition from the tech industry, the State Legislature unanimously approved the bill at the end of August. It is the first state statute in the nation requiring online services likely to be used by youngsters to install wide-ranging safeguards for users under 18. Among other things, the measure will require sites and apps to curb the risks that certain popular features -- like allowing strangers to message one another -- may pose to younger users. It will also require online services to turn on the highest privacy settings by default for children. "We're taking aggressive action in California to protect the health and well-being of our kids," Governor Newsom said in a statement that heralded the new law as âoebipartisan landmark legislation" aimed at protecting the well-being, data and privacy of children. Called the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act, the new legislation compels online services to take a proactive approach to safety -- by designing their products and features from the outset with the "best interests" of young users in mind.
Easiest way to comply is to do what bars do. (Score:5, Interesting)
Hi welcome to social media app, id please.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Easiest way to comply is to do what bars do. (Score:5, Insightful)
The law may be a bad thing overall, but it requires the highest privacy settings be applied to minors. To me the main issue is:
1798.99.32(d)(3) Ensuring that age assurance methods used by businesses that provide online services, products, or features likely to be accessed by children are proportionate to the risks that arise from the data management practices of the business, privacy protective, and minimally invasive.
This seems like kicking the can down the road (the law does not take effect until 2024--and expires in 2030 if not renewed). I don't want CandyCrush telling kids that Tony the Tiger will die if they don't spend 60 seconds in the cereal aisle this week. But I also don't want to upload my driver's license to look at tits.
If the newly created working group comes up with something heinous, then more free-market oriented people will have a good issue to run on (as long as they aren't too crazy to win a top-two primary)
https://leginfo.legislature.ca... [ca.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
The law may be a bad thing overall, but it requires the highest privacy settings be applied to minors.
"After we've killed all privacy for good, we require you to pretend it still exists the most to minors."
That doesn't help a thing, kiddo. You did dun' goofed but good, and no amount of pretending otherwise will fix it.
But I also don't want to upload my driver's license to look at tits.
That is what's going to happen. It could be different, the math exists, but microsoft bought the company working on making it practical and is sitting on it. (Even if they weren't, I'd still not trust them to not fuck it up to sweet oblivion.) The cheapest way forward in the short run is mand
Re:Easiest way to comply is to do what bars do. (Score:5, Insightful)
This seems like kicking the can down the road (the law does not take effect until 2024--and expires in 2030 if not renewed). I don't want CandyCrush telling kids that Tony the Tiger will die if they don't spend 60 seconds in the cereal aisle this week. But I also don't want to upload my driver's license to look at tits.
You can have privacy or age verification, but not both, sorry. Europe tried the same thing and now a company owned by PornHub has a copy of everyone's identity and a record of every site you've verified your age with, porn or no.
If the concern is children's privacy, then how about passing sweeping, strong privacy laws for everyone, regardless of age. Then you don't need to give a fuck about how old your users are, and parent can parent their children if they don't want them looking at titties or getting advertised to.
Yeah, it's not easy. I have two young kids myself. Sometimes they see or hear something they shouldn't and we have to have a talk about it or adjust privileges. It's part of the job.
Re: (Score:1)
PornHub has a copy of everyone's identity and a record of every site you've verified your age with
thatll be about 10 people then. who in high fuckery verifies their age for porn?
Re: (Score:2)
The law may be a bad thing overall, but it requires the highest privacy settings be applied to minors.
No, it doesn't. The law requires the default settings to be set to the highest privacy settings for minors. Any user, including minors, can then change the default settings. My only complain about this requirement is why this privacy opt-in isn't the default for all users regardless of age.
1798.99.32(d)(3) Ensuring that age assurance methods used by businesses that provide online services, products, or features likely to be accessed by children are proportionate to the risks that arise from the data management practices of the business, privacy protective, and minimally invasive.
The vast majority of the law's provisions [ca.gov] relate to fuzzy mumble jumble, mostly requiring the companies to do "assessments." Thus, the majority of the law is as concerning as a law that requires Facebook employees to
Re: (Score:2)
I don't want CandyCrush telling kids that Tony the Tiger will die if they don't spend 60 seconds in the cereal aisle this week.
Actually I'm surprisingly ok with that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Make "children's internet device" hardware.
So a locked down device laden with DRM that only works with specific services and apps meant for children? We have those already and they are called "Nintendo video game consoles".
Make "I'm an adult" YubiKeys
Because everyone will love having to carry around a usb drive with a unique ID on it and being forced to plug it into everything just to do the most basic shit. Not that it will work as most devices won't enforce it. Plus every app will simply fake the damn key the second an exploit is found. So that means people will be constan
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hell Nintendo practically axed any form of free public expression in their games and devices simply because of the threats parents make.
1) They still have a profanity
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If this law is limited to social media platforms, then it's a good thing for a lot of reasons. Some of them which may be fatal to the platforms, which is also a good thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Nice try. From TFA:
The California measure could apply to a wide range of popular digital products that people under 18 are likely to use: social networks, game platforms, connected toys, voice assistants and digital learning tools for schools.
There's nothing good about this law. I get it that you don't like social media platforms. If you don't like them, don't use them.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing good? Name one bad thing. I don't see anything here that would be harmful to privacy. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing good? Name one bad thing.
It will also require online services to turn on the highest privacy settings by default for children.
and how exactly is the service supposed to know if it's being used by a child in order to turn on those highest privacy settings?
Re: (Score:2)
You could just default to the highest privacy settings for all users. That's the easiest thing to do. If you really need to violate your users privacy, then what you do depends on the nature of the site:
If your site is exclusively for children, then you shouldn't need to do anything if you were already acting ethically. If not, this law is for you and you need to default to maximum privacy.
If your site is not likely to be accessed by children, then you might not need to do anything, the click through age
Re:Easiest way to comply is to do what bars do. (Score:4, Insightful)
Nothing good? Name one bad thing. I don't see anything here that would be harmful to privacy. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Right, so how would a site like say, NewGrounds exist? It was a site full of satire intended for adults, but also presented in cartoony flash animation. It also featured some pretty raunchy, violent content. This is a site likely to be accessed by children with a high likelyhood for harm. However, a site like that would never have existed if everyone had to present ID at the door. And it's a terrible prior restraint on free speech. It's not porn, it's just a place for adults to swap stupid games and animations. Maybe instead of shuttering communities, we ask parents to parent.
Or what about a community site for LGBTQ+ youth? You think they are going to be eager to present ID to prove they are 16+? How about a support site for pregnant women in the south seeking abortion? Pretty fraught adult content, better collect those IDs... What's that sheriff? You need a list of the full legal names and addresses of users of our site that live in Texas? And you've got a court order? Well, here you go! How about battered women's shelters? Rape crisis centers? The list goes on and on.
Also, most community sites start out as small hobby projects put up by individuals and a few volunteers. How are they supposed to parse this law, potential harm, how likely kids are to access the site, etc.
Collecting this information does real material harm and it is all in the name of a stupid save the children panic refrain that idiot politicians have been crowing about to cause panic and get votes for decades.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the same bullshit fearmongering we saw ages ago with COPPA. It's a fantasy. It didn't happen then, and it's not going to happen now.
This is not COPPA (Score:1)
After much challenge and rewrite, the final COPPA constraints kick in if the Operator has Actual Knowledge the person is under 13!
The age is not the relevant portion, it's Actual Knowledge . For all practical purposes this made COPPA irrelevant as no one asked and no one had Actual Knowledge.
This bill is the very opposite, it requires actively determing age up front. Determing age cannot be done without determining ID, therefore no privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
We'll see about that. My money is on all this fear mongering is a load a bullshit.
So, let's hear your prediction. How long before the internet falls into ruin? A week? A month? 10 years? I want to know when I should start gloating.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Basically the end of privacy on the Internet. Not a good thing.
Is anonymity the same thing as privacy?
Re: (Score:3)
Is anonymity the same thing as privacy?
In the Internet, basically yes.
Re: (Score:1)
I'd argue that online privacy is why we have all the current social problems and violence we current do.
Re: (Score:1)
why is this hidden lol, perfectly cromulent
Re: (Score:2)
What on earth makes you think that? It look like it will have the exact opposite effect to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Show me in the bill where you're required to show your drivers license to "every fucking website".
This is the exact same bullshit fear mongering we saw over COPPA. It didn't happen then. It's not going to happen now.
Re: (Score:2)
We've been down this road before. The sky didn't fall. What on earth makes you think this time will be different?
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think government want's you to be anonymous on the Internet? For the Children!!! is the perfect bullshit to shovel when stripping away everyone's privacy.
Clearly the last effort to protect the children wasn't enough so we must continue to try to protect them and we shall! Just wait for the next effort.
Re: (Score:2)
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
LOL! Call me when there's an actual problem. This is pure paranoia.
Re: (Score:2)
You probably can come up with an completely anonymous age proof, but i'm not sure if the governments are interested on that.
Re: (Score:2)
Worse, how many websites will now have a copy of your ID? You'll have numerous websites with massive databases with even more information available for them to sell.
Re:Easiest way to comply is to do what bars do. (Score:5, Insightful)
If 17-year-olds can't talk dirty to each other on mainstream social media, they will seek out darker places. The end result may be the opposite of what was intended.
COPPA [wikipedia.org] is designed to protect 12-year-olds, which is more reasonable.
Re: (Score:3)
Hi welcome to social media app, id please.
It's hard to think of a better way to kill the social media. While I'm vehemently against any further erosion of online users' privacy, destruction of social media is a collateral damage I welcome with open arms.
Re: (Score:2)
I dealt with social media a very long time ago. Basically by not using it.
No, I don't approve of the notion that someone (you, me, anonymous stranger) should be telling others what they can and can't do online....
Re: (Score:2)
So you want to give up Slashdot (something you use, and likely often) just to try to get rid of Facebook, something you probably don't use at all. I really don't get it. Who cares what goes on over there so long as we get to keep what we have over here.
I'm going to really miss posting on the Internet when they eventually kill 230.
Re: (Score:1)
all we're left with is the further erosion of privacy
on someone elses server....
Interstate Commerce (Score:5, Insightful)
Can anyone explain how this is going to hold up to a legal challenge that it violates the Constitution's interstate commerce clause?
Re: (Score:2)
Try having a physical presence in their state and ignore any of their laws.... so move out of their state and ignore it? ebay ignored a lot of crime for many years and probably still does in states where they have zero foot print.
Re:Interstate Commerce (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Which just goes to show that California doesn't appear terribly concerned about driving business out of the state.
Re: (Score:2)
WHY SHOULD THEY?
I've been hearing about how CA is dying for at least a few decades from my Foxtard friend parroting that crap. Since that began CA has gone UP multiple countries in it's economy ranking; last I read it was the #5 economy in the world. CA is full and can afford to bleed people and businesses; besides, their main problem is climate change.
online services likely to be used by youngsters (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure you haven't thought this through.
First of all, they define the "target" as "minor under 18". WTF is a minor under 18? California law allow children of ANY [findlaw.com] age to be married [wikipedia.org]. My guess is that, once you're married, you're probably not a minor. Or are you? So you can be married at 14, but be treated like a child? What if you're an emancipated minor?
Secondly, this is an end to anonymity on social media. How is a social media company supposed to verify you as a person to determine whether
Re:online services likely to be used by youngsters (Score:5, Insightful)
The TSA is a fucking disaster story born from security theater. Let's please never use them for a comparison on how to ever do anything correctly or efficiently.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't know what you can't know. We don't know how many people were dissuaded from even trying to get past the TSA with mere security theater.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: online services likely to be used by youngster (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Ha, no our local communities (note, not the state. They don't handle growth dummy) are just ahead of the curve. Housing pricing is becoming problematic across the country and it's for the exact same reason it's happened in California, local communities are refusing to authorize enough growth to meet demand.
When you do that housing prices will of course go up. Do it for long enough and you've got the problems California has and as I said before, this is starting to happen in every state in the union.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's because by American standards at least you're probably Left of center and California is one of our most Leftist states and with its large population and wealth it has the ability of passing legitlation that forces companies to change if they want to keep doing business in the state.
Basically smaller Leftist states don't have California's clout and they're all smaller than California
Re: (Score:2)
Business creates wealth. Bloated, corrupt, parasitic government enlarges massively on it, then yammers, "I caused that success!"
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure it keeps you warm at night thinking that.
Meanwhile in reality most business' would have a hard time prospering or even existing without the plethora of things government does to help them. From public education to roads to even poverty elevation our economy wouldnt be anywhere near as prosperous without ample government.
Of course there is waste and corruption in government and we should always be vigilant against such things but those things do not at all make government inherently "bad". In a demo
Re: (Score:2)
bah, "elevation" = alleviation
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
As a non-US person, why is it that California seems to be the most sane state in the US?
Because you are a non-US person. California is (as a state -not in local matters) Leftist by US standards. It is more Centrist by most European standards, which leaves most of the US Right wing by European standards -some of it FAR Right.
Not just with this but in other legislation that looks after the environment, workers, the poor, privacy rights, etc, it always seems to be California in the lead, dragging the rest of the US kicking and screaming behind.
California leads the US as it does, because it has a large population, and a lot of wealth. This is economic and political power. It wields this power by setting its own (internal) rules and relying on economy of scale to force the spread of these rules to other states.
Re: (Score:2)
As others have mentioned your worldview probably aligns left/left of center, another thing is that while there's reporting of don't say gay laws in Fl or the bathroom bill in North Carolina, there's no
Privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think it's even possible to tell who's underage or not without heavy invasion on people's privacy.
Unless it's completely voluntary on kids to identify themselves as kids, this is a huge blow to Internet privacy.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, pretty much. One has to wonder whether this is a main motivation for this bill. The other is probably virtue signalling.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course voting against this bill would be political poison. The attack ads virtually write themselves: "Representative Jones voted in favor or pedophiles stalking *your* kids!"
Re: (Score:3)
Wasn't there laws passed, making ads targeting children illegal? Or was that only in Canada?
It would be hilarious, though. Identify yourself as a child and suddenly you get no ads? You can be sure Google would push against that, no matter what the cost. I would love to see their arguments against doing something "for the children" though.
Re: Privacy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Child with Benefits (Score:5, Interesting)
I love telling some websites and apps - especially sports based ones - that I'm underage. If I tell them I'm a child... BAM!, no more alcohol or gambling ads. There's no downside because it's effectively a "tick here to let us show you adult advertisements" button.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you see advertisements on the Internet?
Re: (Score:2)
He hasn't figured out how to install FireFox and uBlock Origin on his phone?
I guess we should be thankful that the guy pretending to be a minor online isn't that good with computers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He said "websites and apps" you illiterate shitstain. Learn to read.
RFC 3514 (Score:3)
Let's just hope they won't try to re-invent the wheel and simply use the evil bit in the IPv4 packet header field from RFC 3514. It was proposed in 2003, surely most browsers have implemented it by now.
Let's just hope a politician reads this and gives this information to the governor.
Just prove you are of legal age.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not going to happen. We heard that exact same bullshit ages ago with COPPA. Needless to say, it didn't happen. The sky didn't fall. Anonymity was preserved.
The bill looks pretty sensible to me. There is absolutely nothing here to get upset about. Well, unless your business model depends on exploiting children.
This is not COPPA yet again (Score:2)
After much challenge and rewrite, the final COPPA constraints kick in if the Operator has Actual Knowledge the person is under 13!
The age is not the relevant portion, it's Actual Knowledge . For all practical purposes this made COPPA irrelevant as no one asked and no one had Actual Knowledge.
Re: (Score:2)
So ... when do you predict the internet will fall into ruin? Some non-specific time in the future? With an endless list of caveats, no doubt.
You could at least give an upper-bound. I want to mark it on my doomsday calendar. Is it going to be before or after Obama takes away all your guns?
Hey kids (Score:2)
Some of the more popular features of our game are only available to people 18 and over. So it's not going to be available to you. Sorry.
Are you above the age of 18? It's not like we have any way, or intention, to check whether you are, just saying...
Other than it will never work (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean it won't be 100% effective all the time. So what? Nothing ever is. That doesn't mean the bill won't still be effective.
Parents should be monitoring their kids (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Says someone without children.
Yes, by all means, monitor your kids. But be realistic here. Even the most invasive helicopter parent can't monitor everything they do 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
We shouldn't want them to either. It's not good for anyone, the child included.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not necessary to be a helicopter parent to teach your kids what is and is not appropriate/safe. Just be around and TALK with them.
An example: when my stepson was a kid, he wanted to play video games. All his devices (PC and Xbox and playstation and etc.) were set up in the living room, where he had no privacy during their use. Conversations happened when he got into online chats or games or websites that seemed inappropriate. We talked with him about why those people weren't appropriate for him to
Re: (Score:2)
When you wrote this, did you honestly think you were telling us something we've never heard before? Did you think you were making a difference with this post? If you think that this feel-good cliche is all parents really need then you're delusional.
In that 80's sitcom you think you're living in, this might seem completely unnecessary. Here in reality, however, laws like this one will actually help people.
Re: (Score:2)
Kids will get around it and adults will have to deal with it. That's all that will happen, if anything happens at all.
Re: (Score:2)
If something isn't 100% effective, it's worthless, eh? That's idiotic.
Re: (Score:2)
Specifically, the child(ren) should be removed from your custody. As you clearly are overwhelmed and cannot adequately provide for them. Don't like it? Tough luck. If
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. "His advice" is a mindless cliche. It is not new and it is absolutely not helpful.
It's also completely meaningless in the context of the discussion here. He just came by to repeat a meme as thought that was some great revelation, the answer to any and all parenting problems. I called him out on his bullshit.
Yeah, talk to your kids. Like no one ever thought of that before! Get a fucking clue.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. "His advice" is a mindless cliche. It is not new and it is absolutely not helpful.
His point was that you don't need to be around 24/7 as you posted above him. You only need to be available to them when they are the most likely to need guidance, and that you might want to limit their activities to fit your schedule so you can be available.
He just came by to repeat a meme
A "meme"? How is talking to your kids and monitoring their activities a fucking meme!? It's Basic Parenting 101!
the answer to any and all parenting problems. I called him out on his bullshit.
Ah, there it is. Because he didn't give an answer to your specific liking, it's an invalid statement meant to ridicule you. Would you like
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This thread is almost 2 weeks old. It's long past time you got over it. Let it go.
Except for... (Score:2)
...grooming them, right?
I mean, we're not going to stop online underage drag queen story hour with floppy dildos, right?
Interstate Commerce (Score:2)
Probably unconstitutional since only the U.S. Congress can regulate interstate commerce of which the internet is. States generally can't restrict interstate commerce.
California has a habit of useless laws (Score:2)
Source: I live here, it's frustrating as hell.
Recently the state enacted a law where you have to ask for straws/napkins/utensils. Probably the most recently famous is the planned ban of ICE car sales by 2035, and a week later our governor is asking folks not to charge their cars during a heatwave.
We've had COPPA on the books for close to 30 years now. Just seems like our legislators keep making redundant laws as buffer time.
Why are the tech companies crying? (Score:2)
AFAIK, when you say "don't sell my data", it's up to the provider to choose whether they feel like they can be held to that. I know at least a few that went ahead and sold my info anyhow.
Better idea: free services "must provide" the same services (that are age appropriate) to kids and 'can not' serve ads of any kind nor sell their information.
Difficulty: prove I'm not a kid
Let THEM walk on eggshells for a while and figure out why nobody trusts them. They're afraid the personal data free-for-all is in dang
Re: (Score:2)
Let THEM walk on eggshells for a while
Except they won't. They'll shift the burden of proof back to the public. Whether it's "Enter your (parent's) date of birth" or "Give us your (parent's) driver's license" they'll still get the data they want, now mandated to be given to them via the government, and turn around and sell the resulting advertising ID to the highest bidder. Mandating proof of anything via legislation only helps the privacy rapists.
If you want real change, you need to axe the profit incentive. I.e. Make it so expensive to do,
Interstate Commerce (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Does anyone actually believe that bullshit? Get real.
Why Stop There? (Score:1)
Make all crime illegal, and the World will be perfect. ...... Oh wait